CHAPTER XIX: Christ's fulness for our justification. Wherein justification consists.
and brimstone. What can be supposed a perfect victory, and triumph of Christ and his saints over the devils, if this is not?
CHAPTER XIX
Christ's fulness for our justification.—His fulfilling the law for us.— That justification doth not consist only in pardon of sin, and therefore it is not Christ's passive obedience alone which is imputed to us.—That the whole righteousness which is in Christ is imputed to us for righteousness.
Having largely proved and explained how Christ performed that part of our redemption, which consists in freeing us from the guilt, and curse, and punishment of sin, which he did by himself being made sin and a curse for us, what remains is to prove that he fulfilled the law, and performed all righteousness for our justification; and that he is 'the Lord our righteousness,' as well as our sacrifice and ransom. I first lay down this general proposition.
Prop. That the whole righteousness which is in Christ is imputed to us for righteousness.
The terms or words of the proposition should he explained by some distinctions, to avoid all ambiguities, and to prevent mistakes; but instead of multiplying distinctions, which often confounds instead of clearing the truth, I shall premise two or three things, to shew in what limited sense the proposition is meant, and to be understood.
1. When I say, the whole righteousness which is in Christ, I do not understand that essential holiness of the divine nature which is in Christ, who is God; for I perfectly reject and abhor the dream of Osiander. I mean then that acquired righteousness of Christ Godman; for though Jehovah is called our righteousness, Jer. 23:6, yet that righteousness which is of God is not ours.
2. We must also cautiously discern between the righteousness of the mediatorial office (from which Christ is deservedly called the alone mediator) and the merits of the righteousness of Christ the mediator.
For as God will not give his glory to another, nor indeed can give it (and therefore I deny the essential righteousness, by which he is God, to be communicated), so neither will Christ give away the glory of his mediation. That righteousness of the office, by which he is mediator, cannot be imputed. But as in logic we say that the whole nature of the genus is communicated to the species, but not generical natures by which it is a genus, for then the species would be a genus too; in like manner I assert the whole righteousness of Christ the mediator to be communicated, but not the mediatorial righteousness.
3. We must also make some distinction concerning this righteousness of Christ, which I assert to be imputed to us. For I do not include in it the righteousness of Christ the mediator, as now glorified in heaven, which righteousness yet is continued; but the alone righteousness of Christ performed by him in his estate of humiliation on earth is to be understood. For though he is said to be raised for our justification, Rom. 4:25, viz., that his righteousness and the merit of it might be applied to us, yet he cried out on the cross, 'It is finished,' John 19:30, and after his death he ceased to merit anything, as he will also cease to make application of his merits to us after the day of judgment, when God shall be all in all. And when he is said to be a priest for ever, Heb. 7:17, it is to be understood that he is so in his intercession, not in meriting for us. As also when his righteousness is called 'everlasting righteousness,'
Dan. 11:24, it is meant of the duration of its value and virtue, not of the continuance of its external acts.
4. Nor do we take in all which he did while he lived here on earth. All his extraordinary works, as miracles and the like, are not to be included. They rather transcend the predicaments of the ten commandments than are parts of the righteousness of the law. They were proofs of his divinity, and the signs and badges, rather than the duties, of his office. He indeed by them shewed himself to be the only
mediator, but he did not act the mediator in them. And he did them that men might believe in his righteousness; but they were no ingredients of that righteousness on which they were to believe.
Now to give the right state of the controversy: protestant divines asserted against the papists, that all our righteousness, by which we are justified, is the imputed righteousness of Christ; but what is in question among divines of the reformed religion is, whether the whole righteousness of Christ be imputed.
There is a twofold obedience visible in Christ in his humbled state: one, which consists in the conformity of his life to the law; the other, in undergoing death, and the curse of the law: of which the first is called in the schools active, and the other passive, obedience. To which may and ought to be added, the holiness of his nature, which is the principle of both the former obediences.
There are some who not only exclude that sanctity of his nature, but all the active righteousness of his life, from that righteousness which is imputed to us. They say indeed that both the holiness of Christ's nature, and the obedience of his life, are of great advantage to us, and that they concur to the obtaining of our justification, as conditions qualifying the mediator for that work, and as requisite to be in the person who is our high priest: Heb. 7:26, 'For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.' But yet they deny all this to be, together with his passive obedience, imputed to us in the room of our righteousness; for they affirm that it all was acted by Christ for his own sake, and on his own personal account; for Christ was bound to it as a creature and son of Adam, born under the moral law, and as a son of Abraham under the ceremonial law. And one debt (say they) can never be discharged by another. But they believe his passive obedience to be only imputed, both because Christ did undertake and perform it, not for himself, but purely for our sakes, and also because they esteem it an adequate and sufficient matter of our justification.
But we lay down this contrary assertion, that both the holiness of Christ's nature, and all that work of humiliation (which the apostle includes in the name of 'obedience unto death'), was both undertaken and accomplished for our sakes, and that it gives its joint mark with his passive obedience to our justification; in a word, that all this righteousness of Christ whatever, is imputed to us, as proportionate conformity to that righteousness which the law requires from us.
Which assertion I shall both explain and demonstrate by a few conclusions (of which the proposition which I have laid down is the sum) mutually linked together, and which, being rightly applied, will preclude the chiefest objections of the contrary side.
There are two principles in which both parties agree, and which therefore remain not now to be proved.
The first of which is, that that righteousness by which a sinner may appear righteous, ought to consist in a perfect satisfaction of the law.
For though it cannot be called the righteousness of the law, that is (as the apostle hath interpreted it, Phil. 3:8), the proper performance of the sinner, who, as being under the law, owes all obedience to it; yet as this righteousness is in the person who is our surety, and made under the law for us, it stands good in law as fully satisfactory; for God gives a declaration of his justice in the justification of the sinner,
Rom. 3:24, but justice is not satisfied unless the law be so too.
Whence the apostle concludes in the last verse of that chapter, 'We establish the law.' And indeed since the 'righteousness of the law' is said to be 'fulfilled in us,' Rom. 8:4, though performed only by our sponsor, it shews that by the gospel there is not made any exchange of the righteousness, but only of the persons.
The second principle that is mutually agreed on is this, that this satisfaction of the law is the proper righteousness of Christ, and that it is ours only as imputed, since he is our sponsor and surety, Heb.
7:22, and made under the law for us, Gal. 4:4.
These two principles, as granted by both, being thus laid down, I shall build upon them some conclusions subordinate to one another.
The first of which will inquire and resolve, what and how much is that righteousness, in the abstract notion of it, which the law requires from the sinner, and how many parts there are of our justification? Whereby also will be evinced wherein a full conformity unto the law doth consist. The second conclusion will search out what and how much righteousness and conformity to the law may and ought to be found in Christ our sponsor, and to be imputed to us; where it will be demonstrated that this must be no other than the whole righteousness of the law. And both propositions compared together will demonstrate the cause why it must be so.
Conclusion 1. In the covenant of works, or the law, there are two things on our part that occur distinctly to be considered. 1. The fulfilling of the precept; which precept is twofold: affirmative, Thou shalt do this, to which alone the promise of life is by God graciously annexed. The other is negative, Thou shalt not do so and so, lest thou transgress. 2. There is the payment of the penalty if the man transgressed; Thou shalt surely die.
There is a great and observable, and to our purpose a material, difference between the precepts with the annexed promise and the denounced punishment. And the difference is this, that those precepts are absolute parts of the law, which by the right of creation simply and externally oblige. But the imposition of the punishment is only added as a conditional appendix, nor are we subject to it any otherwise than on certain conditions. To which this other thing may be added for the farther confirmation of it, that the mind of the lawgiver, which is indeed the law, primarily, absolutely, and per se, requires obedience by the precepts, but it threatens and exacts punishment as it were secondarily, and per accidens.
Conclusion 2. From this follows the second conclusion, That though in the primitive state of innocence we were only obliged to an obedience purely of the preceptive part of the law, yet being fallen
into sin, we now are subjected absolutely to the precept and punishment together, and unable to discharge them.
The reason of it is drawn from the former conclusion which I laid down; because, since the penal payment is only conditional, and not so much required in the law, as in the appendix of it, it will not, though satisfied, invalidate that absolute and eternal obligation of the law itself. We are held bound by a double debt and by a double right. As creatures we are obliged by the law of creation to obedience, and that not only for the time past, but the future: and withal, as offenders, we are obliged by the right of the judge to undergo the punishment. Hence it is also evident, that the mere suffering of the punishment is not sufficient to the satisfaction of the law, because it doth not adequately answer that primary and absolute design of the legislator, who would rather have obedience than the death of the sinner. As thrusting the debtor into prison doth not vacate the debt, so neither doth the throwing of a sinner into hell satisfy what he owes; for one debt can never be discharged by the payment of another. Nor was there ever any law, even among men, either promising or declaring a reward due to the criminal, because he had undergone the punishment of his crimes. Now then the obligation of thy surety, O sinner, who undertook for all these thy debts, will not be less than thine. His passive obedience will not suffice unless joined with his active, nor his active do the work, if not followed with his death, whether that obedience future is to be performed, or was now at present owing. The active obedience alone would suffice if thou hadst not sinned, but then thou wouldst not have needed this surety; but now the righteousness required by the law is to be considered as lost by thee for the time past, and now therefore it will not be enough to render the principal debt, when thou hast contracted a new obligation to punishment, for thou wast unable to pay at thy appointed time. But be it so, that the death of thy sponsor,
O sinner, shall be able to discharge all the past debt, and to cancel thy bond; yet since the law is an eternal covenant, and thou art an immortal soul, it will for the future require a new obedience from thee, and that to all eternity. But that penal payment of thy sponsor
for thee, avails to no more than to restore thee to the same state in which Adam stood at the first moment of his creation; and though he had delivered thee eternally from all thy fore-acted sins, and past omissions, which are in number finite, yet he doth not supply to thee to be imputed that active righteousness which the law exacts from thee for the future. Hence the angel, in Dan. 9:24, foretold concerning the Messiah, that 'when he had made an end of sins, and had expiated iniquities,' he should also 'bring in everlasting righteousness;' which being put upon thee, and thou being clothed with the Sun of righteousness, thou mayest in heaven be accounted righteous before God. For the grace of which thou art partaker, and which inhereth in glorified souls, though it be most perfect, can never attain to the righteousness and justification of the law, since to that, that old covenant must be antiquated and rendered invalid.
But as the death of thy surety will not restore thee to a state of righteousness, so neither would it ever bring thee to life. For the promise of life is made only to the doers, 'Do this, and thou shalt live.' And therefore justification of life, as the apostle calls it, Rom.
5:18, is attributed to the abounding of the gift of righteousness. And hence another corollary flows, which shall be the third conclusion.
Conclusion 3. All that is required to the justification of a sinner, which heretofore was requisite to the justification of Adam, and of the blessed angels. Nay, something more is required to our justification, because we are held bound by a double debt. For as it is certain that more is required to the sanctification of a sinner, since it is described not only by a mere simple creation out of nothing, but by the mortification of the old man, and the abolition of the body of sin, to which it is necessary the new creature be added, so the like account is to be stated in the justification of a sinner (of which sanctification is an image); the whole of it is not accomplished in the taking away of sins, as the angel speaks, unless, besides this, an active conformity to the law be added. Also to reconciliation (which is the effect of justification, and bears the likeness of its cause) all that is required which is requisite to procure a new and simple
friendship, and something more, since it is the receiving of an old enemy into favour. Peace and pardon is first to be acquired; nor this alone, but also the old favour is to be obtained. This is apparent from the example of Absalom, who was not satisfied with peace and pardon obtained, 2 Sam. 13, unless he saw the face of his father, and experienced his former favour. The same is also evident by the joint testimony of the angels, enumerating peace on earth, and good will towards men, as distinct parts of reconciliation, Luke 2:14. To whom also the apostle doth accord, Col. 1:19, 20, 'It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell,' viz., of righteousness and holiness; but to what end? 'That peace being made by his blood' (for the merit of his blood extends no farther than peace), 'God, by him might reconcile all things to himself,' ver. 20, which declares something farther than mere making of peace, and that to be obtained also by that fulness, which God to this end would have to dwell in him.
That all which was requisite in Adam should be an ingredient into our righteousness, is also evidently true, unless they will assert that we are constituted less righteous in the second Adam than in the first, when the apostle on the contrary affirms, that the gift of righteousness doth more super-abound in Christ, Rom. 5:15, 17. And indeed it is necessary that it should more super-abound, since more is required to our justification than to Adam's.
Hence at length ariseth the fourth conclusion, and which shall be the last in this order.
Conclusion 4. As many things as are required from the sinner by the law, it is necessary that so many concur that he may be restored into a state of justification, as parts of his justification, of which there are two the chiefest.
(1.) An absolution both from the punishment, and from all crimes and guilt of the fact, which answers contradistinctly to the negative part of the precept, 'Thou shalt not do this,' and to the annexed appendix of it, the denunciation of death. And by this absolution the
guilty person is so acquitted, that he is freed from the obligation to punishment, and also is reputed never to have committed such sins.
(2.) There is a pronunciation of the person to be righteous, by which he is reputed to have done all those things which the law commands, and is adjudged worthy of eternal life, which is conformable to the affirmative part of the precept, and to the annexed promise.
And we may find so many parts of justification distinctly assigned in the Scriptures. The first of them is asserted by the apostle, Rom. 4:7,
8, 'Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.' Ver. 8, 'Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.' The remission of sin in ver. 7 respects obligation to punishment. The not-imputation of sin, ver. 8, respects the act of sin itself, of which the person is so acquitted, so as not to be reputed guilty of the fact. For whereas in human courts of judicature there are two things take place: the accusation of the fact, which is the work of a witness, and the condemnation, or adjudging to punishment, which is the work of the judge; the contrary seems to have place in God's court, when the business is there transacted concerning the justification of a sinner. He is judged so free from all punishment, as it is said, 'Who shall condemn him?' Rom. 8:34. And he also is absolved from the fact, as it is said, 'Who shall lay any thing to his charge?' ver. 33. He so imputes not sins, that neither the memory nor mention of them remain, and so that none are found,
Jer. 50:20.
And this may be called the state of a believer's innocence, as the condition of the first father Adam when new created, and when he had not acquired any righteousness to himself by doing the law, is rather called a state of innocence than of righteousness; which though to suppose to be a certain middle state (by descending from a state of righteousness to a state of sin), would be a vain and foolish fancy; and such an one, imagined by the papists, wherein they say man was in his pure naturals, we deride as an absurd figment. Yet in the justification of a sinner, which is by ascending from a state of sin
to a state of righteousness, such a middle state may at least be supposed. For there is a great disparity of reason which may be assigned between this case and the other.
1. For, first, whereas righteousness was what by nature ought to be in man, and necessary to him in his primitive state, he must therefore of necessity, when deprived of this original righteousness, fall into a state of sin. But that gift of justifying righteousness, all of it freely flows from God, and therefore both in pardoning our sins and in giving us Christ's righteousness, his grace illustriously shines out, and is to be acknowledged; and therefore such a middle state is supposable: that we may the better make a distinction between those two gifts, and to give the greater illustration of them, God, who bestows one benefit, not being bound to confer the other, Mat. 20:15.
2. The justification of a man in his primitive state did flow from his own proper righteousness, though there was a justifying act of God concurring with it. And in man thus considered, a mere want of righteousness, though he had committed no sin, yet could not be called innocence, because that righteousness was what ought to be in him. But the justification of a sinner, as it supposeth nothing in the man, so neither doth it expect or wait for something to be in him, but it is a pure act of God, and imports a respect to the mind of God justifying, who, as he calls those things which are not as though they were, so he can look on those things as not due which are due, and by pardoning remit them. Therefore a pardoned sinner may be said yet to want that righteousness which ought to be in him; yet since justification expects nothing in the subject, God of his mere grace may pronounce him to be innocent; and by his remission he may account that privative want of what should be in man for a mere negative.
In a word, though pardon and the consequent imputation of righteousness are never to be separated (so that the state of innocence, in which I have but made a supposition a pardoned sinner to be, is never really existent), yet they are not to be
confounded; and therefore, that we might have distinct thoughts both of the one and the other, I made the foregoing supposition.
The same is to be said concerning acquitment from death, and acceptance to life, between which a middle state may be supposed to be, though the subject not existing, viz., a state of annihilation, which if God should vouchsafe to the sinner, it would be a favour, since
Christ says of Judas, that 'it would have been better for him if he had not been born,' or if he should be annihilated.
Therefore over and above the man's absolution, there is some other thing to be added, viz., the imputation of righteousness; to which is annexed, acceptance to life, of which the apostle speaks distinctly,
Rom. 5:19, when he affirms the obedience of one man to constitute many righteous; which in the preceding verse he had called justification of life, or to eternal life; which contains in itself two parts of righteousness, as the law also requires, viz., a habitual holiness of nature, and active righteousness of life. For since we are to be constituted no less righteous in the second Adam than the first
Adam was to be, as we said before; and since Adam in law appeared righteous, both by habitual holiness in his created nature—which certainly God approved as conformable to the law, since he approved of all his works as good—and then at length active righteousness, viz., a perfect fulfilling of the law was to be added to justification of life; since these, I say, were requisite in him, it also is necessary that we should be constituted righteous before God by both these righteousnesses imputed.
And thus we have finished the first part of this discourse; and you have heard an entire conformity to the law, both active and passive, to be required to the justification of a sinner. We now hasten to the second part, which is to treat concerning the righteousness which is in Christ; and here in like manner I will frame four conclusions.
Conclusion 5. That so many parts of righteousness, as completing the whole righteousness of Christ, are in like manner to be seen in him,
as you heard them to be required in the law, and to be parts of our justification, and which seem to be a sufficient payment, and proportionated answerably to our debts, as also exactly to agree to the assigned parts of our justification, as matter adequate, accommodated, and squared to it. There is no need of a long and large enumeration of particulars. Would you have freedom from the curse of the law? Christ is made a curse, that he might redeem us from the curse of the law, Gal. 3:13. And he bore our sorrows, Isa.
53:4. Would you be so acquitted that your sins may not be imputed?
He who knew no sin was made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5:21. Neither in his death alone was he numbered among transgressors, Isa. 53:11; 'who was separate from sinners,' Heb 7; but also in his life, in his most exact subjection to the ceremonial law, by which he professed himself to be the greatest sinner, since those rites were a public confession of sins. And Christ was circumcised (as Austin rightly observes) as if he had been born in sins; and the like may be said of his other observances; and so both imputatively and reputatively he was made sin, that it might not be imputed unto us. Now I place his obedience to the ceremonial law to the account of his passive obedience. For what is more grievous than for him who knew not sin but as the greatest of all evils, to act the part of a sinner in the likeness of sinful flesh, not only in suffering, but in observing those ceremonies of the law which were required of men as sinners to observe; what thing I say, more sharp and grievous than this, could so much as be imagined?
Do you desire a righteousness of nature to be superadded to all this?
That holy thing is called the Son of God, Luke 1:35, that by that sanctification of our nature in him, he might condemn sin in the flesh, Rom. 8:3.
Do you further desire a righteousness of life? As he came not to dissolve the law, but to fulfil it, so he did perfectly accomplish it,
John 8:29. And to what end did he this? The apostle gives an answer, Rom. 10:3, 4, 'For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God.' Ver. 4, 'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.' Christ is the end of the law, not destructive of it, but to perfect it (as Austin says); but in what? In justification, of which the apostle there speaks, when he says this in opposition to a man's own righteousness, which the Jews endeavoured to establish. It was, indeed, the part of the law to justify in man's primitive state, and to that it was ordained; but Christ only attained the accomplishment of this design. And for whom? Not for himself, to justify himself only, but 'he is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believeth.' Whenas the end of the law was the righteousness of man, Christ, being now made
'the Lord our righteousness,' is called the end of the law. But by what obedience to the law is he so? What! By his passive only? No; for that same righteousness must Christ bring, which if it were not brought, the law would be frustrated of its end, or he could not be said to be the end of the law. But that righteousness is active; and to put it out of all dispute that this righteousness is meant, the apostle adds, that 'the law says, that by doing a man shall live,' ver. 5.
Conclusion 6. The sixth conclusion follows, that all this complete righteousness in Christ, and which answers the law, since it is not wholly due from him, but hath the nature of merit in it, therefore it may be imputed to the sinner. Let it be granted, that if some part of his righteousness was due for himself, that could not be imputed; yet this also must be insinuated, that if the obedience of Adam, as well as his sin, by virtue of the covenant made with us as in him, should have been imputed not only to him, but to us, though all of it was due from him for himself, why is there not the same reason in some respect that the righteousness of the second Adam should be so too?
Let Bernard be heard speaking in this cause. What! Is it to be feared (says he) lest thy righteousness, O Lord, should not be sufficient both for thee and me, when of God thou art made righteousness unto me?
(And he speaks of that which is active.) It is a short cloak indeed which cannot cover two; it will, O Lord, both cover me and thee.
But what though we grant it, that supposing this righteousness of Christ be due from him for himself, that it would not suffice at least for other sinners; yet the contrary is proved by instances of its being meritorious, which then it is when it is not wholly due from Christ on his own account.
As to Christ's passive obedience, there is no doubt of its meriting; and the same will appear to be true of all the rest. I will begin from Christ's birth.
The sanctification of his human nature is a natural due to him, it is true; but since the divine person assuming it was before that assumption free whether he would assume it or no; and in assuming man's nature, though most holy, he abased himself, and in this yielded obedience to his Father, Phil. 2:7, 8; and he so assumed it, that after the assumption that holy thing born is called the Son of God, Luke 1:35; hence it will obtain the account of merit, since it was not in all respects due from the divine person. This holy thing indeed is called the Son of God, as the blood of Christ is called the blood of God; but yet this Son of God did not want that holiness of the human nature, being himself full of the essential holiness of God, and therefore it was not in all respects due from him. It was for us Christ was holy: John 17:19, 'For them,' saith he, 'I sanctify myself.'
But this will be more clearly evident concerning Christ's obedience to the moral law. For, 1. The greatest part of it was not at all due for himself as man, at least not due in that manner as he performed it. For he might have been man, and yet have lived always in heaven, and then he would have been free (as now glorified he is) from many duties to be performed, both to God and man in this life, which yet he, whilst he lived amongst men, performed for us.
2. Whenas that holy one is called the Son of God, shall he not have the prerogative of a son, and not of a servant only? And when he is
called the Lord of the Sabbath, why not also of the rest of the law?
3. What though we grant him to have been subject as a creature, yet the obedience is of the whole person, and he is called 'the Lord our righteousness.' What therefore as a work would be entirely due from the human nature, shall be called the merit of the mediator Godman.
4. What though he now, made under the law, and become a servant, is held bound to the servitude of the law, as other men are kept, under the punishment of death? Yet, since the person assuming was before at his own dispose, and it was only to make satisfaction for us that he took upon him that condition of a servant, this service, though due, will be meritorious. For all motions have their specification and denomination from the begining and end of them.
And as the danger is the greater in that condition, wherein now, having made himself a servant, he is bound to perform this service for himself, so much greater will be the merit, that for our sakes he exposed himself to that danger.
And this is yet more evident as to Christ's obedience unto the ceremonial law; for though he was indeed by nation a Jew, and a son of Abraham, yet unless he had been a sinner, he was not bound to it, as only the sinners of the Jews were subject to it. And though those rites of the law at that time were the manner of divine worship, yet they were not to be observed but by sinners. Since, therefore, this whole obedience was performed for our sakes, and he was born for us, and made under the law for us, the whole of it may be imputed to us.
I will also add this: that since there was no need that these things should be done on the sole account of being qualifying conditions of our high priest, or as conferring merit on his passive obedience, since the alone dignity of his person brought enough of both these, Heb.
9:14; therefore all this obedience is performed on our account, and ought to be imputed to us, since otherwise it would be to no purpose.
But this will be more clearly demonstrated in the following conclusion, which is this:
Conclusion 7. All these single parts of the righteousness of Christ, though they are of an infinite merit intensively, yet extensively they are not so, but in their imputation unto us for righteousness they are to be limited to that kind of righteousness only to which they belong.
To explain the meaning of the conclusion, and to illustrate it by a parity of reason. Let us consider, that as all the merits of the whole righteousness of Christ performed in man's nature are not extended to the angels, Heb. 2:6, 7—though as to mankind they would suffice to save and justify innumerable millions, and therefore they are said to be, though not intensively, yet extensively, infinite—so there is the same reason in all the several parts of the same righteousness compared one with another; so that though the merit of the passive obedience avails to cancel all our debts of suffering or punishment which are within its sphere, nay, and is sufficient to expiate the guilt of the sins of the whole world, yet it cannot stand in the room of the active righteousness required by the law, because it is out of its sphere and kind. And so in like manner neither can the active righteousness of Christ avail to discharge the due parts of the passive; and therefore though each of them is intensively infinite, yet not extensively.
So then, whereas there is a double debt of punishment and obedience required in the law from us sinners, the passive righteousness, though in itself of infinite merit, will not suffice for both of them; and therefore, since an entire satisfaction of the law is exacted from us, the whole righteousness of Christ, active and passive, ought to be imputed. And God will require obedience as a satisfaction to the law, not only redundant in a singular kind of merit, but as accomplished in its own particular way and kind. And for this he would have all fulness which denotes perfection of degrees, and all fulness as denoting a perfection of parts, to dwell in Christ, in order to our reconciliation, Col. 1:19, 20, that we might be complete in him, Col.
2:10. As it is thus in other parts of our salvation, so in justification also, since Christ is all in all, and is made all things to us, 'wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,' 1 Cor. 1:30; where, since by 'wisdom' may accommodately be understood inherent righteousness, in which sense it is often taken by a synecdoche, and by its redundancy there it ought so to be understood, Christ is made all the other things to us by the imputation of his righteousness, sanctification by the merit of the sanctification of his nature, righteousness by the merit of his active obedience, and redemption by his passive. And in the same order, though inverted, he doth in the like manner enumerate the parts of justification in his epistle to the Romans, as remission of sins by Christ's death, chap. 4.* And in the beginning of chap. 5,* he says that Christ is made redemption; and then in the end of that chapter he says, that he constitutes us righteous by his active righteousness, which to be meant there is certain, both in that he calls it obedience, and not only so, but righteousness, and also that he calls the effect proportionate to in† justification of life. And it is more clearly manifest from ver. 17, where, comparing it with the alone disobedience of Adam, he says, 'If by one offence death reigned by one, much more shall life reign by one, in them who receive that abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness.' The comparison is so made, that the gift of righteousness is said to be abundant, not in merit only, but in quantity and number, for the multitude of the acts of righteousness seem to be opposed to the one disobedience of Adam; therefore the alone passive righteousness is not understood; therefore his active is also imputed to us, and in respect of that too he is made righteousness to us. But when at last, in chap. 7, he had complained of the inherent remainders of sin, which he calls the law of the members of the flesh and of death, he comforts himself at the first and second verses of chap. 8, in the justification obtained for him by the sanctification of Christ's human nature, which, therefore, in opposition to the other law of death, he calls a law of the spirit and of life; that is, a spiritual and inward law and principle of life, which he also affirms to be inherent in Christ; and this (saith he) hath freed me from the law of sin and death; and ver. 3, he affirms Christ sent
in the likeness of flesh obnoxious to sin, and yet free from it, to have condemned in his flesh sin which was in ours. Which parts of justification, when the apostle had perfectly enumerated, he adds this as a conclusion in ver. 4, 'That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us;' that is, that that absolute, complete, and universal conformity and satisfaction to the law, in suffering the punishment and death, or obedience of life, and holiness of nature, required of sinners, being found in Christ, and communicated unto us by imputation, is said to be fulfilled in us, as if we had accomplished it. The whole righteousness therefore of Christ, as it ought to be imputed, so de facto it is imputed unto us.
Let me, to conclude all, add an eighth and last proposition, with which I would not farther lengthen out the discourse, if it were not necessary to clear up the truth asserted.
Conclusion 8. Though these parts may be considered divisively, as composing the merit of our imputed righteousness, yet in the imputation itself they coalesce into one entire and undivided righteousness; nor is one part to be considered separate from the other. The conclusion is thus to be understood, that though, in the execution or performance of this righteousness, the parts of Christ's obedience were accomplished, one distinct from another, and successively, and at length completed by various acts, his passive obedience after the active, and the active after the sanctification of his nature; and though, secondly, an afflicted conscience meditating on its whole misery, and considering by piecemeal the several parts both of the sin and of the punishment, can therefore in that very righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, and therefore imputed, run over all the several parts of it as a proportionate remedy, and applicable to every one of his distempers; yet such a division is not to be thought of in the imputation, as though that was successive, or that one part of Christ's righteeousness was applied to us after another. And the reason is this: the law, since it is a handwriting, is not to be cancelled, till it be satisfied to the last farthing. Therefore no part of the debt can be said to be paid, unless
it be all considered as paid, and the bond cancelled. Therefore the active righteousness of Christ cannot be said to be imputed, unless also at the same time his passive righteousness be supposed to be imputed; and on the contrary, not his passive without the active. For though the merit of one part (suppose it the passive righteousness) doth not depend on the other, viz., the active, yet the imputation of the merit of each part depends upon the other. Hence the apostle, 2
Cor. 5:21, says Christ is 'made sin,' and hath taken away the guilt and punishment of it, 'that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' Not as if that passive righteousness was that by which we appear just before God; but this active righteousness would not be imputed, but upon supposition of the other. Hence therefore it comes to pass that the whole work of justification is attributed to one part of this righteousness, and of right may be so, as it is often attributed to the death of Christ; which is often inculcated by the assertors of justification by Christ's passive righteousness alone.
Thus we are said to be reconciled by Christ's death, and the like; and thus also the sanctification of Christ's nature is said to condemn sin in the flesh: which expressions are not to be taken in such a sense, as if the whole merit of imputed righteousness might be found in Christ's death (and so likewise as to the other), but because the imputation of his other righteousness depends upon this, as this also on the other. But it is attributed most often, and chiefly, to Christ's death, for several reasons, the principal of which is this: because it was the last part paid which cancelled the law's whole handwriting, and was as it were the completing of all the rest.
But yet of this we are to be advised, that though the whole force of the imputation flows from each part, and in the imputation a one, entire, and undivided righteousness is to be considered as resulting from all the parts together, yet this doth not hinder but that one part of your justification may be more attributed to one part of the righteousness than to another (as remission of sins to the death of Christ, and justification of life to his active obedience). For the like is found in sanctification; though the whole sanctifying virtue and energy flow together from his death and resurrection, yet