Sermons Preached on Romans 8, Chapter 14

Sermons Preached on Romans 8 · Chapter 14

p. 565ROM. 8.4.

That the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us.—

CHAP. XIV. Of the fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs in Believers.

Of the Second End or Effect of Chriſt's being ſent in Fleſh, (viz.) the fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs. A general explication of the main Scope of the Words, and of the principal matter contain'd in them. More particularly 'tis enquired

(1.) Of what Law doth the Apoſtle hear ſpeak?

(2.) What is the foreign or righteouſneſs of the Law?

(3.) What is it to fulfil the Laws righteouſneſs?

(4.) How the righteouſneſs of the Law is fulfilled in us?

Four interpretations given of it:

(1.) That 'tis perfectly and perſonally fulfilled by the Saints themſelves:

(2.) That 'tis perſonally fulfilled in them, though not perfectly, yet inchoately, and in reſpect of God's acceptation:

(3.) That 'tis perfectly but not perſonally fulfilled in them, Chriſt's Obedience and perfect fulfilling of the Law being imputed to them.

(4.) That 'tis fulfilled in them in reſpect of the remiſſion of ſin.

Three Propoſitions laid down to clear up the third interpretation and the main Truth: As

(1.) That Chriſt was made under the Law: (that opened in ſome Particulars).

(2.) That p. 566Chriſt perfectly fulfilled the Law.

(3.) That his fulfilling of it is imputed and reckoned to Believers.

Two Queſtions raiſed and anſwered: Whether Chriſt's active and paſſive Obedience or his paſſive only be imputed? In what ſenſe may it be ſaid to be imputed? Uſe 1.

Firſt to ſhew upon what terms Believers are juſtified and ſaved.

Secondly, what a reſpect God had for his Law.

Uſe 2. To exhort perſons

(1.) To get an intereſt in this priviledge.

(2.) Such as have an intereſt in it are exhorted

(1.) To go as far as ever they may in the perſonal fulfilling of the Law:

(2.) To look after the fulfilling of the Evangelical Law in themſelves:

(3.) To admire the Love of Chriſt.

Uſe. 3. The Comfort of this drawn forth to Believers.

The Second End or Effect of Chriſt's being ſent in Fleſh, viz. the fulfilling of the Law for Believers.THeſe words hold forth another end or effect of Chriſt's being ſent in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh; for I do not underſtand them to refer to the Clauſe immediately foregoing [and for ſin condemned ſin in the fleſh], as if they were an aſſignation of the end or effect of Chriſt's condemning ſin by the Sacrifice of himſelf; but I take them as referring to that which is before ſpoken of [God ſent his own Son in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh], and as they do repreſent God's end in that: wherefore did God ſo do? what did he deſign or aim at therein? why at this that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us.

The conjunctive particle [foreign] may be taken either foreign or foreign: In the firſt notion (which is moſt uſual and common) it carrys a final ſenſe, and notes the end why God ſent his Son in Fleſh; namely, that he might fulfil, in his own Perſon, the Laws righteouſneſs, and ſo imputatively or in a Law-ſenſe Believers in him. I ſay this was God's end; for it doth not come in as a bare event or conſequent upon Chriſt's taking our Nature, and doing in that Nature what he did; but it was the very**Id que totum hoc conſilio fecit, ut nos perfectè juſti coram ipſo perficeremur, non ſecus at que illi habiti ſuiſſent qui omnia divinae legis praecepta conſervaſſent. Vorſt. end which God deſigned and propounded to himſelf therein; (viz.) that Chriſt might perfectly fulfill the Law, which to do to the Saints themſelves in their own perſons was altogether impoſſible; and yet upon which (it being accepted of by God on their behalf and made over to p. 567them), they ſhould be accounted juſt and righteous, even as if they had fulfilled it in their own perſons: this is the firſt import of the word. Then it may be taken foreign or by way of appoſition; and ſo it notes the ſuperadding of ſome further matter and that which is**See Burg. of Juſtif. 2. part. p. 361. diſtinct from what went before; (in this appoſitive ſenſe 'tis uſed Joh. 15.12. Joh. 17.3.). And ſo the Apoſtles meaning is this; God ſent his Son into the World not only to be a Sacrifice for ſin, and thereby to condemn ſin (by his bearing the Laws penalty due to it); but alſo, by his active obedience and conformity to the Laws commands, to bring things to this that the righteouſneſs of the Law ſhould be fulfilled in believers. Chriſt's being a Sacrifice for ſin was not ſufficient to anſwer all the ends and demands of the Law; there muſt be the doing of what it commanded as well as the ſuffering of what it threatned; therefore Chriſt was ſent for both, and both were accompliſhed by him. Man in his lapſed ſtate ſtood in need of two things,**Cum duo nobis peperiſſe Chriſtum dixerimus, impunitatem & praemium, illud Satisfactioni, hoc merito Chriſti diſtinctè tribuit vetus Eccleſia. Satisfactio conſiſtit in peccatorum tralatione, meritum in perfectiſſunâ obedientiae pro nobis praeſtitae imputatione. G. Voſſius in Prefat. ad Grotium de Sat. Chriſti. In homine lapſo duo conſideranda, quod pro peccatis ejus ſolvendum fuit, ut liberaretur; tum ut vitae inſuper fieret particeps, quod praeſtari debuit id ad quod vita promiſſa erat &c.—Utrum que Apoſtolus docet & conjungit Rom. 8.3, 4. &c. Hoornb. Socin. confut. l. 3. c. 1. p 657.Rom 8:3Rom 8:4 Satisfaction and Merit; Satisfaction, with reſpect to God's punitive Juſtice, the expiation of ſin by the undergoing of the puniſhment incurr'd by it, &c. Merit, with reſpect to eternal life and the poſſeſſion of the heavenly bleſſedneſs; the meaſure and foundation of which Merit was the fulfilling of the Law in active obedience: Now both of theſe are here diſtinctly ſpoken unto; Chriſt for ſin condemned ſin in the fleſh, there's Satisfaction; and he alſo fulfilled the righteouſneſs of the Law in the ſtead (at leaſtwiſe for the good) of Believers, there's Merit. So that in the words we have a further account of that full benefit and compleat Salvation which ſinners have by the Lord Jeſus: and ſo much for their main Scope and the general explication of the matter contain'd in them.

Four things propounded for the more particular explication of the Words.In the more particular opening of them Four things are to be enquired into;

1. Of what [Law] doth Paul here ſpeak?

2. What he means by the [righteouſneſs] of the Law?

3. How this righteouſneſs of the Law is ſaid to be [fulfilled]?

4. In what ſenſe is it ſaid to be fulfilled [in us]?

What Law doth the Apoſtle here ſpeak of?To the firſt of theſe Enquiries I ſhall anſwer very briefly; 'tis the Moral Law which is here chiefly ſpoken of. That which is called the Law of Works Rom 3.27. (in contradiſtinction to the p. 568Evangelical Law, or the Law of Faith); the Law which God at firſt made with Adam in the ſtate of innocency, and afterwards (for the matter of it) renew'd and copied out again to the people of Iſrael, abridging it in the ten Commandements; the Law which call'd for univerſal, perfect, conſtant Obedience, and promis'd Life thereupon; which was a draught or model and ſummary of all that duty which God required of man; this is that Law which the Apoſtle here had mainly in his eye. 'Tis the ſame with the Law ſpoken of in the foregoing Verſe, What the Law could not do in that it was weak &c. (where I had occaſion to ſpeak**See pag. 259, 260. ſomething about it, to which I refer you). 'Tis here ſaid that the righteouſneſs of the Law &c. now the Law to which righteouſneſs is annexed is commonly the Moral Law; (ſee Rom. 10.5. Phil. 3.9. et paſſim): And that's the Law which Chriſt in ſpecial fulfill'd; therefore he having ſaid**Matth. 5.17.Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to deſtroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to deſtroy, but to fulfil; he explains himſelf (Verſ. 21, 27, &c.) what Law he meant, by inſtancing in ſome branches of the Moral Law: And the Apoſtle having ſtiled Chriſt**Rom. 10…, 5.Rom 10:5 the end of the Law &c. ſhows that he alſo by this meant the ſame Law, as appears by what he immediately adds, For Moſes deſcribeth the righteouſneſs which is of the Law, that the man which doth thoſe things ſhall live by them. I add further, 'tis that Law the righteouſneſs whereof is fulfill'd in us (that is, by imputation); now 'tis the righteouſneſs of the Moral Law, as fulfill'd by Chriſt, which is moſt eminently imputed to us, therefore that Law muſt here chiefly be underſtood. I deny not but that there are other Laws, beſides this, with which righteouſneſs is coupled; as thoſe particular and poſitive Laws laid upon Chriſt with reſpect to the management of his Office: when the buſineſs of his Baptiſm was before him he would have it done, for (ſaith he) thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteouſneſs, Matth. 3.15. Yea, the Ceremonial Law it ſelf had its foreign, for that's the Word Heb. 9.1. and 'tis ſaid of Zachary and Elizabeth Luk. 1.6. they were both righteous before God, walking [foreign] in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, **See Dr. Hammond on Rom. 8.4. in Annot. (b).Rom 8:4blameleſs; (where ſome diſtinguiſh, making the foreign to refer to the commands of the Moral Law, and the foreign to the rites and ordinances of the Ceremonial Law). Neither do I deny but that other Laws beſides the Moral Law were fulfill'd by Chriſt, for he fulfill'd all; and that his fulfilling of them alſo was for our good: But yet 'twas the Moral Law with which eſpecially p. 569righteouſneſs is joyn'd, which Chriſt eminently fulfill'd, and which fulfilling is in an higher notion imputed to us: therefore I interpret the word [Law] here as mainly pointing to that; and in ſo doing I have the concurrent ſuffrages of all the Expoſitors that I have look'd into (one or two only excepted).

What is the righteouſneſs of the Law?2. What is here meant by the foreign or righteouſneſs of the Law? The Vulgar, Ambroſe, Eraſmus, Tremelleus &c. reade it the juſtification of the Law, (as the word foreign is tranſlated Rom. 5.16.); and the Greek Interpreters pitch upon the ſenſe as to the thing, that the righteouſneſs of the Law &c. (that is, ſay**foreign. Theoph. they) that the primary end and ſcope of the Law (viz. to juſtifie, for that was the end of the Law as given at firſt,) might be fulfilled in us. Beza (with divers others) render it that the right of the Law &c. the Law had a right to lay its commands upon the Creature, and to exact his obedience thereunto; it being God's own Law, the declaration of his Will, it having his authority ſtamp'd upon it, and it enjoyning nothing but what was righteous, juſt, and good, it was its right to command and to be obey'd when it did ſo command: And in caſe it was not ſo, it had a further right viz. to demand ſatisfaction in the enduring of its penalty; for it had(a)(a)foreign duplex, condemnandi peccatores & rurſus exigendi obedientiam perfectam. Pareus. Jus Legis ut qui peccaverant punirentur, & quiad vitam intrare volebant ſervarent mandata, Streſo. foreign illud quod requirit Lex; nempe tum plenam Poenae reatibus noſtris debitam luitionem, ut a condemnatione libe…emur; tum plenam legis praeſtationem, ut ad aeternam vitam foreign inveniamur, ex illâ promiſſione, Hoc fac & vives &c. Beza. See Burg. of Juſtif. part 2. p. 358.— a double right, one as it did and might require active obedience, the other as it did and might require ſatisfaction by ſuffering in caſe of diſobedience; and theſe two put together make up its righteouſneſs. (b)(b)foreign ſeu jus legis nihil aliud eſt quam foreign & damnatoria ſententia legis, quâ maledictionis & mortis aeternae ſupplicio &c. Jacob. ad Portum Fid. Orthod. Defenſ. c. 34. p. 975.—Vid. Pareum in loc.—foreign. Chryſost.Some make this to lie in the Laws threatnings or damnatory ſentence againſt Sinners, in that curſe which it denounces againſt the tranſgreſſors of it, Gal. 3.10; as the foreign ſpoken of Rom. 1.32. is God's puniſhing and avenging juſtice, and that dreadful ſentence paſſed by him that they who do ſuch things are worthy of death; ſo the foreign is the penal or maledictory part of the Law. But this is only a part of its righteouſneſs, and the ſecondary part thereof too; its preceptive righteouſneſs in its demanding of active Obedience muſt be taken in, and that too as that which is primarily and principally p. 570intended by it; therefore 'tis(c)(c)Significat eam rectitudinem quae praecipitur in lege. P. Martyr. Juſtitia quam Lex exigebat. Vatabl. Totum quod Lex praecipit. Alap. foreign ipſa legis praecepta &c. Perer. Juſtitia Legis eſt juſtitia quam praecipit Lex. Eſtius. Implere juſtum legis eſt totum quod Lex precipit efficere. Tolet. Ut juſtificatio legis i. e. juſtitia quam lex preſcribit & exigit impleretur &c. Staplet. Antidot. p. 627. Ut ad impleret opus praeceptorum legis. Ver. Aethiop. Ut nos praeſtaremus omnia quae in lege Moſis per ſe honeſta ſunt. Grot. Jus, juſtitia, juſtificatio legis in eo conſiſtit, ut per omnimodam cum lege conformitatem juſti at que inculpati habeamur coram Deo. De Dieu. foreign is any thing that God hath thought meet to appoint or command his people. Dr. Hammond. generally opened by that. The Scripture ſpeaks of the Law of righteouſneſs Rom. 9.31; of righteouſneſs by the Law Gal. 3.21. of the righteouſneſs of the Law Rom. 2.26. (and in the Text): Some difference there is betwixt theſe, but that I ſhall not ſtand upon; the latter, is all that duty, righteouſneſs, obedience which the Law requires, with the penalty which it threatens and will have inflicted upon diſobedience.

What is it to fulfil the Laws righteouſneſs?3. We are to enquire what this fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs is? Anſw. The former Head being rightly apprehended there will be little or no difficulty in this: To fulfil the righteouſneſs of the Law 'tis fully to anſwer all its demands, to come up to perfect and univerſal conformity to it, to do whatever it enjoyns or to ſuffer whatever it threatens, or both. For ſo it was fulfilled by Chriſt; in his active obedience as to the one, in his paſſive obedience as to the other: as he was perfectly holy he did what the Law commanded, and beſides this as he was made**Gal. 3.13.Gal 3:13 a curſe he underwent what the Law threatned. 'Tis queſtioned whether one of theſe be not enough for us, either to obey or to ſuffer; but all grant that both were neceſſary on Chriſt's part, and that both were done by him; and ſo he fulfilled the Laws righteouſneſs. This is the genuine and plain notion of the word, yet I know other interpretations are given of it: The righteouſneſs of the Law was fulfilled inaſmuch (ſay**This interpretation noted and confuted by Burg. of Juſtific. P. 361, 362. ſome) as that righteouſneſs which it did foretel was actually accompliſhed in Chriſt; Rom. 3.21. But now the righteouſneſs of God without the Law is manifeſted, being witneſſed by the Law and the Prophets: that righteouſneſs, which before was witneſſed, promiſed, foretold in the Law, receiv'd in Chriſt its full accompliſhment; and therein lies the fulfilling of its righteouſneſs. But this expoſition of the word is (I conceive) not ſo proper to the thing here ſpoken of, 'tis another fulfilling which is here intended; not ſo much that which is the bringing into act what was foretold or which is the verifying of a propheſie or prediction, (in which ſenſe it hath uſually joyned with it foreign; as p. 571Matth. 13.35; or foreign, as Jam. 2.23; or foreign, as Luk. 24.44; or foreign, as Matth. 13.14.); as the perfect obeying of what was enjoyned in the Command, and the doing to the full what the Law as preceptive did require rather than what the Law as predictive did foretel.

Again,**Bodius in Eph. c. 5. v. 28. p. 799. who yet afterwards ſets down that notion which I cloſe with; Impleri quo que dicitur cum perfectè praeſtatur & obſervatur, quod â Chriſto pro nobis factum eſt, etſi eâ praeſtatione vitam aeternam non dicatur nobis acquiſiviſſe.Eph 5:28 Some make this fulfilling of the Law to be no more than adeptio finis, the bringing about of that which was the great end of it; what was that? why, to drive Sinners to Chriſt. By its diſcovering ſin and guilt (for the Law was added becauſe of tranſgreſſions Gal. 3.21.), and wrath (the conſequent thereof), and the Sinners utter inability to help himſelf, eventually it was a means to bring ſuch to look out for help in Chriſt. Therefore Gal. 3.24. 'tis ſaid, The Law was our School-maſter to bring us unto Chriſt; and in this ſenſe ſome take that paſſage Rom. 10.4. Chriſt is the end of the Law for righteouſneſs; (i.e.) that which God mainly deſign'd in the Law and which was the great end that he aimed at therein, it was to drive Sinners to Chriſt, to obtain righteouſneſs in and through him. This explication I do not cloſe with neither, for I ſuppoſe the Apoſtle is not here ſpeaking ſo much of the fulfilling of the end of the Law, as of the fulfilling of the matter of the Law; for he ſpeaks of that which is imputable to us (as you will hear), now 'tis Chriſt's performing the matter of the Law, and not the end of the Law in it-ſelf, which comes under imputation.

That the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled, that is, (ſay**Deodate in loc. others) that it might not be commanded in vain, nor without effect, as it is in reſpect of Ʋnbelievers: But this expoſition will carry us to that fulfilling of the Law which is in our own perſons (which is not here intended); and this will better ſuit with the foreign Rom. 2.26, and the foreign Rom. 2.27. rather than with the foreign in the text. Theſe (and ſuch like) explications of the word therefore being rejected, I ſtick to that which was firſt laid down; to fulfill the Laws righteouſneſs it is fully, exactly, to do and to ſuffer whatever that righteous Law demanded.

How the righteouſneſs of the Law may be ſaid to be fulfilled in Believers?4. The reſolution of the 4th Enquiry will take me up more time; How are we to underſtand the fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs in the Saints? that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled [in us]; (he means in ſuch who are in Chriſt Jeſus and who do believe on him): Every true believer is a fulfiller of the Law; but how or in what ſenſe he is ſo, there's the difficulty: in one ſenſe nothing more true, in another nothing more falſe.

p. 572In the reſolving of this, a fourfold Anſwer is given and a fourfold Interpretation put upon the words:

The firſt Anſwer or Interpretation about it; (viz.) that the righteouſneſs of the Law is perfectly and perſon…lly fulfilled by the Saints themſelves.1. Firſt (ſay ſome) the righteouſneſs of the Law is perfectly and perſonally fulfilled by the Saints themſelves. This the POPISH Writers (in their Polemical diſcourſes, and alſo in their Commentaries upon the Text,) do aſſert; wherein yet (to give every one their due) they**Hinc Patet perſolam Naturam & Legem ſine gratiâ Chriſti, hominem in hâc corruptione non poſſe totam legem totum que Decalogum implere. A-Lapide. differ from the old PELAGIANS: For whereas they held that a man by the meer power of Nature might perfectly keep the whole Law, theſe hold, that a man cannot do this without the aſſiſting grace of God: but that being vouchſafed (they ſay) regenerate perſons may keep the whole Law. Thus they expound the words, and then from them they endeavour to prove (againſt us) a poſſibility of perfect obedience to the Law of God by the Saints in this Life: inſomuch that (ſay they) Saints may here live without all Sin, (Venial ſins only excepted, which break no ſquares betwixt God and the Creature); that they may do all the good which the Law requires: nay, that this perfect conformity to the Law is not only poſſible but eaſie; nay, that ſuch, who are high in grace, may not only do juſt what the Law demands, but that they may ſuperogate and do more than what it demands: This is the Doctrine which††Concil Trident. Seſſ. 6. c. 18. Bellarm. de Juſtif. l. 4. c. 10, &c. Becan. Man. Controv. l. 1. c. 17. Perer. Diſp. 3. in c. 8. ad Rom.—Ut juſtificatio Legis &c. i. e. ut nos legem impleremus, id que faciendo juſti eſſemus, quia factores legis juſtificabuntur. Eſtius. Peccato in nobis per redemptionis Chriſti gratiam abolito, factâ que cum Deo reconciliatione, legem implere nobis eſt jam poſſibile, & facile. Tolet. Vide Juſtinian. Catharin. Staplet. Rhemiſts in loc. &c.—Nemo miretur quod dixerim poſſe nos abſ que omni culpâ abſolute eſſe. Nam & iterum dico, poſſe per Dei gratiam & libetum arbitrium, hominem perfectam aſſequi juſtitiam coram Deo, immunitatem ſcilicet ab omni peccato, modo voluntas ejus non deſit, adjuvante diviná ope: C. Muſſu…. they of the ROMISH-Church teach and maintain with great zeal.

We are not aſham'd to declare**See Calvin. Inſtit. l. 2. c. 7. ſect 5. Chemnit. Exam. De bonis Operibus 3. Qu. p. 181. Chamier. t. 3. l. 11. Whittak. contra Duraeum. de Parad. l. 8. p. 201, 202. Bradſh. de Juſtif. c. 11. our diſſent from them in this proud Opinion, which (in a great meaſure) owns its deſcent from the old Phariſees. We believe that ſince Adams fall no man (Chriſt only excepted) did ever thus in himſelf fulfil the Laws righteouſneſs: Indeed in the ſtate of innocency man had a power to do this, but not ſince; and to hold the contrary, is to confound the two ſtates and to make little difference between man as ſtanding and man as fallen. The Laws righteouſneſs is a draught or copy of mans primitive holineſs; ſo that to ſay that he can now in himſelf come up to that righteouſneſs, is in effect to ſay he is as holy and righteous as ever he was, and no wayes impaired by Adams Fall: p. 573By that we are all made unrighteous, and ſuch as are unrighteous can never perfectly fulfil a righteous Law. He muſt be ſinleſs, do no evil, who will exactly reach the Laws righteouſneſs; but are any**foreign. Clem. Conſtit. l. 2. c. 18. ſuch here on earth? 1 Kings 8.46. There is no man that ſinneth not: Eccleſ. 7.20. For there is not a juſt man upon earth, that doth good and ſinneth not. Jam. 3.2. In many things we offend all. 1 Joh. 1.8. If we ſay that we have no ſin, we deceive our ſelves, and the truth is not in us. Prov. 20.9. Who can ſay, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my ſin?—(reade Pſal. 130.3. Pſal. 142.2. Job 9.2, 3. Job. 15.15, &c. Rom. 3.19. Gal. 3.22.). Further, he muſt not only do good, all good, but he muſt do it in the moſt intenſe and higheſt degree that he is capable of; or elſe he doth not fulfil the Laws righteouſneſs; Matth. 22.37. Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy Soul, and with all thy mind: but where's the man who thus loves God? now if there be but a**Peccatum eſt cum non eſt charitas quae eſſe debet, vel minor eſt quàm eſſe debet. Aug. de Perfect. juſtitiae. gradual defect the Law is not fulfilled. Its righteouſneſs extends to the inward man, and to the inward acts the Soul: as to external acts, if evil (eſpecially if groſſely and ſcandalouſly evil,) 'tis poſſible for one to refrain from them; if good, 'tis poſſible for one to come up to them; but this will not amount to the perfect keeping of the Law, unleſs there be an abſtaining from Heart-evils, from evil thoughts and concupiſcence within, (ſo Chriſt, the Maker and Expounder of the Law, opens it againſt the Phariſees Matth. 5.): and unleſs alſo there be the doing of what is good from a right principle to a right end: If the righteouſneſs of the Law did lie only in external acts, ſomething might be ſaid; but when it reaches to internal acts, who can ſay that there all is right? O how great is the Laws ſtrictneſs! Deut. 5.32. Ye ſhall obſerve to do therefore, as the Lord your God hath commanded you: you ſhall not turn aſide to the right hand, or to the left. And its demands are ſo ſevere that if you fail in any one point you are gone, you fail in all. Gal. 3.10. Curſed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them: Jam. 2.10. For whoſoever ſhall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all: and if ſo, he muſt be ſtrangely arrogant and ignorant too that will pretend to come up in himſelf to the Laws righteouſneſs. If any could ſo do, to him the reward would be reckoned not of grace, but of debt, Rom. 4.4; his juſtification would be by works, (whereas the Scripture excludes any from being juſtified that way, Rom. 3.19, 20. Gal. 2.16.); his righteouſneſs would be of the Law, and ſo (as to him) Chriſt p. 574died in vain Gal 2.21. If the Laws righteouſneſs was fulfillable in this ſenſe, why did the Apoſtle in the Verſe foregoing ſpeak of the Laws foreign or weakneſs? whence doth that proceed but from our weakneſs and utter inability perfectly to obey it? If it be ſaid (as it is) that Chriſt came in fleſh for this very end to take off this weakneſs, that we might be able fully to keep it in our own perſons; that we peremptorily deny: he came that the righteouſneſs of the Law ſhould be fulfilled for us and in us imputatively, but not perſonally. Had he deſigned the latter, 'tis ſtrange that we ſhould not have one Inſtance in all the New Teſtament of any one perſon who ever did ſo fulfil the Law: I know ſome are mentioned; but all that is ſaid of them doth amount only to integrity of parts, not to perfection of degrees; to eminency in Grace and Obedience, but not to Law-exactneſs; to Evangelieal but not to legal perfection.

Obj. But doth God enjoyn the Creature that which is **Bellarm. de Lib. Arb. l. 5. c. 18.impoſſible?

Anſw. Juſt thus the PELAGIANS of old argued for the poſſibility of mens keeping the Law; and††De Nat. & Grat. c. 43. De Peccat. Mer. & Rem. l. 2. c. 6, 7, 9. AƲSTINE (writing againſt them) was fain again and again to anſwer this very Objection. We ſay, what is‖‖Vid. Chamier. tom. 3. l. 11. p. 328. Theſ. Sedan. Vol. 1. p. 479. Pet. Martyr (in loc.) Quanquam ſi quis rectē &c. ſimply and abſolutely impoſſible God doth not impoſe upon the Creature; but what he himſelf hath made impoſſible voluntarily and by his own default; that the great Lawgiver may and doth impoſe: This impoſſibility doth no way entrench upon the goodneſs of God, becauſe the Sinner hath contracted and wilfully brought it upon himſelf. I hope the Creditor may demand his debt though the debtor cannot pay it, if through ſloth, prodigality, bad husbandry he hath diſabled himſelf thereunto; that's the Sinners caſe with reſpect to perfect obedience to the Law: God may demand his right though the Creature hath loſt his power. This Objection at the firſt hearing ſeems to have ſomething in it, and it is very plauſible to put an uglineſs upon the PROTESTANTS doctrine; but when 'tis look'd into and duly weighed, there's nothing at all of ſtrength in it. Others (for brevity ſake) I muſt omit. It appears then, that the fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs in this ſenſe (viz. of the Saints perfect and perſonal fulfilling thereof in themſelves,) is not according to truth, and therefore muſt be rejected.

Second Interpretation. The Laws righteouſneſs is fulfilled in Saints perſonally, but not perfectly.2. Secondly, 'tis ſaid that the Law is fulfilled in and by the Saints inherently and perſonally, but not perfectly: Thus ſome of our own Divines do expound the words; they making them to refer to that Obedience which belongs to Sanctification, and which p. 575ſanctified perſons in themſelves come up unto; who though in the high and rigid notion they do not fulfil the Law, yet in a ſoft and mild notion**Lex data eſt ut gratia quaereretur, gratia data eſt ut Lex impleretur. Auguſt. de Spir. & Lit. l. 1. c. 19. they do. There is a begun, inchoate Obedience in them thereunto, which is continued and carried on higher and higher till it be conſummate: they do not only love and like the Law, and conſent to it that 'tis good, but they obey it in part; which though it be but in part yet they being ſincere therein and deſiring to arrive at what is perfect, God accepts of them as though they did perfectly fulfil it: thus Evangelically though not Legally the Laws righteouſneſs is fulfilled in them. 'Tis not unuſual in Scripture to ſet forth inchoate, partial, imperfect Obedience, by the fulfilling of the Law: Rom. 2.27. And ſhall not uncircumciſion which is by Nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee &c. Rom. 13.8. He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law; (Verſ. 10.) Love is the fulfilling of the Law. Gal. 5.14. All the Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelf: Gal. 6.2. Bear ye one anothers burdens, and ſo fulfil the Law of Chriſt: Now in this ſenſe the Saints in themſelves, in this life, may be ſaid to fulfil the Laws righteouſneſs. They who go this way differ in this,**Id quod nonnulli de juſtificatione interpretantur &c. ideo que de Sanctificatione vitae intelligitur—Nam quod objici poteſt, nos non eſſe perfectos, ideo que &c. illud non ſequitur, quia etſi legem non compleamus ſimpliciter ac ſimul, complemus tamen ſecundum quid, ſecundum omnia praecepta inchoatâ obedientiâ, & ſucceſſive. Gomar. (in loc.)—Balduin. Deodat. &c. Some interpret the words ſolely of inherent and perſonal Obedience, ††Pareus in Dub. p. 780. P. Martyr.Others take in that alſo which is by imputation.

I cannot deny the truth of what is here ſaid (as to the thing), but whether it be the proper interpretation of the Text, that I queſtion; I think not. My reaſons why I ſo think, are theſe;

(1.) The Apoſtle ſpeaking of that Obedience, or fulfilling of the Law, which was one of the great Ends of God in ſending his Son, it muſt be moſt proper here to underſtand that Obedience and that fulfilling of the Law which was firſt effected in the perſon of this Son, and then made over to Believers by imputation.

(2.) This Lawfulfilling coming in as the high product of the Love and Wiſdom of God, it may very probably be conjectured that if there be one fulfilling of the Law higher than another, the higheſt here muſt be taken; and therefore it muſt not be that which is but inchoate and imperfect, in us, but rather that which was compleat, full, perfect, in Chriſt.

(3.) Though the fulfilling of the Law be ſometimes taken p. 576in that lower ſenſe which hath been mentioned, yet the Law-righteouſneſs more uſually notes that exact, univerſal Obedience which the Law requires; which notion therefore we may the rather be induced here to follow.

(4.) The Interpretation given by theſe worthy perſons will not ſo well ſuit with what the Apoſtle is now upon; he is in ſhort ſumming up the grand benefits that Saints have by Chriſt, ſhewing how they are ſecured from Condemnation and reſtored to a ſtate of happineſs.

In order to which, he firſt ſets down the expiation of Sin, the ſatisfaction of God's Juſtice &c. which were done by Chriſt's Sacrifice or paſſive Obedience in dying: Then he goes on to that which was further to be done, the Holineſs of God and of his Law muſt be ſatisfied alſo, eternal Life muſt be merited now theſe muſt be done by Chriſt's active Obedience or fulfilling the Laws righteouſneſs; therefore that he adds, that the righteouſneſs of the Law &c. Wherefore we muſt here underſtand Chriſt's Obedience (as imputed), not our own as inherent (if that word be proper), otherwiſe we ſhall leave out one of the great benefits which we have by Chriſt (viz. that which reſults from his active Obedience), and one of the wayes wherein he did promote our ſalvation; whereas the Apoſtle deſigns to ſet down both diſtinctly.

Third Interpretation, the righteouſneſs of the Law is fulfilled in Saints perfectly, yet not perſonally, but imputatively.3. Thirdly, Others open it thus, the righteouſneſs of the Law is fulfilled in Believers perfectly, yet not perſonally, but imputatively. Their meaning is this, the Lord Jeſus in his own perſon whilſt he was here on earth did fully obey the Law, perfectly conforming to it in all its holy commands; now this his moſt perfect obedience to the Law is made over, reckoned, imputed to his members, as if they themſelves in their own perſons had perform'd it. The Laws righteouſneſs is not fulfilled in them formally, ſubjectively, inherently or perſonally; but legally (they being in Chriſt as their Head and Surety) and imputatively, ſo it is. This is the fulfilling which ſuits with the words, for 'tis ſaid that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us, not by us but in us; in us, (that is) not only for our ſake and for our good, but as Chriſt's Obedience is ours by imputation. If the former ſenſes be rejected this muſt be received; for ſince the Laws righteouſneſs muſt be fulfilled in the Saints, (otherwiſe what the Apoſtle here affirms would not be true), and ſince there are but two wayes wherein it can be fulfilled, either by themſelves or by ſome other; it neceſſarily follows, if they do not fulfil it the firſt way that the ſecond muſt take place; and ſo it muſt be fulfilled by Chriſt for them and his obedience be imputed p. 577to them. And this is that Expoſition of the words which our**&c. Obedientia Chriſti, quae in carne noſtrâ exhibita nobis imputatur, ut eo beneficio pro juſtis cenſeamur. Calvin. Quomodo juſtitia Chriſti in nobis impleta eſt per Chriſtum? Duplici nomine, 1. imputative, aliena juſtitia quae Chriſti eſt adeo que & noſtra &c. 2. Quod per Spiritum Chriſti regenerati, pro menſurâ Gratiae Dei vitam & juſtitiam eam exprimimus quam Lex Dei exigit.—Magis placet prior Sententia hoc loco. Muſcul. Vide Bezam in loc. Vorſtium in loc. Juſtificatio legis, quae requirit vel opera vel poenam, impleta eſt in Chriſto per ſe, & ut ſic dicam inhaeſivè, quia ipſe praeterquam quod paſſus eſt, etiam operatus eſt perfectiſſime; in nobis vero impleta eſt per fidem, & ut ſic dicam applicative, nam per fidem fit ut Chriſti juſtitia, noſtra quodamodo evadat. Rolloc. See Fulke and Cartwright againſt the Rhemiſts. Elton upon Rom. 8. p. 97. &c.Rom 8 PROTESTANT Divines (ſo far as imputation in general is concern'd) do commonly give: but about it many things are neceſſary to be ſpoken unto, both for the explaining and alſo for the vindicating of it (which therefore ſhall be done by and by).

Fourth Interpretation: The Law is fulfilled in us as Sin is remitted.4. Fourthly, the fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs (ſay ſome) is no more than the remiſſion of ſin. He that hath his ſins pardoned is a fulfiller of the Law; Chriſt by his death having procured for us, the remiſſion of all our ſins, upon that we are look'd upon by God as if we had done or kept the whole Law; (thus**Chriſtus ſuâ morte nobis acquiſivit remiſſionem omnium peccatorum, ac proinde effecit, ut habeamur pro iis qui perfectam Legi obedientiam praeſtiterint. In Paraphr. The righteouſneſs &c. quatenus Chriſtus ſuâ morte eis acquiſivit omnium peccatorum remiſſionem, quod perinde eſt ac ſi perfectam legi obedientiam praeſtitiſſent; aequipollent enim haec Nihil peccaviſſe, & perfectam legi obedientiam praeſtitiſſe, In Obſerv. Piſcator opens the words). And before him Ambroſe ſpeaks the ſame, Quomodo impletur in nobis juſtificatio Legis niſi cum datur remiſſio omnium peccatorum? how is the righteouſneſs of the Law fulfilled in us, unleſs it be in the remiſſion of all our ſins? To which we may add that of††Retract. l. 1. c. 19. Auſtine, Omnia mandata Dei facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit ignoſcitur; all the commands of God are deemed to be done, when that is pardoned which is not done (if it be good, or which ſhould not have been done if it be evil).

Two things I would ſay againſt this Interpretation:

(1.) It ſounds very harſh to ſay We fulfil the Law when God is pleaſed to pardon the violation of it; nay, the thing is not true: God's remitting the breach of the Law and our actual fulfilling of the duty's of the Law, are not aequipollent but diſtinct and different things. Upon remiſſion the Sinner is exempted from the Laws penalty, but he cannot upon that alone be ſaid to fulfil it: If the Prince be pleas'd to pardon the breaker of the Laws, will that amount to the making ſuch an one to be a keeper of the Laws? there's enough p. 578upon his pardon for non-punition, but nothing more.

(2.) In the juſtification of Sinners there is not only the remiſſion of ſin, but alſo the imputation of Chriſt's righteouſneſs; theſe are the two parts of juſtification and which take in the whole nature of it; 'tis not compleat in the one or in the other apart, but in both conjunct.

I know ſome very**Wotton. de reconc. pec. part. 1. l. 2. c. 3. &c. learned perſons make remiſſion of ſin to be the whole of juſtification; I humbly differ from them: When God juſtifies, he doth not only pardon and ſo look upon the Sinner as not guilty; but he doth alſo††Vide Zanch. ad Eph. c. 5. p. 249. (& quam plures alios). Uti Chriſtus nobis factus & foreign, ita ad ſalutem at que juſtificationem requiritur, praeter remiſſionem peccatorum etiam juſtitiae Chriſti imputatio, quâ vitae jus nobis addicitur. &c. Hoorneb. Socin. confut. l. 3. p. 658.Eph 5 impute Chriſt's righteouſneſs, upon which he looks upon him as poſitively righteous; (this will hereafter be made out more fully if God give leave). Thus it is in the juſtification or righteouſneſs of the Law; to the making up of which 'tis not enough only to be pardoned, and ſo not to be judg'd a breaker of the Law; but there muſt be the doing of what the Law enjoyns, otherwiſe its righteouſneſs is not fulfilled. 'Tis one thing to be‖‖Juſtus dicatur cui peccata omnia remittuntur juſtitiâ innocentiae, quia poſitâ hâc remiſſione innocens cenſetur &c. ſed non juſtitiâ obedientiae cui praemium vitae debetur, &c. Turretin. de Sat. Chriſti. p. 273. innocent (in the taking off of guilt), and another thing to be righteous in the way of poſitive obedience; both are neceſſary as to that which I am upon, and included in it. Not guilty is not a ſufficient plea or anſwer to the Laws demands; there muſt be ſomething, either in the Sinner himſelf or in his Surety, which may be look'd upon as a formal and actual obeying of it.

Thus I have given a fourfold explication of the fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs in the Saints. The third is that which ſeems to me to be the beſt; viz. this righteouſneſs of the Law is fulfilled in the Saints, as Chriſt for them in his own perſon did perfectly obey the Law, and as that his perfect obedience is imputed and reckoned to them, upon which 'tis theirs to …l intents as if they had ſo obeyed in their own perſons. But there being many difficulties about this, and it leading me to the main Truth which the words hold forth, I muſt endeavour further to open it.

Which I ſhall do in the diſcuſſing of theſe three Propoſitions,

Three Propoſitions to clear up the third Interpretation and the main Truth.1. That our Lord Chriſt was made under the Law.

2. That being made under the Law he fulfilled it.

3. That his fulfilling of the Law is imputed to Believers; ſo as that in him they fulfilled the Law alſo.

p. 5791. Propoſition Christ was made under the Law.1. Chriſt was made under the Law. The Apoſtle is expreſs in this, When the fulneſs of the time was come, God ſent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. (made under the Law (that is) made ſubject to the Law, ſo as that he was under the obligation thereof and bound in all things to conform to its righteouſneſs). And this ſubjection of Chriſt to the Law, did reſult partly from his Nature, partly from his Office: From his Nature, as he was Man and ſo a Creature (for his Manhood was a created thing); now every creature as ſuch is indiſpenſably ſubject to the Law of God, a Creature neceſſarily muſt be under the Law of his Creator and Soveraign: ſo far therefore as Chriſt was ſuch he was indiſpenſably obliged to the Law, ſo far his ſubjection was natural, and thereupon neceſſary. From his Office or that oeconomy and diſpenſation which he had ſubmitted unto as Mediator, Redeemer, Surety, &c. with reſpect to this he was to be ſubject too, yet in it his ſubjection was purely free and voluntary. 'Tis a**See Bodius on Eph. c. 5. p. 812. &c.Eph 5 nice Queſtion which ſome diſcuſs, Whether Chriſt's ſubjection to the Law did ariſe from the natural neceſſity of his being, as he was Man and a Creature; or whether it did ariſe only from that mediatory Office which he had ſubmitted to? I think (things being rightly ſtated) both may be taken in, both Nature and Office did require that Chriſt ſhould be ſubject to the Law (though**This opened in Turret in. de Sat. Chriſti. p. 277, 278. in different ways).

For the better underſtanding of Chriſt's being made under the Law I deſire you to take notice of four or five things:Five things to open the Propoſition. 1. Chriſt ſubject to the Law as Man.

1. This muſt be underſtood of him with reſpect to his humane Nature. This was the Nature which only was capable of ſubjection, Chriſt as man only could be obedient: As to his divine Nature he made the Law, ſo he was the Law-giver, and ſo he was in all acts of power and authority equal with the Father; 'twas ſolely in reſpect of his humane Nature that he was made under the Law, (which was part of that form of a Servant which he took upon him Phil. 2.7.). As he was God 'twas proper to him to command, as he was Man only 'twas proper to him to obey; in the former notion he was Lord of the Sabbath Matth. 12.8; in the latter he was bound to keep the Sabbath: Chriſt as man and becauſe man was ſubject, but then 'twas only as ſuch.

2. As Man in the ſtate of his humiliation.2. Chriſt, as being made under the Law, is to be conſidered not meerly as a Creature (upon which he was ſubject to it), but as a Creature in the ſtate of his humiliation and ſuretyſhip; during which ſtate only his ſubjection to the Law was to continue. For his humane Nature now in Heaven is a Creature, and yet there 'tis not (if we p. 580ſpeak ſtrictly) under the Law, for though Chriſt there doth materially the things which the Law requires (as to be holy, to love God &c.), yet he doth not do them formerly as acts of obedience to the Law, but as things which ſpring from the perfection of his nature and ſtate: therefore (I ſay) when we are ſpeaking of Chriſt's being ſubject to the Law, we muſt not conſider him only as Man but as Man in ſuch a way or ſtate, in the carrying on of ſuch an undertaking, which when he had effected his ſubjection was to ceaſe. Some ſay, that though the ſubjection which Chriſt was under in reference to his Office (as Mediator) be at an end, yet his ſubjection to the Law which was natural and did ariſe from his being a Creature, that yet remains: I anſwer, if by this natural ſubjection they mean only that which reſults from his Being, or that obligation which reſults from the intrinſick goodneſs of things, ſo we grant him even in Heaven to be under it; but if they mean that ſubjection or that obligation which relates to and reſults from an external Law, ſo we deny Chriſt there to be under it; in his glorified ſtate he doth the things which the Law commands, but not as or becauſe they are commanded by the Law.

3. He was principally ſubject to the Moral Law.3. The principal Law that Chriſt was made under and which he was principally obliged to fulfil, was the **Vide Bradſh. de Juſtif. c. 18.Moral Law. This was the Law which at firſt was made to Adam, which he brake and ſo entayl'd the curſe upon all his poſterity; therefore Chriſt (the ſerond Adam) was alſo made under this Law, that he might fulfil it and ſo reſtore man to his primitive happineſs. This was the Law which was the rule and ſtandard of righteouſneſs; wherefore if Chriſt will convey a righteouſneſs to the creature, he muſt be made under and fulfil this Law. He is ſaid to be a curſe for us; now that curſe doth mainly refer to the Moral Law, (though 'tis very true, by way of alluſion 'tis ſet forth by that which was proper to the judicial Law Gal. 3.13.): And he is alſo ſaid to redeem us from the Law, (that is) from the curſe of the Law; now 'tis the curſe annexed to the moral Law that he redeemed us from; therefore that was the Law which he was made under. This was the Law moſt excellent; if Chriſt would ſubmit to put himſelf under the obligation of a Law leſs exeellent, ſurely he would not refuſe to ſubmit to put himſelf under the obligation of this which was the moſt excellent Law. Eſpecially conſidering, how neceſſary this was for the good of Sinners; for ſince God ſtood upon the performance of this Law as the way wherein he would juſtifie, it was moſt neceſſary that Chriſt ſhould be ſubject to it and p. 581perform it, or elſe there would have been no juſtification. Had he been made only under the Ceremonial Law, than the benefits of his Obedience would have reached no further than that people who were concerned in that Law; and ſo the Jews would have had all and the poor Gentiles nothing: If Chriſt will redeem and ſave both, he muſt make good that Law which did equally oblige both; now that was the moral Law: Gal. 4.4.—&c. God ſent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we (Gentiles as well as Jews) might receive the adoption of Sons. Chriſt came not to ſave this or that nation or people, but mankind; wherefore he muſt be ſubject unto and fulfil that Law (in order thereunto), in which not any particular people but all mankind were concern'd; which (I ſay) was the Moral Law.

4. Over and above the Moral Law Chriſt was ſubject to other Laws.4. Yet beſides this general Law which concern'd all mankind (which therefore the Saviour of mankind ſubjected himſelf unto), there were other **Bradſh. of Juſtif. c. 19.particular and ſpecial Laws to whoſe obligation he ſubmitted, and unto which he was obedient. As he was a man, he was ſubject to the Moral Law; as he was of the ſeed of Abraham, of the ſtock of Iſrael, ſo he was ſubject to the Ceremonial Law; as he was Mediator, there were ſome particular and poſitive Laws laid upon him; to which he was ſubject alſo. In obedience to the Ceremonial Law he was circumciſed, Luk. 2.21. preſented in the Temple (with the uſual offering of the poor and mean) Luk. 2.22, kept the Paſſeover Matth. 26.17. (and the like). In obedience to the ſpecial Laws laid upon him as Mediator (the chiefeſt of which was that he ſhould ſo and ſo ſuffer, yea, lay down his life), he did according to the Will of his Father; therefore he's ſaid to be [obedient to death], even the death of the croſs Phil. 2.8. and to learn obedience by the things be ſuffered Heb. 5.7. and Joh. 10.18. No man taketh it (his life he ſpeaks of) from me, but I lay it down of my ſelf; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again: [this commandme] have I received of the Father: (ſo Joh. 14.31.) We commonly diſtinguiſh, between the Moral Law (under which as being general Chriſt was) and that ſpecial Law which was laid upon him as Mediator: but**Burg. of Juſtif. p. 2. p. 396. &c. Bodius on the Epheſ. p. 386, 387. ſome I find do not very well approve of this diſtinction; their reaſon is, becauſe it ſeems to aſſert that ſomething was impos'd upon Chriſt by the latter Law; unto which he was not oblig'd by the former; which (ſay they) was not ſo. For there was nothing enjoyn'd in the mediatory and poſitive Law, unto which Chriſt was not oblig'd by the Moral p. 582Law; there was indeed in it a more particular application and determination of Chriſt's duty in his circumſtances, but the thing it ſelf was pre-enjoyn'd and he pre-engag'd thereunto from the Moral Law: (but this I will not concern my ſelf about). He that would ſee a particular draught of Chriſt's obedience to the ſeveral Laws which he was made under, and the ſeveral capacities in which he all-along obey'd, may find it done to his hand by others largely and diſtinctly; (as particularly by Zanchy on Phil. 2.8. p. 114. &c.).

5. His Obedience imputable to us and meritorious for us.5. Though Chriſt was thus made under the Law, and ſo obliged to keep it, yet this notwithſtanding, his obedience thereunto was meritorious for us and imputable to us. For this is uſually objected by the SOCINIAN **Quo circa nec pro aliis magis quam quilibet alius homo, legem divinam conſervando ſatisfacere potuit, quippe qui ipſe eam ſervare omnino deberet. Socin. de Servat. p. 3. c. 5. Againſt him ſee Calov. Socin. proflig. Sect. 5. Controv. 1. pag. 642.Oppoſers of the imputation and merit of his Obedience; for if Chriſt (ſay they) was ſubject to the Law (as he was), and ſo bound for himſelf to do what he did, how can his obedience be made over to others or merit for others? for debitum tollit meritum.

For anſwer to this ſeveral things are ſaid, but I'le inſtance only in three:

1. In the buſineſs before us Chriſt is not to be conſidered only as Man, but as God-man. Had he obey'd as meer Man his Obedience could not have been meritorious, for ſo all would have been but a due debt and for himſelf; but he obeying who was**Obediens factus fuit ad mortem Patri, non neceſſum id habuit natura ſed oeconomia noſtrae redemptionis. Ut etiam meriti vis non naturae humanae quà natura, ſed quà Deo unita, oſt adſcribenda. Stegman. Diſp. 23. p. 266. God-man ſo it became meritorious for others. His obedience and ſubjection was indeed terminated in his Humane Nature, but that muſt not be abſtracted from his Divine (both being now united in one perſon); which Ʋnion though it did not make Chriſt incapable of obeying, yet it did put a ſingular virtue and worth and merit into his obeying. And as to his obeying for himſelf, take the explication of that in the words of a††Mr. Perkins on Gal. 4 4. p. 274.Gal 4:4 Reverend Divine; It is, (ſaith he) alledged that Chriſt as Man fulfill'd the Law for himſelf, and therefore not for us: Anſw. The fleſh or manhood of Chriſt conſidered by it-ſelf, apart from the Godhead of the Son, is a creature that owes homage unto God: yet if it be conſidered as it is received into the unity of the ſecond perſon, and is become a part thereof; it is exempted from the common condition of all other men, and is not bound to perform ſubjection as all men are; for if the Son of Man be Lord of the Sabbath then alſo is he Lord of the whole Law.

p. 583**Quicun que proſe & ſuo loco vel Adae vel Abrahae factus eſt filius, is quoque pro ſe & ſuo nomine ad Legem implendam tenebatur, qui vero non pro ſe ſed pro aliis vel homo fieri vel Iſrâelita naſci voluit, is quo que non pro ſe ſed pro aliis ad legem quamlibet implendam obligatus eſt. At Chriſtus &c. Turret. de Sat. p. 276. Vide Polanum in Dan. 9. p. 196. Bodium on Epheſ. p. 811, 812.—Hoorneb. Socin. confut. l. 3. p. 627. Quamvis humana natura, ut creatura quaevis, Deo ſublex obſervantiam debuit, attamen quia nec eam aſſumere tenebatur, ne que ſimplicis creaturae obedientia fuit, ſed foreign, ideo pro quibus hoc & iſtud factum, quidni & pro iiſdem ſatisfeciſſe dicatur?Dan 92. Though Chriſt when he had ſubmitted to aſſume mans Nature was bound to keep the Law, yet his keeping thereof was in effect free and voluntary (and ſo imputable and meritorious), inaſmuch as he for the ſake of man freely conſented to the taking of that Nature, without which he had not been under any obligation to the Law. When he was man he was bound to obey, but he was not at all (but by his own conſent) bound to be man; and therefore his Obedience was free, becauſe his Incarnation was free and without any obligation.††Mr. Baxt. Aphor. p. 58. A worthy perſon thus expreſſes it, Even Chriſt's Obedience to the Moral Law was not his duty, till he voluntarily undertook it: it being therefore upon his conſent and choice, and not due before conſent, muſt needs be meritorious. And though when he was once a Servant he was bound to do the work of a Servant, yet when he voluntarily put himſelf in the ſtate of a Servant, and under the Law, not for his own ſake, but for ours, his work is never the leſs meritorious. As 'tis with a Surety, he having engag'd with and for the debtor is thereby bound to pay the debt; yet he payes it freely, inaſmuch as 'twas his own free act to bring himſelf under ſuch an obligation; and ſo 'twas here in what Chriſt did.

3. 'Tis further added,**Burg. of Juſtif. p. 2. pag. 409. That though Chriſt conſidered ſimply and abſolutely, as man, might be obliged by the Law, yet as our Surety and undertaking for us in a fide-juſſorial manner, ſo his obligation was wholly voluntary and free: My Author goes on and opens himſelf thus; Suppoſe Chriſt to be made a Man, and thereby abſolutely obliged to fulfil the Law for himſelf, yet that he ſhould enter into agreement with the Father, to obey it as a Surety, for ſuch a term of years upon earth, thereby to procure Salvation for a Sinner undone otherwiſe; this was wholly gracious and voluntary, and Chriſt was not obliged to it as Man. Upon the whole, théſe three things being well weighed the Objection is ſufficiently anſwered; for ſuppoſe that Chriſt in ſuch a ſenſe was bound to keep the Law, yet there were other reſpects (peculiar to his Perſon and Obedience) which made it ſo voluntary and for us, as that it may truly be look'd upon as meritorious and imputable. So much of the firſt Propoſition.

p. 5842. Propoſition. Chriſt being made under the Law fulfilled it.2. The Second is this, Chriſt being thus made under the Law he fulfilled it: Matth. 3.15.—thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteouſneſs; Matth. 5.17, 18. Think not that I am come to deſtroy the Law or the Prophets; I am not come to deſtroy but to fulfil: For verily I ſay unto you, till heaven and earth paſs, one iota or one tittle ſhall in no wiſe paſs from the Law, till all be fulfilled; Rom. 10.4. Chriſt is the end of the Law for righteouſneſs to every one that believeth; (the end of the Law, viz. as the Law in him receiv'd its full and final accompliſhment). Two things (as you have heard) were contain'd in its righteouſneſs, the duty it commanded, the penalty it threatned; in both reſpects Chriſt fulfilled it: For in his active Obedience he did the former, and in his paſſive Obedience he underwent the latter. The preceptive & mandatory part of the Law he fulfilled actively, both as he ſhun'd whatever evil that prohibited, and alſo as he did whatever good that enjoyned: he was originally and actually holy, acted all along in exact and univerſal conformity to the Laws commands; ſo he fulfill'd it actively: Joh. 8.46. 2 Cor. 5.21. 1 Pet. 2.22. 1 Pet. 1.19. Acts 3.14. Dan. 9.24. 1 Joh. 2.2. Heb. 7.26. The penal and minatory part he fulfill'd paſſively, by his bearing of its curſe when he dy'd upon the Croſs. With reſpect to both Chriſt's Obedience was ſo full and perfect, ſo adaequate to all the Laws demands, that it could not but ſay I have enough, I am fully ſatisfied, I can ask no more.

And this fulfilling of the Law was the foundation upon which his Satisfaction and Merit was built; without which he could neither have ſatisfied, nor merited. O ſaith God, Son! if thou wilt ſatisfie me, there's my holy and juſt Law ſatisfie it, unleſs that be ſatised I cannot be ſatisfied; by its violation I was offended, by its fulfilling I muſt be appeas'd: Well! Chriſt accepts of the terms, Lo (ſaith he) I come, in the volume of the book it is written of me: I delight to do thy Will, O my God: yea, thy Law is within my heart, Pſal. 40.7, 8. And what he undertook he made good; he went ſo far that neither the righteous God nor the righteous Law could tax him with any defect. If it had not been thus, though he had obey'd never ſo much for us, though his Obedience had been never ſo free and voluntary, yet it would not have been either ſatisfactory or meritorious; for all ſatisfaction and merit are founded upon the fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs. The gracious God, is pleas'd to accept of an imperfect Obedience (if ſincere) from us, but the juſt God would have a perfect Obedience for us; he can accept p. 585of a mite from us, but from our Surety he would have the whole debt paid down.

Whether Chriſt's active fulfilling of the Law as conſidered in itſelf, in its intrinſick worth and value, could properly and formally merit of God (as Some**Opera Chriſti abſolute conſiderata meriti propriè dicti rationem habent; non reſpectu promiſſionis alicujus ſed inſitâ ſuâ vi, tanquam opera foreign abſolutè indebito. Eadem autem benignâ promiſſione Dei niti, quatenus meritum illud ad nos refertur, omnio concedimus. Eſſen. Tri. Crucis. p. 294. hold); or whether it did merit reſpect being had to God's Ordination, Covenant and Promiſe (as††Equidem fateor, ſi quis ſimpliciter & per ſe Chriſtum opponere vellet judicio Dei, non fore merito locum, quia non reperiretur in homine dignitas quae poſſit Deum promereri. Calvin. Inſtit. l. 2. c. 17. ſect. 1. Vide Chamier. tom. 3. l. 9. c. 1. ſect. 7. Nec aliter Chriſti meritum accipimus, quàm quòd legi pleniſſime ſatisfecit, non ſolius obedientiae inſitâ vi ac dignitate ad divini juris rigorem appensâ,—ſed ad legem ſatisfactoriae, ſic meritus ex divinâ promiſſione fuit, non abſ que eâ. Meritum ad foedus non extra illud aeſtimatur, non ad merum Dei jus, quaſi ullâ cujuſquam actione in rationem debiti trahi poſſet. Hoornb. Socin▪ conf. p. 627. Others); is a nicety that I have no mind to engage in: that was the way wherein he merited (which is the thing that I only deſign to ſpeak unto).

3. Propoſition: Chriſt's Obedience is imputed and made over to Believers.3. The third Propoſition; Chriſt having thus fulfilled the Law this his Obedience is made over and imputed to Believers. For otherwiſe how doth the Apoſtle here ſay, that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled [in us]? This is that imputed righteouſneſs which is ſo often ſpoken of in that one Chapter of Rom. 4; in reference to this Chriſt is ſaid to be made righteouſneſs to us, 1 Cor. 1.30. to be the Lord our righteouſneſs, Jerem. 23.6. and we are ſaid to be the righteouſneſs of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21; to be accepted in him, Epheſ. 1.6; to be preſented to God as not having ſpot or wrinkle, or any ſuch thing, Eph. 5.27. by his Obedience to be made righteous, Rom. 5.19. Many other Scriptures might be cited which hold forth this great Evangelical Truth, and alſo theſe that I have cited might be much enlarged upon; but the difficulty lying not ſo much in the general, as in the particular ſtating and explication of it (where indeed there is enough of difficulty), therefore I ſhall rather direct my ſelf to that.

Two Queſtions raiſed and anſwered.And here two weighty Queſtions muſt be diſcuſſed;

1. Whether Chriſt's active fulfilling the Law, or his active (as well as his paſſive) Obedience be imputed to Believers?

2. In what ſenſe may it be ſaid to be imputed to them?

My Text and the Subject which I am upon from it, lay a neceſſity upon me of ſpeaking ſomething to theſe Points, otherwiſe I p. 586ſhould moſt gladly have paſſed them by: 'Tis much againſt my ſpirit (God knows) to revive and keep up thoſe Controverſies, which I could wiſh with all my ſoul had never been ſtarted, but being ſtarted that they might now be buried: And (further) it grieves me exceedingly, to meddle in thoſe matters wherein I muſt unavoidably differ from ſome or other of thoſe who for their Piety and Learning are of great eminency and repute in the Church of God, and for whoſe names and perſons I have a very high veneration. Yet for all this, I dare not (to pleaſe my ſelf and to avoid what is ingrateful to me) go out of my way; 'Tis meerly ſenſe of duty (as I apprehend it) which makes me to engage in this unwelcome province. Theſe Controverſies, as they are manag'd by ſome in their utmoſt latitude, are grown to a great vaſtneſs; but it would be highly inconvenient for me (now I am upon the cloſe of this work, which is already grown above its due proportion,) to be prolixe about them: I ſhall contract my ſelf therefore, and only in ſhort ſpeak to that which I conceive is abſolutely neceſſary for the clearing up of the things in queſtion.

Of the Firſt: Whether Chriſts active fulfilling the Law, or his Active Obedience be imputed to Believers?As to the firſt queſtion, Whether Chriſt's active fulfilling the Law, or whether his active as well as his paſſive Obedience be imputed to Believers? I ſhall not ſpend any time about the Terms, in enquiring whether they be proper or not; or whether the things be rightly diſtinguiſhed or not, (ſince there was action in Chriſt's paſſive Obedience, and paſſion in his active); all underſtand the thing which we intend in the uſe of the words, therefore without any further debate I'le take them as they are commonly uſed and underſtood.

In anſwer to this Queſtion I find Four Opinious about it:

1. That neither the active, nor the paſſive Obedience of Chriſt, are properly and really imputed to Believers.

2. That the paſſive Obedience of Chriſt only is imputed.

3. That both active and paſſive are imputed.

4. That the active Obedience of Chriſt is imputed as well as the paſſive, but not in the ſame way; not quatenus active but as it was a part of Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merit.

For thoſe who eſpouſe the firſt Opinion, SOCINIANS and PAPISTS, I will not at preſent meddle with them: One of their great Arguments againſt the imputation of Chriſt's Obedience (particularly his Active Obedience about which only I would contend), viz. that he being a Creature was under an Obligation to obey, that he obeying for himſelf his Obedience could not be imputed to p. 587others; this Argument (I ſay) hath been already anſwered: And as to the other Arguments which they uſe, they will fall in with thoſe which ſhall be preſently ſpoken unto, as they are urged by others (who yet are far from being Socinians or Papiſts) againſt the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience.

Of the Second Opinion: Chriſt's paſſive Obedience only imputed.Secondly, there are Others (much more orthodox and ſound in the Faith than the former) who though they hold the imputation of Chriſt's Obedience, yet they limit that imputation to his paſſive Obedience; aſſerting that that only is imputed to Believers. They deny not but that his active Obedience was neceſſary for his Perſon and Office, for the qualifying of him for his Mediatorſhip; but that it is formally imputed to them who believe, that they deny: They ſay, God did accept of the Death and Sufferings of his Son as a full ſatisfaction for his violated Law; that the righteouſneſs thereof is fulfilled by his bearing its penalty; that upon the alone bearing of that penalty Sin is remitted and the Sinner compleatly juſtified; that this paſſive Obedience is ſufficient to all intents and purpoſes (for Satisfaction and Merit too) without any further imputation of his active Obedience; ſo that if the Sinner do but perform the Conditions on his part, of believing and repenting, in Chriſt's death alone there's every way enough for him. The Grounds they go upon in the defence of this Opinion, are many; One is, that when the Scripture ſpeaks of reconciliation with God, remiſſion of ſin, juſtification &c. ſtill it lays the ſtreſs of all upon Chriſt's paſſive Obedience, or upon his death and blood: ſo Matth. 20.28. Matth. 26.28. Joh. 6.51, &c. Acts 20.28. Rom. 3.25.—5.9. Gal. 3.13. Eph. 1.7.—2.13. &c. Col. 1.20, 21, 22. 1 Pet. 1.19. Heb. 9.12. Heb. 10.14. Beſides this they prove it by ſeveral Reaſons, which are chiefly drawn from the ſufficiency of Chriſt's paſſive Obedience for the Sinners relief in his loſt condition, and alſo from the great difficulties, if not abſurdities (as they judge) which attend the other Opinion for the imputation of his active Obedience. This Opinion hath the more prevailed ſince the firſt broaching of it (which was not very long ago, for 'twas not made matter of Controverſie till theſe latter Ages of the Church), not only from the ſtrength and weightineſs of the Arguments with which 'tis back'd (which cannot be deny'd), but alſo from the Aſſertors of it; they being many, and ſome of them perſons (deſervedly) of very great reputation in the Church of Chriſt; (ſuch as PISCATOR, PAREƲS, SCƲLTETƲS, CAPELLƲS, CAMERO, FORBES, with divers others).

p. 588Of the third Opinion: both active and paſſive Obedience imputed.The third Opinion is, that Chriſt's whole Obedience, active as well as paſſive, is imputed to us: his obeying the Law to the full, perfect conforming to its commands, his doing as well as his dying Obedience, is (ſay theſe) made over and reckoned to Believers in order to their Juſtification and Salvation. This alſo is aſſerted by ſeveral**Cum Chriſtus deſcenderit de Coelis, omnia que , egerit & paſſus ſit propter nos homines, & propter noſtram ſalutem (nobis enim natus eſt, nobis vixit, pro nobis factus eſt ſub lege, ut eos qui ſub lege erant redimeret) idcirco utra que pars obedientiae Chriſti, i. e. tota ejus obedientia noſtra facta eſt, ceſſit que in ſalutem noſtram. Zanch. in Phil. c. 2.8. p. 115. See Calvin. Inſtit. l. 2. c. 16. ſect. 5. This way goes Junius in theſ. de Juſtif. Polanus in Syntag. l. 6. c. 36. & in Comment, in Dan. p. 186. &c. Brocmand. de Servat. Jeſu Chriſto Art. 16. Sect. 12. Qu. 4. Gomarus de Juſtif. (againſt Kargius). Rivet againſt Camero. Lutius againſt Piſcator and Gataker. Downeham of Juſtif. l. 1. c. 4. p. 24. &c. Burgeſſe of Juſtif. 2. part Serm. 34. p. 338.Phil 2:8 Divines of great note; and that not only by ſome of them by the by foreign, but alſo by others who do largely inſiſt upon the proof and making of it good, againſt thoſe who think otherwiſe.

The Reaſons upon which they ground this Opinion, are ſuch as theſe:

1. Arg. for the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience.1. As the diſobedience of the firſt Adam, in which he brake the Law, is imputed to men upon which they become guilty; ſo the Obedience of Chriſt the ſecond Adam, even that in which he kept the Law, muſt be imputed alſo to them that thereby they may be made righteous: For their guilt and righteouſneſs muſt not only be convey'd in the ſame way or manner, viz. by imputation; but theſe (being oppoſites) muſt proceed from like oppoſite Cauſes; and therefore if their guilt ariſes from Adams breach of the Law (which is imputed to them), anſwerably their righteouſneſs muſt ariſe from Chriſt's Obedience to the Law, which therefore muſt alſo be imputed to them. So the Apoſtle draws the parallel or compariſon Rom. 5.19. As by one mans diſobedience many were made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one ſhall many be made righteous. Where obſerve,

(1.) He ſpeak of Chriſt's Obedience in the general; [by the obedience of one &c.]; wherefore to limit this to one branch of his Obedience (his paſſive obedience, as though by it alone Sinners were made righteous), is neither ſafe nor warrantable.

(2.) If we will proceed in that way, ſo as to ſingle out this or that part of Chriſt's Obedience and aſcribe righteouſneſs to it, then the Antitheſis will carry it for his active rather than for his paſſive Obedience: for that being the Obedience which ſtands in direct oppoſition to Adams diſobedience, it muſt, by the rules of Oppoſition, moſt properly here p. 589be underſtood.

(3.) The Apoſtle makes the imputation of both to run parallel, according to the acts and effects which are proper to each; As by the diſobedience of one many were made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one ſhall many be made righteous: So that as the one act is imputed for guilt, ſo the other is imputed for righteouſneſs; and as in the one perſon (he being a publick perſon and Head) we broke the Law, ſo in the other (he being a publick perſon and Head too) we perform the Law.

If it be ſaid, that Adams diſobedience did not lie in the tranſgreſſion of the Moral Law, but only of that particular, poſitive Law which God gave him of not eating of the tree of knowledge; and ſo that Chriſt's Obedience did not lie in the keeping of the Moral Law, but in his obeying of that poſitive Law which God laid upon him (namely of laying down his life); which if ſo, then the Text proves nothing of that for which 'tis alledged but rather the quite contrary: I anſwer, though 'tis very true that in Adams diſobedience, immediately and proximately there was only the tranſgreſſing of that poſitive Law, yet in the tranſgreſſing thereof there was virtually and collaterally the breach of the whole Moral Law, (all this Law being**In hâc lege Adae datâ omnia praecepta condita recognoſcimus, quae poſteà pullulaverunt data per Moſen &c.—Igitur hâc generali & primordiali Dei Lege,—omnia praecepta Legis poſterioris ſpecialiter indita fuiſſe cognoſcimus, quae ſuis temporibus edita germinaverunt. Tertull. adv. Jud. c. 2.Judg 2 ſumm'd up in and guarded by that Lex primordialis as Tertullian calls it). The Argument then from the compariſon holds good; as Adam violating the Moral Law his active diſobedience is imputed for guilt; ſo our Lord Jeſus obeying the Moral Law his active obedience thereunto is imputed for righteouſneſs (which is the thing to be proved).

2. That Obedience of Chriſt muſt be imputed without the imputation of which the righteouſneſs of the Law is not, 2. Arg.or could not be fulfilled in believers: (this cannot be deny'd, for 'tis brought in here expreſly as the end of God's ſending his Son, that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us). Now I aſſume, but without the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience, the Laws righteouſneſs is not and could not be fulfilled in believers, ergo. This I prove from what hath been already ſaid; the Laws righteouſneſs conſiſts in two things,

(1.) in its requiring perfect conformity to its Commands:

(2.) in its demanding Satisfaction, or the undergoing of its penalty upon the violation of it: This being ſo, how can the Laws righteouſneſs be fulfilled in Saints either by the active or by the paſſive Obedience of Chriſt apart and alone? put them both together and the p. 590thing is done, there is that in both which is fully adaequate to the Laws demands; but divide them, and it is not ſo.

The paſſive Obedience ſatisfies as to the Laws penalty and ſecures from the Laws curſe, but where's our performing of the Duty which the Law requires if the active Obedience be not imputed alſo? And 'tis conceived, that this righteouſneſs of the Law doth mainly and primarily refer to the preceptive and mandatory part of the Law, and but ſecondarily to the penal and minatory part of the Law: For in all Laws (Civil or Sacred.) that which is firſt intended in them is active Obedience; the bearing the penalty is annexed but to further and ſecure that: ſo that he who only bears the penalty doth not anſwer the firſt end and the main intention of the Law. Whence I infer, ſince the righteouſneſs of the Law is fulfilled in believers (as the Apoſtle here ſaith it is), that therefore the commanding part of the Law muſt be fulfilled in them, (that being the main branch of its righteouſneſs and that which is principally deſigned by it); but that cannot be, unleſs the active Obedience of Chriſt be imputed to them. This Argument (with ſubmiſſion to better judgments) is to me of great weight. And I deſire the words may be well obſerved; 'tis not ſaid that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be endured, ſuffered, or undergone by us, as if it did relate to the penalty of the Law; but that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be filfilled in us, which ſurely moſt properly muſt relate to the doing part of the Law: doth he**Qui maledictionem legis perpetitur, per hoc non implet mandata legis, aut operatur juſtitiam &c. Wegelin. de Obed. Chriſti. fulfil who ſuffers? that's very harſh. To ſay that one of the things that have been ſpoken of was or is ſufficient, viz. the undergoing of the puniſhment without the doing of the duty, and that therefore the imputation of Chriſt's death and ſufferings is enough: I ſay for any to aſſert this, they do (in my thoughts) offer ſome violence to the Text in hand, which tells us the righteouſneſs, the whole righteouſneſs of the Law was to be and is fulfilled in believers.

3. 'Tis urged thirdly,3. Arg. 'tis neceſſary not only in reſpect of the Law, but of our ſelves alſo, that Chriſt's active Obedience ſhould be imputed, inaſmuch as our righteouſneſs and title to eternal life do indiſpenſably depend upon it. The Law is the meaſure and ſtandard of righteouſneſs; let that be fulfilled and a perſon is righteous, otherwiſe not; without this none can ſtand before the great God as being ſuch. Wel then, the Sinner himſelf being altogether unable thus to fulfil the Law thereby to be made righteous, Chriſt's fulfilling of it muſt be imputed to him in order to righteouſneſs. Guilt and righteouſneſs do both carry in them a reference to the holy p. 591Law; when that is broken, 'tis guilt; when that is kept, 'tis righteouſneſs: therefore as, ſuppoſing that Law had not been tranſgreſs'd, we had not been guilty, ſo unleſs that Law be fully conform'd to, we cannot be**Deut 6.25.Deut 6:25 righteous. Now where ſhall we find this full conformity to the Law but in Chriſt? and what will that in Chriſt avail us if it be not imputed and made over to us? So as to eternal Life, unto which without fulfilling the Law we can have no claim or title: For the old Law-condition or Covenant being yet in force, Hoc fac & vives, do and live, (Levit. 18.5. Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.12. Luk. 10.28); unleſs this Condition be performed we cannot hope for life. True indeed, under the Covenant of Grace God accepts of what is done by the Surety, and he doth not exact of the Sinner in his own perſon the perfect obeying of the Law as the condition of life, but yet he will have the thing done either by or for the Sinner, either by himſelf or by his Surety, or elſe no life: doth not this then evince the neceſſity of the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience?

But 'tis queried, Was not Chriſt's paſſive obedience, without the active, ſufficient for both of theſe? for righteouſneſs and for life? To which they of this Opinion anſwer, No; they ſay upon Chriſt's death and ſuffering we are freed from guilt, but upon that (abſtractly from his active obeying of the Law) we are not ſtrictly and poſitively made righteous: So alſo, upon his death and ſuffering (they ſay) we are ſaved from wrath and Hell, but yet upon that alone we are not entitled to Heaven: they grant in Chriſt's death a fulneſs and ſufficiency of Satisfaction, but as to merit for that they muſt take in the holineſs and obedience of his life. I do but recite, not undertaking (at preſent) to defend what is here aſſerted: only let me cloſe this Head with one thing which (to me) is obſervable. Our Lord being both to do and to ſuffer, to obey actively and paſſively (that he might fully anſwer the Laws demands for the juſtification and ſalvation of Sinners); 'tis conſiderable how the New Teſtament, in two eminent places, ſpeaks diſtinctly to both theſe parts of his Obedience, in their diſtinct reference to both the parts of the Law under the old Teſtament, and in their diſtinct influence upon the Sinners good. Gal. 3.13. Chriſt hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, being made a curſe for us; for it is written, Curſed is every one &c. or as 'tis Verſ. 10. Curſed is every one that continueth not in all things &c.—here is Chriſt's paſſive Obedience (with reſpect to the old curſe or penal part of the Law here mentioned), and the benefit which we reap thereby viz. deliverance p. 592from the Laws curſe. That's one place; the other is Rom. 10.5. Chriſt is the end of the Law for righteouſneſs to every one that believeth: for Moſes deſcribeth the righteouſneſs which is of the Law, that the man which doth theſe things ſhall live by them: here is Chriſt's active Obedience (with reſpect to the mandatory part or doing righteouſneſs of the Law here mentioned alſo,) and the imputation and benefit of this to believers viz. righteouſneſs and life: Chriſt is the end of the Law for righteouſneſs, (that is, to convey that righteouſneſs which the Law could not, or to perform the Law in order to righteouſneſs which the Sinner could not); take it as you will, it muſt have reference to the Moral Law and to the preceptive part thereof, for ſo the Apoſtle opens it in that which follows Verſ. 5. Now Chriſt's active Obedience thereunto is imputed to believers, otherwiſe why is it ſaid that he is the end of the Law for righteouſneſs to every one that believeth? All that I drive at is

(1.) That the imputation of the paſſive obedience in Gal. 3.13. muſt not juſtle out the imputation of the active obedience in Rom. 10.5.

(2.) That as the imputation of the one is neceſſary to free from the Laws curſe, ſo the imputation of the other is neceſſary for the having of righteouſneſs and life.

4. If Chriſt actively fulfilled the Law for us then his active fulfilling thereof muſt be imputed to us,4. Arg. but ſo he did, ergo. The Conſequence I judge to be good and ſtrong; for ſurely whatever Chriſt did on our behalf, in our ſtead, as deſigning and aiming at our good as his main end, that muſt needs be imputed to us; otherwiſe he and we too might loſe that which he principally deſigned in his Obedience (which is not to be imagined). As to the Aſſumption that Chriſt actively fulfilled the Law for us, that is generally aſſerted and defended by Divines againſt SOCINIANS and Others: For whereas theſe affirm, that Chriſt fulfilled the Law for himſelf (he as a Creature being under the obligation of it), they prove the contrary (of which before); ſhewing, that Chriſt was not, in that way wherein he fulfilled the Law, at all obliged ſo to fulfil it for himſelf; but that all was done by him purely upon our account: he obey'd not meerly as a Subject but as a Surety therefore his Obedience muſt be for us, and ſo imputable and imputed to us. And whereas others affirm, that Chriſt actively fulfilled the Law that he might thereby be fitted and qualified for his Mediatory Office, two things are anſwered:

(1.) The Scripture, when it ſpeaks of Chriſt's ſubjection to the Law and accompliſhment of it, doth not lay it upon this end or upon what refers to Chriſt himſelf, p. 593but upon that which refers to us (as the proper end thereof): He was the end of the Law for righteouſneſs to them that believe;—&c. made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of Sons.

(2.) They ſay, that Chriſt's fitneſs for his Mediatory Office did reſult from his Perſon, from the perſonal Ʋnion of the Divine and Humane Natures in him, rather than from his active Obedience to the Law; for elſe he could not have been look'd upon as one fit to be a Mediator till he had finiſhed his whole Obedience to the Law; whereas from the firſt inſtant of the perſonal Ʋnion he was fit for that Work and Office.

'Twas fit, nay neceſſary, that Chriſt the Mediator ſhould conform to the Law; but theſe are two different things, what was fit for the Mediator to do and what muſt fit him to be the Mediator. Theſe Ends therefore reſpecting Chriſt himſelf being removed, it follows that it was wholly for us that he fulfilled the Law: whence then I infer that that muſt be imputed to us, otherwiſe the end of it would not be attained; for without the imputation of it we ſhould neither be the perſons deſigned in it nor profited by it. To prevent miſtakes and to give this Argument its full ſtrength, I would ſtate it thus: Whatever Chriſt did that we were obliged to do and which was to be our righteouſneſs before God, that certainly muſt be imputed to us; I do not ſay that all which Chriſt did is ſtrictly and properly imputed to us, but whatever he did if we were bound to do it, and if the doing of that was to be our righteouſneſs, that muſt be imputed (or elſe we are in a ſad caſe). He was incarnate for us yet that is not formally imputed, why? becauſe Sinners were not under any obligation to any ſuch thing; ſo I might inſtance in his working of Miracles, Interceſſion &c. But now if our Lord will be pleas'd to put himſelf under the Law and to fulfil the Law, that muſt be made over to us becauſe that was a thing which we our ſelves (according to the capacity of Creatures) were bound unto, and this was to be our righteouſneſs before God: what is ſo circumſtantiated, muſt be imputed; therefore this being taken in the Argument is good.

Several other Arguments are produc'd for the imputation of the active as well as of the paſſive Obedience: As that both together make moſt for the**See Bodius in Eph. p. 796.— glory of Chriſt, and for the eaſe and††Ne que conſcientias pacaret aliqua juſtitiae portio; ſed perpetuò illas trepidare neceſſe eſſet, niſi firmiter perſuaſae forent totam juſtitiam Legis ſibi imputari. Polan. in Dan. p. 187. comfort of burdened Souls: That 'tis a mighty loſs for Chriſtians to loſe Chriſt's active Obedience; and why ſhould it be the active only p. 594or the paſſive only if they may have both? quidni utra que (ſaith Pareus himſelf)? can we have too much of Chriſt? is not all of him precious? and do not we need all? Surely the**Certè tutiùs ibit ille, qui plus Chriſto ad majorem gloriam aſcribit quod in eo quaerat, quàm qui ei quicquam adimit. Et qui totam Saivatoris & Sponſoris noſtri Obedientiam Legi divinae praeſtitam ampléctitur, quam qui praecipuam ejus partem pro juſtitiâ coram Deo ſibi imputari non credit. Wegelin. Diſp. de Obed. Chriſti. ſafeſt way is to take-in as much of him as ever we warrantably may. They (who go this way) alſo urge the Conſent of the Reformed Churches, the Suffrages of ſeveral famous Divines as concurring with them; that their Opinion hath the advantage of being judg'd the more antient and Orthodox, (which that excellent perſon††Noram probe, ſententiam priorem antiquiorem & Orthodoxam magis paſſim audire. Sed & re apud me accuratius. perpensâ penitiuſ que perſpectâ, ſuo merito ea id audire viſa eſt. In Praefat. ad Tract. de Juſtif. p. 6. Mr. Bradſhaw, though he ſomewhat diſſents about the thing, doth ingeniouſly confeſs). But theſe things I ſhall paſs over; if the foregoing Arguments will not convince and ſatisfie I ſhall hope for leſs from theſe. (So much for this third Opinion).

Fourth Opinion: Chriſt's active Obedience imputed as a part of his Satisfaction.4. There is a Fourth; Say ſome the**Bradſhaw de Juſtif. in Praefat. p. 10. active as well as the paſſive Obedience of Chriſt is imputed, yet not in the ſenſe of the promoters of the former Opinion, but only thus as††Thus Grotius de Sat. c. 6. p. 89. Bradſhaw de Juſtif. c. 18. ſect. 5, 6. Mr. Baxters Aphor. p. 54. Great Propit. p. 92, 93. it was a part of Chriſt's Satisfaction for the violation of the Law; as 'tis ſo conſidered (they ſay) it is imputed, but not in any other notion. They ſay Chriſt's active obeying was ſatisfactory and meritorious as well as his paſſive; than which nothing more certain: And indeed the paſſive without the active had not been ſatisfactory or meritorious; 'twas Chriſt's‖‖Ne que tamen excluditur reliqua pars obedientiae quâ defunctus eſt in vitâ: &c. Et ſanè in ipsâ (i. e. in morte Crucis, for that he's ſpeaking of and doth immediately go before). primum gradum occupat voluntaria ſubjectio; quia ad juſtitiam nihil profuiſſet Sacrificium niſi ſponte oblatum. Calvin. Inſtit. l. 2. c. 16. ſect. 5. voluntary ſubjection to the Will of his Father (which was an active thing) even in his dying, which put ſuch an efficacy into his death: Now his active Obedience being thus taken, is (they grant) made over and reckoned to Believers. **Gataker. Animadv. in Lucium. p. 1. ſect. 1. p. 2. Bodius in Epheſ. p. 798.Others (to the ſame purpoſe) conſider Chriſt's active Obedience two wayes; either ſtrictly as active, as it lay in conformity to what the Law commanded, or as there was humiliation and abaſement attending that Obedience: in the former reſpect they deny it to be imputed, in the latter they ſay it is. This middle and reconciliatory Opinion is ſomewhat new and modern, and owned (as yet) but by very few, but in thoſe few (for their worth and eminency) there are very many. I ſhall not ſet my ſelf to argue or object any thing againſt p. 595it, (though ſomething might be ſaid upon that account); I rejoyce with all my heart that we may have the active Obedience of Chriſt upon any terms or under any conſiderations. I am ſo far from arguing againſt it that I keep it by me as a reſerve; that, if there be not ſolid and ſatisfactory Anſwers to be given to the weighty Objections made againſt the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience as commonly aſſerted (which is to be try'd by and by), I may fall in and cloſe with it. No more at preſent therefore about the Firſt Queſtion.

Of the Second Queſtion: How the imputation of Chriſt's fulfilling the Law is to be taken?I go on to the Second; The imputation of Chriſt's fulfilling the Law or of his active obedience being granted, 'tis further to be enquired In what ſenſe this imputation is to be taken? and how far it is to be carried? This Queſtion hath its difficulties as well as the former: the Learned differ not only about the matter of imputation or what is imputed, but alſo about the nature and the right ſtating of the act. Even they who agree in the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience, do yet differ in the ſtating of that imputation.

For 'tis the Opinion of ſome, that Chriſt's active Obedience is ſo imputed to believers as that God reckons it to them as done in their ſtead; that in his obeying and fulfilling the Law, they, legally and in God's eſtimation, obeyed and fulfilled the Law alſo; that his obedience is accepted for them and made over to them even as if they had ſo obeyed in their own perſons. Others cannot cloſe with this high and rigid imputation (as they are pleas'd to call it); they ſay the imputation is to be carried no higher than thus, that Chriſt's Obedience is imputed to Believers (that is) 'tis reckoned to them for their good, but not as done in their ſtead; that 'tis theirs in the effects & benefits of it but not as to the thing it ſelf, ſo as that they in their perſons ſhould be look'd upon as having in Chriſt fulfilled the Law: they are for Chriſt's obeying propter nos, but not pro nobis.

This latter ſtating of imputation is that which ſome follow whom (upon many accounts.) I am bound to reſpect and reverence; and I acknowledge (as before) the former ſtating of it to lie open to very weighty and conſiderable Objections: Yet (in complyance with my preſent light) I muſt crave leave to differ from them (though I do it with all modeſty and ſubmiſſion); and the Objections made againſt the high and ſtrict imputation will (as I judge) admit of fair and ſatisfactory Anſwers. Therefore I believe and affirm, that our Saviours active Obedience is imputed, reckoned, made over to us, as being done in our ſtead, and not only finally p. 596for our good; that 'tis ours, not only as to ſuch and ſuch effects but that the thing it-ſelf is ours, in a Law ſenſe; that God reckons it to us as if we had done it in our own perſons; and that therein (in part) conſiſts our righteouſneſs before God.

The Arguments upon which I build this poſition, are theſe:

Arguments to prove the ſtrict imputation of Chriſt's Obedience.1. If the imputation of Chriſt's righteouſneſs or Obedience be not taken for the imputing thereof to us as done in our ſtead, but only as done for our good; then whatever he did, or doth, may as properly be ſaid to be imputed to us as his righteouſneſs and obedience. The reaſon of the Conſequence is plain; becauſe that all which Chriſt did, or doth, is for our good; his Incarnation, Nativity, Aſcenſion, Interceſſion &c. all are for the good of thoſe who love God: If therefore there be nothing more in the imputation of his Obedience than the reckoning of it to us for our good, then the forementioned things may equally and as properly be ſaid to be imputed to us, as it; (which I ſuppoſe will not be affirmed; if it be, it will admit of a very eaſie confutation).

2. That muſt be the right ſtating of the imputation of Chriſt's Obedience which beſt ſuits with his Suretyſhip; but that which I I plead for doth ſo, ergo. A Surety doth not pay the debt only for the debtors good, but as ſtanding in the debtors ſtead; and ſo his payment is reckoned to the debtor: The ſame we muſt hold with reſpect to Chriſt and Sinners, or elſe we quit the main notion of his being a Surety. Take away Chriſt's obeying in our ſtead and make it to be only for our good (and ſo imputed), and you may then ſuppoſe him to be a loving and compaſſionate Saviour, but not (ſtrictly) a Surety: for to that 'tis requiſite that he pay our very debt, and that that payment be accepted of as made in our ſtead.

3. Chriſt's Obedience is imputed as Adams diſobedience was imputed: this is grounded upon the Apoſtles parallel between them in Rom. 5. (of which before) Now how is Adams diſobedience imputed to us? Anſw. not only for our hurt or in the miſchievous effects of it, but the guilt it-ſelf of his diſobedience is imputed; inſomuch that in his ſinning we all ſin'd. Anſwerably ex oppoſito Chriſt's Obedience is, and muſt be, imputed to us; viz. not only for our good and in the happy effects of it, but the thing it-ſelf is ours; inſomuch that in his obeying, reputatively and legally, we obeyed alſo. I cannot underſtand the analogy 'twixt the two Adams (wherein the Apoſtle is ſo clear), unleſs this imputation, as here p. 597ſtated, be granted: and I humbly conceive he who grants we diſobey'd in Adam muſt grant we alſo obey'd in Chriſt.

4. Chriſt's righteouſneſs is imputed to us in that way wherin our ſin was imputed to him; this is grounded upon 2 Cor. 5.21. Now our ſin was imputed to Chriſt, not only in the bitter effects of it but he took the **See Mr. Bradſhaw de Juſtif. c. 16. p. 77.guilt of it upon himſelf (as hath been already††See pag. 489 of this Book. proved): ſo then his righteouſneſs or active obedience it-ſelf muſt be proportionably imputed to us, and not only in the effects thereof.

5. The proper terminus of imputation is righteouſneſs; 'tis (according to its notion in Scripture) the reckoning or making over of a thing to a perſon for righteouſneſs: Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteouſneſs, Rom. 4.3. If therefore Chriſt's Obedience be imputed to us, it muſt be ſo imputed as to be our righteouſneſs before God; no imputation lower than this will ſerve our turn nor ſuit with the Scripture-notion of the Word.

6. They (who diſſent) bring in the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience as a part of his Satisfaction; whence I argue, he ſatisfied in our ſtead, as he obeyed he ſatisfied, therefore he obeyed in our ſtead. Chriſt's active Obedience being ſatisfactory as well as his paſſive, why ſhould not that eo nomine come under the ſame imputation which the paſſive doth?

7. If this be all in the imputation of Chriſt's Obedience that 'tis reckoned to the Sinner for his good, then we are all agreed, all Controverſies are at an end: for who, even amongſt the rankeſt denyers of imputation, do not aſſent to this, that all was done and ſuffered by Chriſt for our good? and is ſo far reckoned to us? Wherefore either our Proteſtant Divines have been groſly miſtaken in diſputing for that which was not denyed, or elſe they had other apprehenſions about imputation.

Objections anſwered which are brought againſt the imputation, and ſuch an imputation, of Chriſt's active Obedience.Theſe (in ſhort) are the Arguments which incline, yea command me to believe the high and ſtrict imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience or fulfilling the Law. But I have as yet done but half of my work; the Objections which are made againſt what hath been aſſerted, muſt be anſwered. It hath been affirm'd that Chriſt's active as well as paſſive Obedience is imputed to Believers; now that is objected againſt: It hath been affirm'd alſo that the imputation of Chriſt's obedience is to be taken as hath been ſtated; that too is objected againſt: both therefore muſt be defended. The Objectors do not all concur in their Opinions about theſe two Heads, yet in their main Objections about them in a great meaſure they do: p. 598wherefore I ſhall take them as they lie before me promiſcuouſly and in common, and ſo endeavour to anſwer them.

Obj. Firſt 'tis objected,1. Object. that in the Scripture remiſſion of ſin, juſtification, reconciliation with God, eternal life, are wholly and ſolely aſcribed to Chriſt's paſſive Obedience, to his death on the Croſs, (under which yet is included the whole humiliation and abaſement of Chriſt): The particular Scriptures cited for the proof of this have been already ſet down.

Anſw. They who are for the active Obedience as a part of Chriſt's humiliation, Anſw.and as ſuch do hold the imputation of it, making it and the paſſive to be but one and the ſame Obedience, only diverſified in its acts, all of which do yet meet and concur in his humiliation; theſe (I ſay) are not at all concerned in this Argument. And they who take them as diſtinct parts of his Obedience and as ſuch hold the imputation of them, are very little pinched by it; for the anſwer is eaſie and obvious, theſe great effects are attributed to Chriſt's death and blood not excluſively and ſolely (as to juſtle out the influence of his holy life and active obedience), but eminently only. In his dying there was the higheſt piece, the conſummation of all his Obedience, therefore the main ſtreſs is laid upon that (the chiefeſt part being by an uſual Synecdoche put for the whole); but yet the obedience of his life is to be taken in, in conjunction with the obedience of his death, and ſo the Sinners happineſs is compleated. 'Tis not only here ſaid that God for ſin condemned ſin (which refers to Chriſt's death), but alſo that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us (which refers to his life); as we reade of our being juſtified by his blood (and the like), ſo we reade of his being made under the Law, to redeem them who were under the Law that we might receive the adoption of Sons; and of his being the end of the Law for righteouſneſs to every one that believeth.

Obj. If Chriſt's active Obedience be imputed, 2. Object.and in ſuch a manner too, ſo that in his obeying and fulfilling the Law Believers did obey and fulfil it; thence it will follow that his paſſive Obedience, his Death it-ſelf was in vain and needleſs: for this being ſo, the Saints muſt be perfectly righteous as having done what the Law required; and ſo there would be no need of Chriſt's Suffering or Satisfaction, for that ſuppoſes guilt and the non-performance of the Law.

Anſw. This Objection is very conſiderable yet I conceive the Conſequence is not ſo preſſing;Anſw. the reaſon is, becauſe though upon the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience one part of the Law is p. 599ſatisfied, yet there being another part of the Law to be ſatisfied alſo, for that his paſſive obedience was neceſſary. Suppoſe that Believers upon the former might be look'd upon as now fulfilling the Laws commands; yet guilt being before contracted, the penalty of death thereupon iucurred, that the one might be expiated by the undergoing of the other it was neceſſary that Chriſt ſhould die and ſuffer. The Law requiring both of theſe in both it muſt be ſatisfied; inſomuch (ſaith**Mr. Burg. of Juſtif. 2. part pag. 411. one) that if we could have had a perfect righteouſneſs conformable to the Law, de novo, and not have ſatisfied the puniſhment, our debt would not have been diſcharged, we had ſtill been in our ſins. The twofold Obedience or double righteouſneſs of Chriſt do not deſtroy or undermine each the other; 'twas neceſſary that he ſhould obey actively for the doing of what the Law enjoyned, 'twas neceſſary alſo that he ſhould obey paſſively for the ſuffering of what the Law threatned; for both of theſe were neceſſary to reach the Laws righteouſneſs, and ſo to lay the foundation of a compleat righteouſneſs for the Creature: in order to which therefore both muſt be imputed to him. (I know what is objected againſt this but all cannot be ſpoke unto at once).

For the better anſwering of the Objection in hand, 'tis ſaid by ſome that the imputation of Chriſt's paſſive Obedience muſt be ſuppoſed to antecede (in order of nature though not of time) the imputation of his active: for in the juſtifying of Believers God dealing with them as Sinners, we muſt ſuppoſe him firſt to take off guilt and puniſhment due for what was paſt, before he makes over a poſitive righteouſneſs to them for the time to come. If this be ſo, we ſhall eaſily get off from what is objected; wherein Diſſenters go upon this, that a perſon being judg'd righteous upon his imputative, active fulfilling the Law, to him no further or ſubſequent imputation is neceſſary. We ſay ſo too; but then we ſuppoſe an antecedent imputation of that Obedience which was proper to free from guilt and wrath, viz. Chriſt's paſſive Obedience. So that the matter comes to this; though Chriſt's active Obedience being imputed a child of God is righteous and a fulfiller of the Law, and ſo nothing further is neceſſary for him; yet it doth not hence follow that Chriſt's paſſive Obedience was in vain or needleſs, becauſe, in the methods of divine grace, that is firſt imputed for freedom from guilt and Hell before the active is imputed in order to righteouſneſs and Heaven. Very large diſcourſes there are abroad in the world about theſe things; I only deſign to ſet down in ſhort what is ſatisfactory p. 600to my ſelf, but how far it may be ſo to others that I muſt leave with God.

Obj. Chriſt's paſſive Obedience was ſufficient: 3. Object.for thereby the juſtice of God was fully ſatisfied, the Sinners guilt fully expiated, ful payment made of all that he owed &c. what need therefore is there of any imputation of his active obedience to be ſuperadded to the imputation of the former?

Anſw. If the paſſive Obedience be taken in conjunction with the active, Anſw.we grant the ſufficiency of it to all intents and purpoſes; but if it be taken disjunctly from the active, then we grant its ſufficiency for ſuch and ſuch ends or effects, but not for all. For the removal of guilt, the ſatisfying of the penal part of the Law, the freeing from Hell and death, ſo it was ſufficient; but beſides this, the preceptive part of the Law was to be fulfilled, the condition of life was to be performed, the Sinner was to be made poſitively righteous, Heaven was to be merited; now as to theſe, abſtractly from the active obedience of Chriſt, the paſſive was not ſufficient. Upon his dying Believers ſhall not die or be damned, or be look'd upon as guilty; but for their being righteous and entitled to eternal life, Chriſt muſt actively fulfil the Law; for the promiſe of life is annexed to doing, Do this and live, Levit. 18.5. Rom. 10.5. There needs no more (ſaith**Blake on the Covenant c. 12. p. 77. a Reverend Perſon) than innocency not to die, and when guilt is taken away we ſtand as innocent, no crime then can be charged upon us: But to reign in life (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks), to inherit a crown there further is expected, which we not reaching Chriſt's active obedience ſupplied to us, not adding to ours but being in it-ſelf compleat is accounted ours, and imputed to us.

Obj. But 'tis ſaid,4. Object. the Law requires no more than either doing or ſuffering; if one of theſe be done, 'tis enough; both of them the Law neither doth nor can demand. Wherefore if we ſuffered in Chriſt and that be reckoned to us, it is not required that we ſhould alſo obey in Chriſt?

Anſw. The truth of the Antecedent is not only queſtioned but flatly deny'd;Anſw. and the contrary thereunto is proved, viz.**See Adverſ. inter Piſcat. & Lucium. p. 1. ſect. 4. Polan. in Dan. p. 191, &c. Turret. de Sat. par. 8. pag. 271, &c. Bodius in Eph. p. 805. That in ſtatu lapſo the Laws obligation is not disjunctive, ad alterutrum, either to do or ſuffer; but 'tis conjunctive or copulative, ad utrumque, both to do and ſuffer. Indeed (ſay they of this Opinion) if man had continued in the ſtate of innocency one of theſe had been enough; namely the active obeying of the Law; for he being then without ſin could not lie under any obligation to ſuffer. But he p. 601being faln ſtands oblig'd to both; to obey, as he is a Creature; to ſuffer, as he is an Offender: So that it was not enough for Chriſt in ſuffering to anſwer the one obligation, but he muſt alſo by doing anſwer the other alſo. In the Laws of men one of theſe is enough, but in the Laws of God (there being a vaſt diſparity 'twixt the Creatures ſubjection to him and to men) it is not ſo. And (as I apprehend it) they who differ in this point, do too much run themſelves upon that abſurdity which they would faſten upon thoſe from whom they differ: for whereas they charge the Opinion of theſe that it acquits us from all obeying on our part, this principle (which they maintain) ſeems to do it much more; for it either obeying or ſuffering be as much as the Law requires, then Chriſt having ſuffered the utmoſt of the Laws penalty, we are not under any obligation to obey too.

Obj. It having been ſaid,5. Object. that Chriſt's paſſive Obedience was neceſſary to free from guilt and eternal death, and his active neceſſary for righteouſneſs and eternal life; againſt this 'tis objected, that it ſuppoſes a medium betwixt being freed from guilt and being made righteous, and ſo betwixt being freed from eternal death and the having of eternal life (which is a great miſtake). For theſe are ſuch Contraries as do admit of no me…m between them, and therefore upon the negation of the one the affirmation of the other (in a fit Subject) muſt needs follow; and ſo vice versâ: As if it be not night it is day, if it be not darkneſs it is light, if it be not crookedneſs it is ſtreightneſs &c. So here; if it be not guilt it is righteouſneſs, and if it be not eternal death it is eternal life, (theſe being Contraries foreign). Therefore they who grant freedom from guilt and Hell upon Chriſt's death, and yet aſſert the neceſſity of the obedience of his life for righteouſneſs and Heaven, build upon a falſe hypotheſis.

Anſw. To this 'tis anſwered,Anſw. what is here alledged holds true in Natural and Phyſical Contraries, but not in Moral or Law-contraries: The Malefactor upon his Princes or the Judges Pardon is acquitted from his guilt, and with reſpect to that he is innocent; but yet he cannot upon this be look'd upon as being righteous, or as having done what the Law required of him: ſo 'tis in that which I am upon. 'Tis one thing for the Sinner not to be unjuſt, and another thing for him to be juſt; upon the non-imputation of Sin he is the former, but the latter he cannot be without a poſitive righteouſneſs. Not to be judg'd as a tranſgreſſor of the Law and to be judg'd as a fulfiller of the Law, are two diſtinct things. And ſo p. 602as to the other; although there be no medium 'twixt natural life and death (ſo that upon the negation of the one there is alwayes the poſition of the other), yet between eternal life and eternal death there is a medium: For we may ſuppoſe a perſon to be freed from the one and yet not preſently admitted into the other, he may be ſaved from Hell and yet not be taken up to Heaven, for he may be annihilated or continued in ſome ſtate of happineſs here below this notwithſtanding: (I only ſpeak of the poſſibility of the thing, not aſſerting that ever de facto it is ſo). The Traytor may be freed from death and yet not reſtored to all thoſe high dignities and priviledges which he had before; and why not ſo here? 'Tis true, whoever is freed from Hell is admitted into Heaven, but this is not neceſſary from the nature of the thing (as though there might not be a ſtatus intermedius); but only from the will and ordination of God. The neceſſity therefore of the imputation of Chriſt's active obedience for righteouſneſs and life is not weakened or null'd by this objection.

Obj. To put more ſtrength into it 'tis further urg'd,6. Object. that the Opinion (argued againſt) makes Juſtification to conſiſt of different parts (viz. remiſſion of Sin and imputation of righteouſneſs); alſo it makes theſe different parts to proceed from different Cauſes, (as the remiſſion of Sin from Chriſt's bearing the penalty of the Law, and the imputation of righteouſneſs from his fulfilling the precepts of the Law). Whereas (ſay ſome) the whole nature of Juſtification lies in the remiſſion of ſin; to be pardoned and to be made righteous are in Scripture terms equipollent and ſynonimous: And (ſay others) all in Juſtification is but one act, proceeding from one and the ſame cauſe; that very act which makes the Sinner not guilty makes him alſo at the ſame time to be righteous; as that which takes away crookedneſs at the ſame time makes ſtreight, that which expels darkneſs at the ſame time introduces light; the putting on of the garment and the removal of the nakedneſs are but one and the ſame thing and done together.

Anſw. Many things are here mentioned which cannot ſo diſtinctly be ſpoken to in the anſwering of an Objection.Anſw. What place remiſſion of ſin hath in Juſtification, whether of being the form of it, or but an integral part, or only an effect and Conſequent, is a thing that Divines are not very well agreed about: whether the whole of Juſtification doth lie in remiſſion is a point wherein alſo they differ. But I muſt not at preſent engage in theſe debates, I will defer the diſcuſſing of them till I come to open the Doctrine p. 603Doctrine of Juſtification (which the 30 Verſe of this Chapter will lead me to). I ſhall now only ſuggeſt what is proper for the anſwering of the Objection before us.

And 1. what if the Opinion (argued againſt) doth make remiſſion of ſin and imputed righteouſneſs to be different parts of Juſtification (they both as**See Burg. of Juſtif. 2 part Serm. 27. integral parts concurring to the compleating and perfecting of it)? I ſay, what if it ſo doth? is it the worſe for that, is this a novel tenent or that which but few or none do own? have not ſeveral with great ſolidity and judgment defended it? as to any error in it or any abſurdities that will follow upon it, I muſt confeſs I do not (as yet) underſtand either the one or the other. A difference of parts in Sanctification is commonly granted, viz. mortification and vivification; the abolition of the power of ſin and the implantation of the divine Nature; the putting off the old man and the putting on the new man (Eph. 4.22.); now why may not Juſtification have its parts as well as Sanctification? If the Believers righteouſneſs doth lie in the fulfilling of the Law, and there be different parts in that Law (its commanding and its puniſhing part), then that righteouſneſs which reſults from the fulfilling of it muſt admit of different parts too. So that remiſſion of ſin is one part (that being grounded upon the ſatisfying of one part of the Law), and imputation of righteouſneſs is another part (that being grounded upon the ſatisfying of the other part of the Law). The Scripture ſpeaks of theſe not as one and the ſame, but as diſtinct; Rom. 4.25. Who was delivered for our offences (there's remiſſion), and was raiſed again for our juſtification (or righteouſneſs, there's the other part): how the latter is attributed to Chriſt's reſurrection is not my buſineſs now to enquire, I only cite the words as holding forth a diſtinction betwixt remiſſion and righteouſneſs: (So Rom. 5.9. compar'd with Rom. 5.19.). And Dan. 9.24.—to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlaſting righteouſneſs; (here are the two parts of Juſtification ſet forth as different and diſtinct). 'Tis true, the Apoſtle Rom. 4.6, 7, 8. ſpeaking of the Sinners righteouſneſs inſtances only in the forgiveneſs or non-imputation of ſin; but he doth not do it as if that was the all in that righteouſneſs, but

(1.) becauſe that being one eminent part thereof he puts it for the whole:

(2.) becauſe that remiſſion of ſin and the imputation of a poſitive righteouſneſs being never parted, in naming the one he included the other: not as if they were one and the ſame in their nature but becauſe they are never ſeparated in the …ubject.

I cannot yet be convinc'd but that the removal of Sins p. 604guilt and the introducing of a poſitive righteouſneſs, are things of a different nature and carry diſtinct notions in them: for (beſides what hath been already ſaid,) though in God's dealing with fal'n. Sinners they are never parted, yet as they are conſidered in themſelves they may be parted. Amongſt us ſometimes ſin is remitted when yet the offender is not juſtified, (as we ſee in the caſe of Joſeph's Brethren, Shimei, Abiathar &c.); and 'tis poſſible for a perſon to be juſtified though he hath no ſin to be remitted (as it would have been with Adam had he ſtood, he was then capable of Juſtification but not of remiſſion): now this their ſeparableneſs evinces a difference or diſtinction betwixt them. To object therefore againſt the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience as well as of his paſſive, (one being ſuppos'd to free us from guilt, the other to make us righteous), that this would infer two different parts of juſtification; this is ſo far from being an Objection that 'tis but a plain aſſerting of what is ſo indeed.

2. Whereas 'tis ſaid that this doth alſo make different cauſes of Juſtification, I ſay as before, what if it doth? Provided, that by thoſe ye underſtand only the different grounds or matter of Juſtification according to its different parts; (that is) as Chriſt dy'd and ſhed his blood there's the ground of the Sinners diſcharge from guilt, that which is imputed to him in order to that effect; then as he in all things actively conformed to the Law there's the ground of the Sinners poſitive righteouſneſs, or that which is imputed to him in order to that effect. Such a multiplication of Cauſes, which are not ſo of a diverſe nature but that they do unite and concur in ſome one as the general Cauſe (as theſe do in Chriſt's righteouſneſs or Obedience), carries in it nothing repugnant to Scripture or Reaſon. This righteouſneſs of Chriſt is the one only material Cauſe of the Sinners righteouſneſs; but that dividing it-ſelf into his active and paſſive righteouſneſs, accordingly the Cauſes of the Sinners righteouſneſs are diverſified.

3. The alluſions (brought againſt the Truth in queſtion) ſeem to faſten ſome abſurdity upon it: For they tend to this, that for any to ſay upon one act ſin is remitted, and upon another the perſon is made righteous; 'tis as if one ſhould ſay, that by one act the crookedneſs of a thing is removed and that by another 'tis made ſtreight, (and ſo as to light and darkneſs).

To which I reply; I except againſt theſe ſimilitudes as not ſuiting with the thing in hand; they are proper for things of another nature, not for that which we are upon; for that being a Law-act p. 605is not to be judg'd of by things of a phyſical nature. Suppoſe the effects mention'd are produc'd by one and the ſame act, yet they are not ſo pertinently alledg'd becauſe what we are ſpeaking of falls under another conſideration. We are not concern'd about crookedneſs and ſtreightneſs, but about guilt and righteouſneſs; all alluſions which ſuit not with theſe (as things of a legal nature) are inſignificative. Will they ſay, that that which frees the Offender from guilt (when he ſtands arraign'd before the Judge), doth alſo make him a true and exact keeper of the Law? that at the ſame time, and by the ſame ſentence, wherein he is acquitted from the violation of the Law, that he is alſo thereupon to be look'd upon as a perſon that hath really kept the Law? ſuch an Inſtance as this would be pertinent; but then we ſhould determine it in the Negative. And indeed I could humbly deſire, that in theſe Points we might be very ſparing in argumentative Similitudes of this nature; for 'tis very well known how by them ſome endeavour to decry and undermine all imputation of Chriſt's righteouſneſs. To be made righteous by the righteouſneſs of another? 'tis (ſay they) as if a man ſhould ſee with anothers eyes, or be learned with anothers learning, or wiſe with anothers wiſdom &c. (there's ſimilitude for ſimilitude, though upon a far more peſtilent and miſchievous deſign). Therefore in Law-acts (ſuch as we all grant Juſtification to be), let us keep to thoſe alluſions which are proper to ſuch acts; or elſe (upon the diſparity of Phyſical and Law-acts) we ſhall run our ſelves and others upon great miſtakes.

Obj. This ſeems to reflect upon God ſome error or miſtake in his judging, 7. Object.as if be ſhould eſteem the Sinner to do that in Chriſt which he did not do, and which he knows the Sinner did not do. And 'tis ſaid, that 'tis not poſſible that we (by any eſtimation) can be the Subjects of thoſe acts, qualities, accidents, which belong to another Subject.

Anſw. Though the debtor himſelf doth not pay the debt, Anſw.but the Surety in truth payes it, yet without any miſtake the Creditor may in a Law-ſenſe look upon the debtor as having paid it, inaſmuch as his Surety paid it for him; and what his Surety doth, he doth (they being in Law but one perſon): the application of this, as to God's judging with reſpect to Chriſt and Sinners, is plain and obvious. But I ask, why ſhould this be thought a miſtake in God to look upon us as obeying in Chriſt, when (I hope) 'tis not made a miſtake in him to look upon us as diſobeying in Adam? wherein is the truth of God more impeached in the one, than in p. 606the other? we did not perſonally eat of the forbidden fruit, and yet I preſume it will not be deny'd but that in Adams eating of it legally we did eat it too; and that God doth moſt truly and righteouſly reckon us guilty of it as though we had done the fact in our own perſons: Grant then that there is no miſtake there, and it will follow that there is none here. Nay further, why may we not as well be ſaid to obey in Chriſt as to ſuffer in Chriſt? his Sufferings were as remote and aliene from our perſons as his active obeying; and yet 'tis granted, that they are ſo reckoned to us as that in them even we may be ſaid to ſuffer and ſatisfie; and if the paſſive Obedience of Chriſt be thus imputed without any miſtake, why may not the active without any miſtake be imputed alſo? clear God in the one and you muſt likewiſe clear him in the other. And whereas 'tis ſaid, that thoſe acts, qualities, or accidents, which belong to one Subject cannot be made over to another; this ſtrikes at all imputation (though I ſuppoſe 'tis not ſo deſigned), for that which is imputed muſt be out of that Subject unto which 'tis imputed; otherwiſe 'tis inhaeſion, and not imputation. Adams diſobedience was his own perſonal and ſubjective act, and yet 'tis ours imputatively and legally. (But of this I'le ſay no more).

Obj. If Chriſt actively obeyed and fulfilled the Law, 8. Object.as in our ſtead, ſo that his Obedience be imputed to us; hence it will follow, that we are not at all **Mr. Bradſh of Juſtif. p. 85.obliged our ſelves to obey or keep the Law, Chriſt having done that in his perſon for us. For as he bearing the curſe and penalty of the Law, in our ſtead, we are thereupon freed from that curſe; ſo if he did obey the Laws commands in our ſtead, we muſt alſo thereupon be freed from any obligation to obedience on our part thereunto.

Anſw. All that follows from hence is this,Anſw. that Chriſt obeying the Law for us and in our ſtead, we are not bound to obey it**Vid. Luciam in Adverſ. p. 1. Sect. 5. for thoſe ends and upon thoſe accounts upon which he obey'd it, (as namely for ſatisfaction and for righteouſneſs before God): but as to other ends and upon other accounts, we are yet (and muſt be ſo) under an obligation to obey it. For being Creatures we are indiſpenſably bound to keep that Law which our Creator and Lord is pleas'd to lay upon us, ſo as that nothing can abſolve us from that obligation: And beſides, not only love and gratitude to God do call for this Obedience from us, but it is the way wherein we can only hope for benefit by Chriſt's ſatisfactory and meritorious Obedience. We muſt not carry our Saviours fulfilling the Law for us beyond what he intended; now it appears by the whole tenure p. 607of the Goſpel, that he never intended it to exempt believers from Obedience as it ſpeaks duty, but only as 'twas the Condition of the firſt Covenant. I therefore think that it may as well be argued, that Saints ſhould not die, or bear any puniſhment for ſin, becauſe Chriſt dy'd for them and bore the penalty of the Law for them; as that they ſhould not obey actively becauſe Chriſt obey'd the Law for them. 'Tis true, upon the imputation of his paſſive obedience they are freed from Suffering in order to Satisfaction, yet in other reſpects ſuffer they ſhall: and ſo upon the imputation of his active Obedience, they are freed from obeying (ſo as that their righteouſneſs before God ſhould not lie in that), yet upon other accounts obey they muſt notwithſtanding all that Chriſt hath done. In ſhort, we may as well argue againſt others that upon their principles God's people are not lyable to any puniſhment, as they do againſt us that upon our principles God's people are not under any obligation to obey the Law: and that explication or diſtinction which will clear and juſtifie their Opinion in the conſiſtency of the Saints Sufferings with Chriſt's paſſive Obedience, will do the ſame for ours in the conſiſtency of the Saints Obedience with Chriſt's active Obedience.

Obj. 'Tis objected,9. Object. that the imputation of Chriſt's Obedience (as thus ſtated) makes Believers to be no Sinners, yea as righteous as Chriſt himſelf was: they in him fulfilling the Law, where's their ſin? and his righteouſneſs being made over to them, are they not as righteous as he was?

Anſw. This is one of the beaten,Anſw. thred-bare Arguments with which the ROMANISTS impugne (in general) the imputation of Chriſt's righteouſneſs: Our PROTESTANT Writers thus anſwer them; though Chriſt's righteouſneſs be imputed to Believers yet for all that they are Sinners, and may juſtly be ſo denominated, inaſmuch as the denomination is taken from what is inherent in them, notwithſtanding what is imputed to them. Saints may be conſidered either as they are in themſelves, and ſo who can deny them to be Sinners? (ſo the beſt muſt cry out Ʋnclean, unclean): or as they are in Chriſt, they being juſtified through the imputation of his righteouſneſs, and accepted in him as their Head and Surety; and ſo who will deny them to be righteous? He fulfilled the Law for them, which obedience of his being reckoned to them in God's account and imputatively they may be ſaid to be without ſin, (there's no ANTINOMISME in this if it be rightly underſtood); yet as they are in themſelves and as to what is inherent and done by them, there is (God knows) too much of ſin in them. 'Tis no abſurdity, p. 608for the ſame Subject under diverſe conſiderations to be look'd upon as ſinleſ…, and yet as ſinful; **Cant. 1.5.Song 1:5I am black but comely: O what a pure, ſpotleſs, righteous perſon is the Believer in reſpect of imputation; and yet what an impure, defiled, ſinful perſon is he in reſpect of inhering corruption.

As to the other part of the Objection I deny the Conſequence; may we not be righteous but upon this we muſt be as righteous as Chriſt himſelf was? as the former I would be loth to deny, ſo the latter I would be as loth to affirm. It doth not follow, if Chriſt's obedience and righteouſneſs be imputed to us that therefore we muſt be as righteous as he was; becauſe it is made over to us not in the fulneſs and infiniteneſs of it, but**Per juſtitiam Chriſti nobis imputatam non poſſumus dici abſolutà ſive omni modo juſti &c.—ſed—eatenus nos juſtos factos aeſtimat Deus quatenus Legis Divinae tranſgreſſores extiterimus: Ut in tantum ex illâ Chriſti juſtitiâ juſti facti dicamur, in quantum ex inobedientiâ noſtrâ injuſti conſtituti ſimus. Bradſh. de Juſtif. c. 24. ſect. 27. only ſo far as our caſe and neceſſity doth require; or not abſolutely in the utmoſt extent and degree of it, but in tantum quod hoc that we may be look'd upon as fulfillers of the Law, and as partakers of that righteouſneſs which we need and are capable of. And (pray) wherein doth the imputation of Chriſt's paſſive obedience come ſhort as to what is here charged upon the imputation of his active? will not the Argument lie as much againſt that as againſt this? For upon that ('tis ſaid) the Law was fully ſatisfied and received from Chriſt in our ſtead its full accompliſhment, upon that we are look'd upon as having committed no evil and omitted no good, that Chriſt's infinite merit and Satisfaction is ours &c. wherefore may it not with equal ſtrength be infer'd from the imputation of this that we are not Sinners, and that we are righteous as Chriſt was, as it may from the imputation of the other?

Obj. This makes Chriſt to have done that very thing (for matter) which we our ſelves ſhould,10. Object. that he paid that very debt of Obedience in kind (and not in value only) which the Law required and which we ſhould have paid; which if ſo, and that that be reckoned to us, we are then juſtified by Works and our righteouſneſs is Legal rather than Evangelical.

Anſw. Anſw.I have had occaſion (in what went before) to ſpeak a little of the idem and tantundem as they refer to Chriſt's Sufferings in anſwer to that Queſtion Whether he ſuffered the ſelf-ſame penalty which the Law threatned and the Sinner himſelf ſhould have endured? or whether he ſuffered only that which was equivalent thereunto? In the deciding of which I cloſed with the common determination, that Chriſt's Sufferings for kind and ſubſtance, were the ſame which the Law threatned; but as to ſome certain Circumſtances and Accidents they were but equivalent: The ſame reſolution I ſhall p. 609give concerning the idem and tantundem with reſpect to his active obedience; as to the ſubſtantial duties required by the Moral Law, to them in kind he ſubmitted, and to that very obedience which we were obliged unto; ſo it was the idem: But then there were ſome Circumſtances (ariſing from ſome ſpecial Conſiderations about his perſon) which in other things made a difference; with reſpect to which it was but the tantundem. What all were bound to do in the great and indiſpenſable duties of the Law (as Holineſs, Love to God &c.), that Chriſt did; but what ſome only are bound to do, upon certain ſpecial obligations lying upon them as they ſtand in ſuch and ſuch relations (as Magiſtrates, Husbands &c.), that was not done by Chriſt in ſpecie (he not ſtanding in thoſe relations). In the ſubſtantial duties of the Law and in thoſe acts of obedience which were in general neceſſary, Chriſt did juſt that which we ſhould have done; (underſtand me that I ſpeak of Legal not of Evangelical Obedience, for though Chriſt did that for us which the Law demanded yet he did not do that for us which the Goſpel demands): but as to ſome particular duties of the Law, proper to ſuch perſons in ſuch circumſtances, thoſe he (not being under thoſe circumſtances) did not do: and yet there is no defect in his Obedience, the want of this particular being ſupply'd and made up by his general Obedience. The Text ſaith that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us; now why may we not content our ſelves with this that Chriſt fulfilled the Laws righteouſneſs, without running of our ſelves upon perplexing debates about the idem and the tantundem? The caſe (in brief) ſtands thus, the Law muſt be obey'd, in our ſelves we neither did nor could obey it, our Surety therefore muſt do it for us, he doing it for us his Obedience muſt be imputed to us, this imputation muſt be of that very obedience which we were bound unto, otherwiſe (this, & not ſomething elſe in the lieu of it being demanded by the Law) we are yet debtors to the Law: therefore it follows that Chriſt did the idem which we ſhould have done. For as he delivered us from the curſe of the Law by bearing that very curſe in his own perſon which we ſhould have bore, ſo he fulfilled the righteouſneſs of the Law for us by comforming to that very righteouſneſs in his own perſon which we ſhould have come up to.

As to our juſtification by Works (which is pleaded againſt this imputation) to that I ſhall ſpeak immediately in the Ʋſe.

And thus I have (with no ſmall grief and trouble (the Lord knows) to ſee in this point differences amongſt perſons ſo godly, ſo p. 610learned, and as to my ſelf that I ſhould ſo unavoidably be concern'd in theſe unhappy Controverſies,) gone over and anſwered the moſt material Objections (that I have met with) againſt the imputation of Chriſt's active Obedience. I would not be ſo fond or weak as to hope, that what I have ſaid ſhould have any influence upon thoſe learned and judicious perſons from whom I differ, ſo as to alter their opinion; (they knew it all before, and had it from others with great advantage, and yet could not be thereby convinc'd). However I thought I could not do leſs than what I have done: poſſibly thereby weaker Chriſtians may come to ſome clearer inſight into theſe matters; if there too I be diſappointed, yet I have laid down the grounds of my own pe…ſuaſion (which this Subject made neceſſary). Whether the Anſwers I have given to the Objections will be ſatisfactory to others, I know not; but I. ſeriouſly profeſs (as to the main) they are ſo to me. I muſt acknowledge in ſome of them there are thoſe difficulties which 'tis not an eaſie thing to get over; yet upon the whole matter I muſt ſay, that (after the moſt ſerious thoughts) I (as to my ſelf) can with more eaſe and ſatisfaction anſwer the Arguments brought againſt the imputation of the active Obedience, than I can thoſe which are brought for it; otherwiſe I had not embrac'd an Opinion which ſome knowing men oppoſe with ſcorn and deriſion.

I come to the Application (wherein I muſt be very ſhort).

From the Truth I am upon we learn (1.) in what way or upon what terms a Believer is juſtified. Ʋſe 1 What are they? why the fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs; which though it could not be done by the Believer himſelf, yet by Chriſt it is done for him. In the juſtifying of Sinners God proceeds upon the perfect righteouſneſs and full demands of the Law; and being juſtified they are righteous according to that**&c. juſti ſumus coram Deo ex illâ etiam abſolutiſſimâ legis formalâ. Beza. If with our juſtification from Sin there be joyn'd that active Obedience of Chriſt which is imputed to us, we are juſt before God according to that perfect form which the Law requireth. Engl. Annot. ſtrict and exact righteouſneſs which the Law itſelf holds forth. You reade much of Legal and of Evangelical righteouſneſs, of juſtification by works and by faith; there ſeems to be a contrariety between theſe two (and ſo there is in ſome reſpects), but if you conſider them materially and fundamentally they are one and the ſame: The righteouſneſs by which we are juſtified, 'tis both legal or the righteouſneſs of works and alſo Evangelical or the righteouſneſs of faith; in reference to Chriſt 'tis legal (as he exactly fulfilled the Law), in reference to us p. 611'tis Evangelical (that righteouſneſs which was never performed in our own perſons, being graciouſly made over to us and accepted for us). And ſo as to our ſelves we are juſtified by faith, but as to our Head and Surety we are juſtified by works: God deals with us in our own perſons upon the terms of the Covenant of grace, but he dealt with us in Chriſt upon the terms of the Covenant of works: and indeed in the juſtification and ſalvation of a Sinner all theſe concur. The Scripture ('tis true) ſets them in oppoſition one to the other, and makes them incompatible; but that is only in reference to the ſame ſubject under the ſame perſonal conſideration: The ſame perſon as conſidered in himſelf, and by himſelf, cannot be juſtified by Works and by Faith too, by the Covenant of works and by the Covenant of grace too: but let Chriſt be taken in, and ſo theſe things are reconcileable. As Chriſt in his perſon did all which the Law or Covenant of Works required, ſo in him our juſtification is by the Law of Works &c. but as that his righteouſneſs is imputed to us and apply'd by us, ſo our juſtification is of grace, by faith &c. That very righteouſneſs which is legal in the Head is Evangelical in the members (in reſpect of the application of it). Bleſſed be God for the ſweet harmony and concurrence of both Covenants, of Law and Goſpel, Works and Faith in the Sinners juſtification and ſalvation! 'tis admirably brought about by this great thing which the Text ſpeaks of, Chriſts fulfilling the righteouſneſs of the Law for us.

2. Secondly it ſhews us, what great reſpect and value the great God had for his holy Law, and what an high honour he put upon it. Which appears from this; the Apoſtle here ſetting down God's high and glorious ends in the ſending of his Son into the world, he makes them all to center in the ſatisfaction and accompliſhment of his Law: that it might be ſatisfied in its penalty, Chriſt ſhall be a Sacrifice (as you had it before); that it might be ſatisfied in its commands, Chriſt in his own perſon ſhall fulfil the righteouſneſs of it (as you have it here). Here was by both plenary ſatisfaction made to the Law, which was the very thing which God ſtood upon and would have done: and rather than it ſhould not be done, his own Son muſt come from Heaven, and put on fleſh, and be himſelf made under the Law; he muſt live an holy life and die a curſed death and all to ſatisfie the Law. And this was a thing ſo great in God's eye, as that he look'd upon the fulfilling and anſwering of the Laws demands as a valuable compenſation for all the abaſement and humiliation of his deareſt Son: Oh let us think honorably of p. 612the Law for ſurely God did ſo. The Apoſtle had ſeem'd to ſpeak ſomewhat diminutively of it before, what the Law could not do in that it was weak; but here he puts a great deal of glory upon it, in making this the end of the Incarnation of the Son of God that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us. God never deſigned by the ſending of Chriſt to have his Law**Nota per Chriſtum non abolitam eſſe Legis juſtitiam non reſpectu quidem noſtri, verum impletam eam etiam reſpectu noſtri & in nobis. Rolloc. aboliſhed or abrogated; no, but rather to have it accompliſhed and fully ſatisfied: ††Matth. 5.17.Matt 5:17think not that I am come to deſtroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to deſtroy but to fulfil. In Chriſt's obedience, active and paſſive, we have an high demonſtration of that ſingular reſpect which God bare to his Law. Sin was a baſe thing therefore that ſhall be condemned, but the Law was good therefore that ſhall be ſatisfied.

Secondly, Ʋſe 2 from hence by way of Exhortation I would urge a few things upon you: As (1.) make ſure of an intereſt in the priviledge here ſpoken of. To have the righteouſneſs of the Law fulfilled in us? O what a priviledge is this! is it yours? are you in the number of the [us] in the Text? is Chriſt's obeying the Law ſo made over to you as that, in God's eſtimation, the righteouſneſs thereof is fulfilled in you? Sirs! this is a thing that muſt be done either by you or for you; the former being impoſſible what relief have you from the latter? If you cannot plead this fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs, either by your ſelves or by your Surety, you are loſt for ever; you are under that**Gal. 5.3.Gal 5:3 debt to the Law which you will never be able to pay, you are yet in your ſins, un-juſtified perſons, you lie open to the wrath of that God whoſe Law you have violated, can make no good claim of life (for the Law is not done, its condition of life is not performed); and (which is very dreadful) if the Laws righteouſneſs be not fulfilled in you the Laws curſe will moſt certainly be inflicted upon you. God will have a perfect righteouſneſs and obedience ſome where, or he will not juſtifie and ſave; if therefore the perfect righteouſneſs and obedience of Chriſt be not imputed to you, what will you do? what will become of you? wo to that man who when he ſhall come at the great day to ſtand before God's Tribunal, ſhall not be judg'd in and through Chriſt, a fulfiller of the Law! that ſhall then be, found without the garment of Chriſt's imputed righteouſneſs! how will the Law fall upon him for non-obedience, and thereupon demand ſatisfaction of him in the ſuffering of eternal torments! Pray think of this in time, ſo as to get an intereſt in Chriſt's fulfilling the Laws righteouſneſs. Some diſpute whether his righteouſneſs p. 613be imputed to any; let your enquiries (you taking the thing in theſi for granted) be about ſomething elſe, viz. whether in particular it be imputed to you? and what you may be and do that it may be imputed to you?

For your direction and help in both of theſe enquiries, look to three things, Ʋnion with Chriſt, Faith, the Spiritual converſation; theſe are the evidences of the priviledge, and alſo (eſpecially the two former) the grounds and means of obtaining it. The us (of whom the Apoſtle ſpeaks) in whom the Laws righteouſneſs is fulfilled, are

(1.) Such who are in Chriſt: 1. Cor. 1.30.—

(2.) Such who believe: Rom. 3.22. Rom. 4.24. Phil. 3.9.—

(3.) Such who live the Spiritual Life; for ſo they are here characteriz'd, that the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the fleſh but after the Spirit.

So that would you either know whether Chriſt obey'd the Law for you, and that that his obedience be imputed to you; or would you take ſome courſe in order to the ſecuring of this grace to your ſelves; theſe are the things which your eye muſt be upon, that you be in Chriſt, that you be true believers, that you be holy and ſpiritual in your walking: God never intended that his Sons Obedience ſhould be imputed to any but only to ſuch as theſe.

2. You who pretend to the having an intereſt in this glorious priviledge, I would (with the greateſt earneſtneſs) exhort you to go as far in your own perſons as is poſſible in the fulfilling of the Laws righteouſneſs. And this I would with the more vehemency preſs upon you, becauſe of thoſe ugly aſperſions and calumnies which ſome do caſt upon this precious Truth, and the worthy Aſſertors of it: How do**Ita nunc juxta hujus beſtiae Sanctimoniam (he means Beza), renatus in Chriſto & credens in eum, Chriſti que juſtitiam forti fide apprehendens, fornicetur, inebrietur, omni ſpurcitiâ contaminetur, peccatum pro nihilo habetur, utcunque ſuperſint reliquiae ejus in nobis. Staplet. Antidot. p. 630. Haec foreign ſunt & daemonum praeſtigiae quibus Legem Dei eludere &c. Vid. Con…n. in loc. Qu. 1. Papiſts let fly whole volleys of bitter invectives againſt Proteſtants, becauſe they aſſert the imputation of Chriſts Obedience (and ſo expound theſe Words)! And there are ſome Others who are high enough in their cenſuring and calumniating of this Doctrine, as if it tended to nothing but to make men careleſs and looſe and profane, as if it opened a wide door to all licentiouſneſs, and did cut the ſinews of all piety and godlineſs. O therefore I would intreat you to be the more ſtrict, exact, holy, obedient in your courſe, that you may live down all theſe ſcandals and that your converſation may be a …iſible confutation of them. 'Tis no p. 614new thing for the Doctrines of imputed righteouſneſs, of not reſting on the Law for juſtification, the decrying of Works for righteouſneſs, the crying up of Faith as the great condition of righteouſneſs and life; I ſay, 'tis no new thing for theſe evangelical Truths to be reviled by ſome, and perverted by others. Therefore (as to the latter) the Apoſtle when he was ſpeaking of them was fain ever and anon to interpoſe ſomething by way of Caution, that he might obviate thoſe miſinterpretations, perverſions, abuſes which ſome might make of what he had ſaid;**Rom. 3.31.Rom 3:31 Do we (ſaith he) make void the Law? ††Gal. 2.17.Gal 2:17is Chriſt the miniſter of ſin? And ſurely we have need to do the ſame as to that which I am upon: O (ſay ſome) did Chriſt in our ſtead obey the Law? is his fulfilling the Law made over to us? then we have nothing to do, we are under no obligation on our part to obey too; is not Chriſt's perfect fulfilling the Law enough? what can be further required of us? what need we trouble our ſelves about any obedience or holy walking? But God forbid that any of you ſhould thus reaſon! We are indeed too prone to ſuch reaſonings; 'tis very natural to us to catch at any thing that may comply with the gratifying of the fleſh, and with the eaſing of us as to the ſeverities of an holy, obediential courſe: and hence it is that we ſuck poiſon out of the ſweeteſt flowers, turning the grace of God into wantonneſs. But (I aſſure you) there's nothing in Chriſt's Obedience and in the imputation thereof; that hath any tendency or gives any encouragement or patronage to any ſuch looſe inferences: for though he obey'd the Law for us yet we our ſelves muſt obey it too; his obedience muſt not juſtle out ours, both together (upon different accounts) do very well agree. Indeed he having obey'd the Law, we are not bound to obey it for ſuch an end, as for ſatisfaction and merit, for righteouſneſs and life; yet in other reſpects and for other ends, as that we may conform to the Will of God (and ſo pleaſe him), that we may (in our ſphere) imitate our holy Saviour, that we may teſtifie our love and gratitude to God &c. ſo we are as much bound to keep and obey the Law as ever. O 'tis ſuch an excellent Law in the commands and injunctions of it, that all ſhould delight in conforming to it! as 'tis the Law of works (calling for perfect and perſonal Obedience, and giving no ſtrength thereunto) ſo 'tis burdenſom, but as it is puts the creature upon works and is the rule and matter of obedience, ſo the gracious Soul will delight in it. Wherefore though Chriſt hath fulfilled it for you, yet it becomes you too to live in all obediential complyance with it and ſubjection to it.

p. 615And (I ſay) herein go as far as is poſſible. You cannot perfectly fulfil it (bleſſed be God that is not required of you!) but yet you ſhould do as much as ever you can; you ſhould endeavour after perfect obedience though you cannot arrive at it. Our Saviours perfect obedience may encourage us in our lamented defects, but we muſt not thereupon ſtint or limit our ſelves in our obedience. A gracious mans will is alwayes above his power; he can do but little but he would do all. 'Twas an high commendation given to Caleb; ſaith God of him**Numb. 14.24.Num 14:24 he followed me fully, or (as 'tis in the Hebrew vajemalle achari) he fulfilled after me; and thus it is with every Caleb (one that is after God's own heart as the word ſignifies) hee's for fulfilling after God. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of foreign, the fulneſs or fulfilling of obedience 2 Cor. 10.6. Epaphras pray'd for the Coloſſians Chap. 4.12. that they might be compleat in all the will of God; and 'tis ſaid of Zechary and Elizabeth Luk. 1.6. they were righteous in all the commandments and ordinances of God: O that it might be thus with you! If ſtreight bodies be put together there is an univerſal contiguity betwixt them, they'l meet and touch each the other throughout; and ſo where the heart is ſincere it will cloſe with every part of God's Law. Chriſtians! pray rejoyce in Chriſt's fulfilling the Laws righteouſneſs, and reſt upon that only; but yet in the way of duty and obedience aſpire in your ſelves at the higheſt fulfilling of the Law which here you are capable of.

3. Thirdly, the Law-righteouſneſs Chriſt hath fulfilled for you, but the Goſpel-righteouſneſs you muſt perform your ſelves: The Moral Law (as 'twas ſtrictly and properly the Covenant of works) Chriſt hath ſatisfied in his doing of what it required, but the Evangelical Law (requiring Faith and Repentance) you your ſelves muſt ſatisfie: Chriſt's obedienee to the former is made yours by imputation, but as to the latter there muſt be your own perſonal and inherent obedience. We reade of Chriſt's being made under the Law▪ and of his fulfilling the Law, but we never reade of his being made under the Goſpel or fulfilling the conditions thereof: no, you muſt repent your ſelves, believe your ſelves, or elſe all that Chriſt hath done upon the account of the Law will not profit you. I would not be miſtaken in this; therefore

(1.) I do not mean that you are to perform the Goſpel conditions in your own ſtrength; was it ſo, you might as well do what the Law as what the Goſpel requires, (it being as eaſie in your own ſtrength to obey the one as the other): You your ſelves are to repent and believe, but 'tis not of p. 616your ſelves; theſe are the gift of God. Nor

(2.) do I mean, that the performing of the Goſpel-conditions is left to the lubricity of your Wills, ſo as that it ſhould be uncertain and undetermin'd whether you ſhould perform them or not; for, upon the Election of God, and the purchaſe of Chriſt, all that do belong to him ſhall certainly believe and repent. Nor

(3.) do I mean, that upon the fulfilling of the Goſp…-Law, you ſhould have another formal righteouſneſs before God diſtinct from that which reſults from Chaiſt's obeying the Moral Law, (which is imputed to you); but only that upon your performing of the Goſpel-conditions way may be made for the application of Chriſt's legal obedience to you, as the only thing wherein ſtands your righteouſneſs: (theſe are things which might be very much enlarg'd upon, but I am now in haſt).

All therefore that I drive at is this, Chriſt fulfilled the Moral Law for you but he never fulfilled the Goſpel-Law for you; you muſt repent and believe your ſelves, or elſe you cannot rely upon the imputation of Chriſt's Obedience to the Law: if you be impenitent and unbelieving, both Law and Goſpel are unfulfilled and in full force againſt you. 'Twill be an inſignificant plea at the great day when the Laws righteouſneſs ſhall plead againſt you, for you to ſay, Lord! Chriſt fulfilled that righteouſneſs; true (will God ſay) he did ſo, but the Goſpel-righteouſneſs was not fulfilled by you; therefore what my Son did as to the other is nothing to you.

4. One thing more, you that are Believers take a further view of the great love of God and Chriſt, and let the ſenſe of it work up your hearts to the higheſt thankfulneſs. Was God pleas'd to ſend his own Son in fleſh, for this very end that he might fulfil the Law? and when his Son had ſo done, doth he reckon that obedience to you as if you had done it your ſelves? O incomprehenſible, infinite, amazing love! Was Chriſt willing to ſubmit to this, on theſe terms to take fleſh? O the tranſcendent, ſuperlative love of Chriſt! He who made the Law to be made under the Law? he who was the Lord and Soveraign to be willing to become a Subject? he to undertake to do that which you could never have done, and without the doing of which you muſt have eternally periſhed? he to condeſcend to do what the Law demanded, to ſuffer what the Law threatned? what ſhall we ſay to this love! ſurely we can never enough adore it or ſufficiently bleſs God for it. Saints! did you but conſider what humiliation this was in the Son of God, what a dreadful enemy this Law would have been had not its righteouſneſs been fulfilled, into what a bleſſed ſtate things are now brought; p. 617it would certainly highly affect you with the love of Chriſt, and engage you to love, ſerve, praiſe him eternally.

The third Ʋſe is Comfort to the people of God; Ʋſe 3 and indeed to ſuch here is not a little matter of rejoycing. The righteouſneſs of the Law fulfilled in us? great and bleſſed words! Did God imploy ſuch a perſon, in ſuch a way, for ſuch an end? that end muſt needs then be attained; and if ſo, what ſhall hurt them for whom it was attained? You who believe do often fear that the Laws righteouſneſs is ready to riſe up againſt you, you tremble at the thoughts of it when you conſider how ſhort you come of it; but fear it not, for in Chriſt 'tis exactly, perfectly fulfilled; and that for you too, in your ſtead, that 'tis as well as if you had obey'd it fully in your own perſons; is not here ground of Comfort? You eye the imperfection of your own obedience (and you do well), but pray eye too the perfect obedience of the Lord Jeſus which is yours by imputation. There is now no condemnation to them who are in Chriſt; why now no condemnation? becauſe now Chriſt hath fulfilled the Laws righteouſneſs for ſuch; and thereupon who or what ſhall condemn them? You are troubled becauſe of the Law of Sin, but that the Spirit hath freed you from; you are troubled becauſe of the Law of God (inaſmuch as you come ſo much ſhort of its righteouſneſs), but that by Chriſt is fulfilled for you. You deſire a righteouſneſs, ſuch an one as will bear you out before God; here 'tis for you, Chriſt's own righteouſneſs is yours; O you may ſay**Iſa. 45.24.Isa 45:24 In the Lord we have righteouſneſs. When you had none of your own God provided another and a better for you; Aſſignata eſt ei aliena (juſtitia) qui caruit ſuâ, (Bernard. Epiſt. 190. ad Innoc.); Chriſt was**Delicta noſtra ſua delicta fecit, ut juſtitiam ſuam noſtram juſtitiam faceret. Auguſt. willing to be made ſin that you might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him. You may with holy confidence ſay Law thou demandeſt much of me (and that very juſtly), and I cannot my ſelf anſwer thee in theſe demands; but there's my Saviour, my Surety, he hath paid the full debt for me, he hath in my room and place done and ſuffered all that thou canſt require, to his ſatisfaction I appeal: (a good appeal! the Lord give you more and more of the comfort of it). That which often cauſes a gracious Soul to be troubled, is the conſideration not only of the Laws penalty but alſo of the Laws purity; Oh 'tis a righteous Law and it calls for an exact doing righteouſneſs in the Creature, what will become of me who cannot anſwer it herein? Now under this trouble, the belief of the imputation of Chriſt's active obedience may be of great uſe: And this is one reaſon why I p. 618would be the more loth to part with the imputation of that obedience, becauſe under troubles of Conſcience it is ſo proper, ſo neceſſary, ſo ſoveraign a Cordial for many fainting Chriſtians. To ſhut up all; Believers! Chriſt's whole Obedience (active and paſſive) is yours, what would you have more? what can Sin, or Satan, or Conſcience, or the Law it ſelf now object againſt you? be humble and mourn in the ſenſe of the imperfection of your own inherent righteouſneſs, yet withal rejoyce and glory in the fulneſs, perfection, everlaſtingneſs of that righteouſneſs which is imputed to you. 'Tis a terrible word to Sinners the righteouſneſs of the Law muſt be fulfilled on them, 'tis a comfortable word to the Saints the righteouſneſs of the Law is fulfilled in them.