CHAPTER, XII.

The Imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto the law, declared and vindicated.

FR

ROM the foregoing general argument, another doth issue in particular, with respect unto the imputation of the active obedience or righteousness of Christ unto us, as an essential part of that righteousness whereon we are justified before God. And it is as followeth, if it were necessary that the Lord Christ, as our surety, should undergo the penalty of the law for us, or in our stead, because we have all sinned; then it was necessary also, that as our surety he should yield obedience unto the preceptive part of the law for us also; and if the imputation of the former be needful for us unto our justification before God, then is the imputation of the latter also necessary unto the same end and purpose. For why was it necessary, or why would God have it so, that the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant should undergo the curse and penalty of the law, which we had incurred, that we may be justified in his sight? was it not, that the glory and honor of his righteousness, as the Author of the law, and the Supreme Governor of all mankind, thereby might not be violated in the absolute impunity of the infringers of it: and if it wore

requisite unto the glory of God, that the penalty of the lew should be undergone for us, or suffered by our surety in our stead, because we had sinned; why is it not as requisite unto the glory of God, that the preceptive part of the law be complied with for us, in as much as obedience thereunto is required of us? and as we are no more able of ourselves to fulfil the law, in a way of chedience, than to undergo the penalty of it, so as that we may be justified thereby: so no reason can be given, why God is not as much concerned in honor and glory, that the preceptive power and part of the law be complied withal, by perfect obedience, as that the sanction of it be established by undergoing the penalty of it.

The things that are usually objected and vehemently urged against the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto our justification, may be reduced unto three heads. (1.) That it is impossible. (2.) That it is useless. (8.) That it is pernicious to believe it. And if the arguments used for the inforcement of those objections, be as cogent as the charge itself is fierce and severe, they will unavoidably overthrow the persuasions of it in the minds of all sober persons, But there is oftentimes a wide difference between what is said, and what is proved, as will appear in the present case.

1. It is pleaded impossible on this single ground; namely, that the obedience of Christ unto the law was due from him on his own account, and performed by him for himself, as a man made under the law. Now what was necessary unto bimself, and done for himself, cannot be said to be done for us, so as to be impated unto us,

2. It is pretended to be useless from hence, because all our sins of omission and commission being pardoned in our justification on the account of the death and satisfaction of Christ, we are thereby made completely righteous; so as that there is not the least necessity for, or use of the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto us.

3. Pernicious also they say it is, as that which takes

away the necessity of our own personal obedience, introducing antinomianism, libertinism, and all manner of evils.

For this last part of the charge, I refer it unto its proper

place: :-the first part concerning the impossibility of the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto us, is insisted on by Socinus. And there hath been nothing since pleaded unto the same purpose, but what hath been derived from him, or wherein, at least, he hath not prevented the inventions of other men, and gone before them. And he makes this consileration the principal engine wherewith he endeavours the overthrow of the whole ductrine of the merit of Christ. For he supposeth, that if all he did in a way of obedience, was due from himself on his own account, and was only the duty which he owed unto God for himself in his station and circumstances, as a man in this world, it cannot be meritorious for us, nor any way imputed unto us.

That which we plead is, that the Lord Christ fulfilled the whole law for us; he did not only undergo the penalty of it due unto our sins, but also yielded that perfect obedience which it did require. And herein I shall not dispute about the distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ. For he exercised the highest active obedience in his suffering when he offered himself to God through the eternal Spirit. And all his obedience, considering his person was mixed with suffering, as a part of his exinanition and humiliation; whence it is said, "that though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things that he suffered," And however, doing and suffering are in various categories of things, yet Scripture testimonies are not to be regulated by philosophical artifices and terms. And it must needs be said, that the sufferings of Christ as they were purely penal, are imperfectly called His passive righteousness. For all righteousness is either in habit, or in action, whereof suffering is neither; nor is any man righteous, or so esteemed from what he suffereth, Neither do sufferings give satisfaction unto the commands of the law, which require only obedience. And

hence it will unavoidably follow, that we have need of more. than the mere sufferings of Christ, whereby we may be justified before God, if so be that any righteousness be required thereunto. But the whole of what I intend is, that Christ's fulfilling of the law in obedience unto its commands, is no less imputed unto us for our justification, than his undergoing the penalty of it is.

I cannot but judge it sounds ill in the ears of all christians, that the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ as our Mediator and surety unto the whole law of God, was for himself alone, and not for us; or that what he did therein, was not that he might be the end of the law for righteousness unto them that do believe, nor a means of the fulfilling of the righteousness of the law in us; especially considering, that the faith of the church is, that he was given to us, born to us; that for us men, and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and did, and suffered what was required of him. But whereas some who deny the imputation of the obedience of Christ, unto us for our justification, do insist principally on the second thing mentioned, namely, the uselessness of it, I shall under this first part of the charge, consider only the aguings of Socinus, which is the whole of what some at present do endeavour to perplex the truth withal.

The substance of his plea is," that our Lord Jesus Christ was for himself, or on his own account, obliged unto all that obedience which he performed." And this he endeavours to prove with this reason, because if it were otherwise, then he might, if he would, have neglected the whole law of God, and have broken it at his pleasure. Hence he infers, that what he did, could not be for us, because it was so for himself, no more than what any other man is bound to do in a way of duty for himself, can be esteemed to have been done also for another.

To clear the truth herein, the things ensuing must be observed.

1. The obedience we treat of, was the obedience of Christ the Mediator. But the obedience of Christ as the

Mediator of the covenant, was the obedience of his person : for God redeemed his church with his own blood, Acts xx. 20. It was performed in the human nature, but the complex person of Christ performed it. As in the person of a man, some of his acts, as to the immediate principle of operation, are acts of the body, and some are so of the soul; yet in their performance and accomplishment, are they the acts of the person. So the acts of Christ in his mediation, as to their immediate operation, were the actings of his distinct natures; some of the divine, and some of the human; but as to the perfecting efficacy of them, they were the acts of his whole person: his acts who was that person, and whose power of operation was a property of his person. Wherefore the obedience of Christ which we plead to have been for us, was the obedience of the Son of God; but the Son of God was never absolutely made under the law, nor could be formally obliged thereby. He was indeed, as the Apostle witnesseth, made so in his human nature, wherein he performed this obedience, "made of a woman, made under the law," Gal. iv. 4. He was so far forth made under the law, as he was made of a woman. For in his person he abode Lord of the Sabbath, Mark, ii. 28. And therefore of the whole law. But the obedience itself, was the obedience of that person, who never was, nor ever could absolutely be made under the law, in his whole person. For the divine nature cannot be subjected unto an outward work of its own, such as the law is; nor can it have an authoritative commanding power over it, as it must have, if it were made under the law. Wherefore the obedience whereof we treat, being not the obedience of the human nature abstractedly, but the obedience of the person of the Son of God, it neither was nor could be for himself, because his whole person was not obliged thereunto. It is therefore improper to compare the obedience of Christ, with that of any other man, whose whole person is under the law.

2. As our Lord Jesus Christ owed not in his own person his obedience for himself, by virtue of any authority or