Sermons Preached on Romans 8

CHAP. XIV. Of the fulfilling of the Laws righteousness in 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 [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] may be taken either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : 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 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 them), 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or by way of apposition; and so it notes the superadding of some further matter and that which is 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 threatened; therefore Christ was sent for both, and both were accomplished by him. Man in his lapsed state stood in need of two things, Satisfaction and Merit; Satisfaction, with respect to God's punitive Justice, the expiation of sin by the undergoing of the punishment incur'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 complete Salvation which sinners have by the Lord Jesus: and so much for their main Scope and the general explication of the matter contained in them.

In the more particular opening of them Four things are to be inquired 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]?

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 Evangelical Law, or the Law of Faith ); the Law which God at first made with Adam in the state of innocence, and afterwards (for the matter of it) renewed and copied out again to the people of Israel, abridging it in the ten Commandments; the Law which called for universal, perfect, constant Obedience, and promised 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. 'It is 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 something about it, to which I refer you). 'It is 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 fulfilled; therefore he having said 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 styled Christ 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 fulfilled in us (that is, by imputation ); now 'tis the righteousness of the Moral Law, as fulfilled 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 itself had its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for that's the Word Heb. 9.1. and 'tis said of Zacharias and Elizabeth Luk. 1.6. they were both righteous before God, walking [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless; (where some distinguish, making the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to refer to the commands of the Moral Law, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the rites and ordinances of the Ceremonial Law ). Neither do I deny but that other Laws besides the Moral Law were fulfilled by Christ, for he fulfilled all; and that his fulfilling of them also was for our good: But yet 'twas the Moral Law with which especially righteousness is join'd, which Christ eminently fulfilled, 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 looked into (one or two only excepted).

2. What is here meant by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or righteousness of the Law? The Vulgar, Ambrose, Erasmus, Tremelleus &c. read it the justification of the Law, (as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 they) that the primary end and scope of the Law (viz. to justify, 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 stamped upon it, and it enjoining nothing but what was righteous, just, and good, it was its right to command and to be obeyed 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 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. Some make this to lie in the Laws threatenings or damnatory sentence against Sinners, in that curse which it denounces against the transgressors of it, Gal. 3.10; as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 intended by it; therefore 'tis 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.

3. We are to inquire 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 enjoins 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 a curse he underwent what the Law threatened. 'It is 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 some) as that righteousness which it did foretell 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, received 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 prophesy or prediction, (in which sense it hath usually joined with it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; as Matth. 13.35; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Jam. 2.23; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Luk. 24.44; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Matth. 13.14.); as the perfect obeying of what was enjoined in the Command, and the doing to the full what the Law as preceptive did require rather than what the Law as predictive did foretell.

Again, 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 designed 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 others) that it might not be commanded in vain, nor without effect, as it is in respect of Unbelievers: 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 2.26, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 2.27. rather than with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

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.

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

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 everyone their due) they differ from the old PELAGIANS: For whereas they held that a man by the mere 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 endeavor 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 easy; 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 they of the ROMISH -Church teach and maintain with great zeal.

We are not ashamed to declare 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 innocence 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 man's 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 ways impaired by Adams Fall: By 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 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 ourselves, 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? —(read 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 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 grossly 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 everyone 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 died 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 whoever 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 enjoin the Creature that which is impossible?

Answ. Just thus the PELAGIANS of old argued for the possibility of men's keeping the Law; and AUSTINE (writing against them) was fain again and again to answer this very Objection. We say, what is 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 willfully 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 looked 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.

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 sanctified 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 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. 'It is 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 neighbor as thyself: Gal. 6.2. Bear ye one another's 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, Some interpret the words solely of inherent and personal Obedience, 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 complete, full, perfect, in Christ.
• (3.) Though the fulfilling of the Law be sometimes taken in 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, showing 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 &c 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 ways wherein he did promote our salvation; whereas the Apostle designs to set down both distinctly.

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 performed 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 ways 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 to them. And this is that Exposition of the words which our PROTESTANT Divines (so far as imputation in general is concerned) 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).

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 looked upon by God as if we had done or kept the whole Law; (thus 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 Augustine, 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 pleased 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 upon 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 complete in the one or in the other apart, but in both conjunct.

I know some very 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 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 judged a breaker of the Law; but there must be the doing of what the Law enjoins, otherwise its righteousness is not fulfilled. 'It is one thing to be 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 looked 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 endeavor further to open it.

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

• 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.

1. Christ was made under the Law. The Apostle is express in this, When the fullness 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 Sovereign: 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 economy 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. 'It is a 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 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:

• 1. This must be understood of him with respect to his human 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 human 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. Christ, as being made under the Law, is to be considered not merely 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 human Nature now in Heaven is a Creature, and yet there 'tis not (if we speak 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 intrinsic 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. The principal Law that Christ was made under and which he was principally obliged to fulfil, was the 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 justify, it was most necessary that Christ should be subject to it and perform 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 concerned; which (I say) was the Moral Law.
• 4. Yet besides this general Law which concerned all mankind (which therefore the Savior of mankind subjected himself unto), there were other 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 Passover 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 myself; 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 some I find do not very well approve of this distinction; their reason is, because it seems to assert that something was imposed upon Christ by the latter Law; unto which he was not obliged by the former; which (say they) was not so. For there was nothing enjoin'd in the mediatory and positive Law, unto which Christ was not obliged by the Moral Law; there was indeed in it a more particular application and determination of Christ's duty in his circumstances, but the thing itself was pre-enjoin'd and he pre-engaged thereunto from the Moral Law: (but this I will not concern myself 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 obeyed, may find it done to his hand by others largely and distinctly; (as particularly by Zanchi on Phil. 2.8. p. 114. &c.).
• 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 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 will 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 obeyed as mere 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 God-man so it became meritorious for others. His obedience and subjection was indeed terminated in his Human Nature, but that must not be abstracted from his Divine (both being now united in one person ); which Union 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 Reverend Divine;
  It is, (saith he) alleged that Christ as Man fulfilled 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.
• 2. Though Christ when he had submitted to assume man's 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. 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 engaged with and for the debtor is thereby bound to pay the debt; yet he pays 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. 'It is further added, 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, these 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 looked upon as meritorious and imputable. So much of the first Proposition.

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 everyone that believeth; (the end of the Law, viz. as the Law in him received its full and final accomplishment ). Two things (as you have heard) were contained in its righteousness, the duty it commanded, the penalty it threatened; 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 shunned whatever evil that prohibited, and also as he did whatever good that enjoined: he was originally and actually holy, acted all along in exact and universal conformity to the Laws commands; so he fulfilled 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 fulfilled passively, by his bearing of its curse when he died upon the Cross. With respect to both Christ's Obedience was so full and perfect, so adequate 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 satisfy me, there's my holy and just Law satisfy it, unless that be satised I cannot be satisfied; by its violation I was offended, by its fulfilling I must be appeased: 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 obeyed 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 pleased to accept of an imperfect Obedience (if sincere) from us, but the just God would have a perfect Obedience for us; he can accept of 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 intrinsic worth and value, could properly and formally merit of God (as Some hold); or whether it did merit respect being had to God's Ordination, Covenant and Promise (as 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. 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 myself to that.

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 should most gladly have passed them by: 'It is 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 myself and to avoid what is ingrateful to me) go out of my way; 'It is merely sense of duty (as I apprehend it) which makes me to engage in this unwelcome province. These Controversies, as they are managed 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 myself therefore, and only in short speak to that which I conceive is absolutely necessary for the clearing up of the things in question.

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 will 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 others; 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.

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 completely 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 defense 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 Controversy till these latter Ages of the Church), not only from the strength and weightiness of the Arguments with which 'tis backed (which cannot be denied), 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, PAREUS, SCULTETUS, CAPELLUS, CAMERO, FORBES, with divers others).

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 Divines of great note; and that not only by some of them by the by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. 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 conveyed 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 man's 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 be 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 public person and Head ) we broke the Law, so in the other (he being a public 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 alleged 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 sum'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, or could not be fulfilled in believers: (this cannot be denied, for 'tis brought in here expressly 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 thing is done, there is that in both which is fully adequate 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 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. 'It is urged thirdly, 'tis necessary not only in respect of the Law, but of ourselves 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. Well 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 Law; when that is broken, 'tis guilt; when that is kept, 'tis righteousness: therefore as, supposing that Law had not been transgressed, we had not been guilty, so unless that Law be fully conformed to, we cannot be 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, (Levite. 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 fullness 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 everyone &c. or as 'tis Vers. 10. Cursed is everyone 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 from the Laws curse. That's one place; the other is Rom. 10.5. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone 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 everyone 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, 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); showing, 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 obeyed not merely 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, but 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 Union of the Divine and Human Natures in him, rather than from his active Obedience to the Law; for else he could not have been looked 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 Union 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 pleased 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 ourselves (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 produced for the imputation of the active as well as of the passive Obedience: As that both together make most for the glory of Christ, and for the ease and 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 or 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 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 judged the more ancient and Orthodox, (which that excellent person 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 satisfy I shall hope for less from these. (So much for this third Opinion ).

4. There is a Fourth; Say some the 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 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 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. Others (to the same purpose) consider Christ's active Obedience two ways; 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 myself to argue or object anything against it, (though something might be said upon that account); I rejoice 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 tried by and by), I may fall in and close with it. No more at present therefore about the First Question.

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 inquired 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 pleased 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 itself, so as that they in their persons should be looked 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 compliance 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 Savior's active Obedience is imputed, reckoned, made over to us, as being done in our stead, and not only finally for 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:

• 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 easy 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 Savior, 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 sinned. 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 stated, be granted: and I humbly conceive he who grants we disobey'd in Adam must grant we also obeyed in Christ.
• 4. Christ's righteousness is imputed to us in that way wherein 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 guilt of it upon himself (as hath been already 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 deniers 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 grossly mistaken in disputing for that which was not denied, or else they had other apprehensions about imputation.

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 affirmed that Christ's active as well as passive Obedience is imputed to Believers; now that is objected against: It hath been affirmed 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: wherefore I shall take them as they lie before me promiscuously and in common, and so endeavor to answer them.

Obj. First 'tis objected, 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, 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 easy 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 completed. 'It is 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 read of our being justified by his blood (and the like), so we read 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 everyone that believeth.

Obj. If Christ's active Obedience be imputed, 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; the reason is, because though upon the imputation of Christ's active Obedience one part of the Law is satisfied, 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 looked 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 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 enjoined, 'twas necessary also that he should obey passively for the suffering of what the Law threatened; for both of these were necessary to reach the Laws righteousness, and so to lay the foundation of a complete 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 judged 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 to myself, but how far it may be so to others that I must leave with God.

Obj. Christ's passive Obedience was sufficient: for thereby the justice of God was fully satisfied, the Sinners guilt fully expiated, full 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, 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 looked 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, Levite. 18.5. Rom. 10.5.

Obj. But 'tis said, 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 denied; and the contrary thereunto is proved, viz. 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 innocence 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 being fallen stands obliged 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ). 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, what is here alleged 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 looked upon as being righteous, or as having done what the Law required of him: so 'tis in that which I am upon. 'It is 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 judged as a transgressor of the Law and to be judged as a fulfiller of the Law, are two distinct things. And so as to the other; although there be no medium 'twixt natural life and death (so that upon the negation of the one there is always 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 Traitor may be freed from death and yet not restored to all those high dignities and privileges which he had before; and why not so here? 'It is 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 urged, 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 straight, 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. 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 Doctrine 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 integral parts concurring to the completing 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