Page images
PDF
EPUB

How much does he insist on this as an obligation to gratitude, that they are so sinful and undeserving, and ill deserving ?

Therefore it certainly follows, that that doctrine that teaches, that God, when he justifies a man, and shews him that great kindness, as to give him a right to eternal life, does not do it for any obedience, or any manner of goodness of his; but that justification respects a man as ungodly, and wholly without any manner of virtue, beauty or excellency. I say, this doctrine does certainly more exalt the free grace of God in justification, and man's obligation to gratitude to him for such a favor, than the contrary doctrine, viz. That God, in shewing this kindness to man, respects him as sincerely obedient and virtuous, and as having something in him that is truly excellent, and lovely, and acceptable in his sight, and that this goodness or excellency of man is the very fundamental condition of the bestowment of that kindness on him, or of the distinguishing him from others by that benefit. But I hasten

to a

Fourth argument for the truth of the doctrine, "That to suppose that a man is justified by his own virtue or obedience, derogates from the honor of the Mediator, and ascribes that to man's virtue that belongs only to the righteousness of Christ:"

It puts man in Christ's stead, and makes him his own Saviour, in a respect in which Christ only is the Saviour: And so it is a doctrine contrary to the nature and design of the gospel, which is to abase man, and to ascribe all the glory of our salvation to Christ the Redeemer. It is inconsistent with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which is a gospel doctrine. Here I would,

1. Explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

2. Prove the thing intended by it to be true.

3. Shew that this doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of our being justified by our own virtue or sincere obedience.

First, I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Sometimes the expression is taken by our divines in a larger sense, for the imputation of all that VOL. VIL

H

Christ did and suffered for our redemption, whereby we are free from guilt, and stand righteous in the sight of God; and so implies the imputation both of Christ's satisfaction and obedience. But here I intend it in a stricter sense, for the imputation of that righteousness or moral goodness that consists in the obedience to Christ. And by that righteousness being imputed to us, is meant no other than this, that that righteousness of Christ is accepted for us, and admitted instead of that perfect inherent righteousness that ought to be in ourselves : Christ's perfect obedience shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall have the benefit of it, as though we had performed it ourselves: And so we suppose that a title to eternal life is given us as the reward of this righteousness. The scripture uses the word impute in this sense, viz. for reckoning any thing belonging to any person, to another person's account: As Philemon 18. "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account." In the original it is τέτο εμοι ελλογο impute that to me. It is a word of the same root with that which is translated impute, Rom. iv. 6. whom God imputeth righteousness without works." And it is the very same word that is used in Rom. v. 13, that is translated impute," sin is not imputed when there is no law."

"To

The opposers of this doctrine suppose that there is an absurdity in it: They say that to suppose that God imputes Christ's obedience to us, is to suppose that God is mistaken, and thinks that we performed that obedience that Christ performed. But why cannot that righteousness be reckoned to our account, and be accepted for us, without any such absurdity? Why is there any more absurdity in it, than in a merchant's transferring debt or credit from one man's account to another, when one man pays a price for another, so that it shall be accepted, as if that other had paid it? Why is there any more absurdity in supposing that Christ's obedience is imputed to us, than that his satisfaction is imputed? If Christ has suffered the penalty of the law for us, and in our stead, then it will follow, that his suffering that penalty is imputed to us, i. e. that it is accepted for us, and in our stead, and is reckoned to our account, as though we had suffered it. But

3

why may not his obeying the law of God be as rationally reckoned to our account, as his suffering the penalty of the law? Why may not a price to bring into debt, be as rationally transferred from one person's account to another, as a price to pay a debt? Having thus explained what we mean by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I proceed,

Secondly, To prove that the righteousness of Christ is thus imputed.

1. There is the very same need of Christ's obeying the law in our stead, in order to the reward, as of his suffering the penalty of the law in our stead, in order to our escaping the penalty; and the same reason why one should be accepted on our account, as the other. There is the same need of one as the other, that the law of God might be answered: One was as requisite to answer the law as the other. This is certain, that that was the reason why there was need that Christ should suffer the penalty for us, even that the law might be answered; for this the scripture plainly teaches. This is given as the reason why Christ was made a curse for us, that the law threatened a curse to us, Gal. iii. 10, 13. But the same law that fixes the curse of God as the consequent of not continuing in all things written in the law to do them, verse 10, has as much fixed doing those things as an antecedent of living in them, (as verse 12, the next verse but one.) There is as much of a connexion established in one case as in the other. There is therefore exactly the same need, from the law, of perfect obedience being fulfilled in order to our obtaining the reward, as there is of death's being suffered in order to our escaping the punishment; or the same necessity by the law, of perfect obedience preceding life, as there is of dis obedience being succeeded by death. The law is, without doubt, as much of an established rule in one case as in the other.

Christ by suffering the penalty, and so making atonement for us, only removes the guilt of our sins, and so sets us in the same state that Adam was the first moment of his creation : And it is no more fit that we should obtain eternal life only on that account, than that Adam should have the reward of eter

nal life, or of a confirmed and unalterable state of happiness, the first moment of his existence, without any obedience at all, Adam was not to have the reward merely on the account of his being innocent; if so, he would have had it fixed upon him at once, as soon as ever he was created; for he was as innocent then as he could be: But he was to have the reward on the account of his activeness in obedience; not on the account merely of his not having done ill, but on the account of his doing well.

So on the same account we have not eternal life mereon the account of being void of guilt, (as Adam was at first existence) which we have by the atonement of Christ; but on the account of Christ's activeness in obedience and doing well. Christ is our second federal head, and is called the second Adam, 1 Cor. xv. 22, because he acted the part for us that the first Adam should have done. When he had undertaken for us to stand in our stead, he was looked upon and treated as though he were guilty with our guilt; and by his satisfying or bearing the penalty, he did as it were free himself from this guilt. But by this the second Adam did only bring himself into the state that the first Adam was in on the first moment of his existence, viz. a state of mere freedom from guilt; and hereby indeed was free from any obligation to suffer punishment: But this being supposed, there was no need of something further, even a positive obedience, in order to his obtaining, as our second Adam, the reward of eternal life.

God saw meet to place man first in a state of trial, and not to give him a title to eternal life as soon as he had made him ; because it was his will that he should first give honor to his authority, by fully submitting to it, in will and act, and per. fectly obeying his law. God insisted upon it, that his holy majesty and law should have their due acknowledgment and honor from man, such as became the relation he stood in to that Being that created him, before he would bestow the reward of confirmed and everlasting happiness upon him; and therefore God gave him a law when he created him, that he might have opportunity, by giving the due honor to his au

thority in obeying it, to obtain this happiness. It therefore became Christ, seeing that in assuming man to himself, he sought a title to this eternal happiness for him after he had broken the law, that he himself should become subject to God's authority, and be in the form of a servant, that he might do that honor to God's authority for him, by his obedience, which God at first required of man as the condition of his having a title to that reward. Christ came into the world to that end, to render the honor of God's authority and law consistent with the salvation and eternal life of sinners; he came to save them, and withal to assert and vindicate the honor of the lawgiver, and his holy law. Now if the sinner, after his sin was satisfied for, had eternal life bestowed upon him without active righteousness, the honor of his law would not be sufficiently vindicated. Supposing this were possible, that the sinner himself could, by suffering, pay the debt, and afterwards be in the same state that he was in before his probation, that is to say, negatively righteous, or merely without guilt; if he now at last should have eternal life bestowed upon him, without performing that condition of obedience; then God would recede from his law, and would give the promised reward, and his law never have respect and honor shewn to it, in that way of being obeyed. But now Christ, by subjecting himself to the law, and obeying of it, has done great honor to the law, and to the authority of God who gave it, That so glorious a person should become subject to the law, and fulfil it, has done much more honor to it, than if mere man had obeyed it. It was a thing infinitely honorable to God, that a person of infinite dignity was not ashamed to call him his God, and to adore and obey him as such: This was more to God's honor than if any mere creature, of any possible degree of excellency and dignity, had so done.

It is absolutely necessary, that in order to a sinner's being justified, the righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account; for it is declared, that the person justified is looked upon as (in himself) ungodly; but God neither will nor can justify a person without a righteousness; for justification is manifestly a forensick term, as the word is used in

« PreviousContinue »