Section 3

Romans 8:34. Indeed rather, that is risen again.

CHAP. 1.

The next thing to be looked at in Christ as he is the object of justifying faith (and from where our faith may seek and fetch support and comfort in the matter of justification) is Christ's resurrection, upon which we see here the Apostle puts a 'rather' — 'indeed rather that is risen again.' There must therefore be some special thing in the resurrection of Christ which it contributes to our faith and justification, for which it should have a 'rather' put upon it, and that comparatively to his death. Now to show in what this should lie, consider how the resurrection of Christ serves to a double use and end in the matter of justification.

First, as an evidence to our faith that God is fully satisfied by Christ's death: his resurrection may give us full assurance of it.

Secondly, it had and has an influence into our justification itself, indeed as great an influence as his death had. In both these respects it deserves a 'rather' to be put upon it, and Paul had them both in his eye when he wrote these words. So as first, if you ask an account of his faith and a reason of his so triumphant assurance, he alleges his resurrection to confirm it: Christ is risen. Or:

Secondly, if you would have a reason of the thing, how it comes to pass that we who are believers cannot be condemned, Christ is risen, says he — he alleges it as a cause that has such an influence into justification itself as it makes all sure about it.

1. By way of evidence: although Christ's obedience in his life and his death past do alone afford the whole matter of our justification and make up the sum of that price paid for us (as has been shown), so as faith may see a fullness of worth and merit therein to discharge the debt — yet faith has a comfortable sign and evidence to confirm itself in the belief of this from Christ's resurrection after his death. It may fully satisfy our faith that God himself is satisfied and that he reckons the debt as paid, so that our faith may boldly come to God and call for the bond in, as having Christ's resurrection to show for it that the debt is discharged. And hence the Apostle cries victory over sin, hell, and death, upon occasion of (and as the crown and conclusion of) that large discourse about Christ's resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:55–57: 'O death, where is your sting?' — that is, sin and the power of it, for so it follows: 'The sting of death is sin' — 'and O grave, where is your victory? Thanks be to God who has given us victory through Jesus Christ our Lord,' namely as risen again, for of his resurrection and of that chiefly had he spoken throughout that chapter.

2. But surely this is not all, that it should only argue our justification by way of evidence; this alone would not have deserved such a 'rather' to be put upon it if Christ's resurrection had not had some further real causal influence into justification itself, and been more than simply an evidence of it to our apprehensions. Therefore secondly, in justification, although the material, or matter of it, be wholly the obedience and death of Christ, yet the act of pronouncing us righteous by that his obedience (which is the formal of justification) does depend upon Christ's resurrection. Ordinarily there has been no more expressed concerning this dependence than that the resurrection of Christ justifies by working actual faith to lay hold upon what Christ has done in his life and death, which is called the applying of it (of which more presently). But that speech of Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:17, seems to import more: 'If Christ be not risen again, you are yet in your sins' and 'your faith is in vain' — that is, although you could suppose faith to be wrought in you upon the merit of Christ's dying, yet it would be in vain if Christ were not risen again, for your title to justification itself would be void: you were yet in your sins. Which is said because his resurrection was that by which sins (though satisfied for in his death) were taken off, and they acquitted from them. Which I take to be the meaning also of that Romans 4 last: 'He was delivered for our sins and rose again for our justification.' When the Apostle says 'for our sins he was delivered,' he means his laying down that which was the price for them, a satisfaction for them, which his death was, and in that sense 'he died for our sins' — that is, his death stands in stead of our death and so satisfies for sin. But yet still that upon which the act of God's justifying us and his discharge given us from our sins, and by which he reckons us justified, depends upon his resurrection. 'He rose again for our justification.' Note that justification there imports the act of imputation and reckoning us just, which he had spoken of in the verses immediately foregoing, verses 22–24.

In a word, to the full discharge of a debt and freeing the debtor two things are requisite: 1. the payment of the debt; 2. the tearing or canceling the bond, or receiving an acquittance for the freeing of the debtor. Now the payment was wrought by Christ's death, and the acquittance to free from the debt was at and by his resurrection.

CHAP. 2.

Now the better to explain both these, you must consider how that Christ in almost all that he did 'for us' (as the phrase is here, and is to be annexed to each particular) did stand in a double relation for us to God.

1. Of a surety, bound to pay the debt for us and to save our souls.

2. Of a common person, or as an attorney at law, in our stead. And both these, as they have a distinct and differing consideration in themselves, so those several considerations of them will conduce to the understanding of those two things before mentioned, as ways and arguments to show how the resurrection of Christ may support our faith, both by way of evidence that the debt is paid, and by way of influence that we are thereby acquitted and cannot be condemned. The notion of his being risen, who is our surety, clears the first, and that of his rising as a common person illustrates the other. And I shall here a little the more largely insist upon the explanation of these two relations, because their consideration will be of use through all the rest that follows, to illustrate thereby the influence that his ascension and sitting at God's right hand, etc., have into our justification, and so I shall carry them along throughout this discourse.

1. A surety is one that undertakes and is bound to do a thing for another — as to pay a debt for him, or to bring him safe to such or such a place, or the like — so as when he has discharged what he undertook and was bound for, then the party for whom he undertook is discharged also.

2. A common person with or for another he goes for is one who represents, personates, and acts the part of another by the allowance and warrant of the law, so as what he does (as such a common person and in the name of the other) that other whom he personates is by the law reckoned to do; and in like manner what is done to him (as being in the other's stead and room) is reckoned as done to the other. Thus by our law, an attorney appears for another, and money received by him is reckoned as received by him whom it is due to. Thus the giving possession of an estate, a re-entry made and possession taken of land, etc., if done by and to a man who is his lawful attorney, it stands as good in law to a man as if in his own person it had been done. So ambassadors for princes represent their masters: what is done to them is reckoned as done to the prince, and what they do according to their commission is all one as if the prince whose person they represent had done it himself. In like manner also the marriages of princes are transacted and solemnized by proxy: a common person representing his lord and in his name is married to a princess in her father's court, and the laws of men authorize it, and the marriage is as good as if both princes themselves had been present and had performed all the rites of it. And thus to be a common person is more than simply to be a surety for another; it is a further thing, and therefore these two relations are to be distinctly considered, though they seem to be somewhat of a like nature. Thus an attorney is a different thing from a surety: a surety undertakes to pay a debt for another or the like, but a common person serves to perform any common act which by the law is reckoned and virtually imputed to the other, and is to stand as the other's act and is as valid as if he had done it — so as the good and benefit which is the consequent of such an act shall accrue to him whom he personated and for whom he stood as a common person. Adam was not a surety for all mankind; he undertook not for them in the sense before mentioned; but he was a common person representing all mankind, so as what he should do was to be accounted as if they had done it. Now the better to express and make sure our justification in and by Christ, according to all sorts of laws (the equity of all which God usually draws up into his dispensations), God did ordain Christ both to be a surety for us and also a common person representing us and in our stead. That as Christ took all other relations for us, as of a husband, head, father, brother, king, priest, captain, etc., that so the fullness of his love might be set forth to us, in that what is defective in any one of these relations is supplied and expressed by the other — even thus did God ordain Christ to take and sustain both these relations of a surety and a common person in all he did for us, thereby to make our justification by him the more full and legal, and to justify (as I may so speak) our justification itself or his justifying of us by all sorts of legal considerations whatever that hold commonly among men in like case; and that which the one of these relations or considerations might not reach to make good, the other might supply; what fell short in the one the other might make up; and so we might be most legally and formally justified and made sure never to be condemned.

CHAP. 3.

Concerning the first of those two heads at first proposed, namely the evidence which Christ's resurrection affords to our faith in point of non-condemnation, I have two things to handle in this chapter to make this out: first, how Christ was made a surety for us and what manner of surety he did become; secondly, what the consideration of this will contribute to that evidence which faith has from Christ's resurrection.

For the first, Christ was appointed by God (and himself also undertook) to be our surety. This you have, Hebrews 7:22: he was made surety of a better testament or covenant, namely of the new. The Hebrew word for covenant the Septuagint still translated as 'testament,' the word in the Hebrew being of a large signification and comprehending both a covenant and testament, and so in the New Testament it is used interchangeably for either. And indeed this new covenant of grace is both. Of this covenant Christ is the plighter of his troth for it, the surety, the promiser, the undertaker. The verb this comes of means 'to promise,' which comes from the phrase meaning 'in hands,' that is, striking hands or giving one's hand as a sign of a covenant, and so to bargain with or make up a covenant. Proverbs 22:26: 'Be not you one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts' — which whole verse the Septuagint reads, 'Give not yourself to suretyship,' using the same word that is here used by the Apostle. It was the manner both of the Jews and Romans also to make covenants by striking of hands; and in testaments the heir and executor shook hands, or the executor gave his hand to fulfill it. And the word is used not only in promising to pay a debt for another, but also in becoming a pledge for another to undergo death or a capital punishment in another's room — as in that famous story of friends, namely Euephenus and Eucritus: Eucritus willingly became a surety for Euephenus when condemned to die by Dionysius the tyrant. This very word is used by Polyenus the historian of that fact. Now such a surety in every way did Christ become to God for us, both to pay the debt by undergoing death in our stead and so to satisfy God, and then as the heir to execute his will and testament. He became a surety of the whole covenant and every condition in it, take it in the largest sense, and this of all, both on God's part and on ours. For us he undertook to God to work all our works and undergo all our punishments, to pay our debts for us and to work in us all that God required should be done by us in the covenant of grace. And thus to be a surety is much more than simply to be an intercessor or mediator (as Pareus well observes). God did (as it were) say to Christ, 'What they owe me, I require it all at your hands'; and Christ assented and from everlasting struck hands with God to do all for us that God could require, and undertook it under the penalty that lay upon us to have undergone. Indeed, Christ became such a surety in this for us as is not to be found among men. On earth, sureties are accustomed to enter into one and the same bond with the creditors, so as the creditor may seize on which of the two he will, whether on the debtor or on the surety, and so (as usually) on the debtor first, for him we call the principal. But in this covenant, God would have Christ's single bond; and hence Christ is not only called the surety of the covenant for us, but 'The Covenant' (Isaiah 49:8) and elsewhere. God making the covenant of grace primarily with him, and with him as for us, thereby his single bond alone was taken for all, that so God might be sure of satisfaction; therefore he laid all upon Christ, declaring that he would not deal with us, nor so much as expect any payment from us (such was his grace). So Psalm 89:19, where the mercies of the covenant made between Christ and God under the type of God's covenant with David are set forth: 'You spoke in vision to your holy one and said, I have laid help on one who is mighty.' As if God had said, 'I know that these will fail me and break and never be able to satisfy me, but you are a mighty and substantial person able to pay me, and I will look for my debt of you.' And to confirm this (than which nothing can give stronger consolation or more advances God's free grace), when God went about reconciling the world in and by Christ and dealt with Christ about it, the manner of it is expressed to have been that God took off our sins from us and discharged us (as it were), meaning never to call us to an account for them unless Christ should not satisfy him, and laid them all on Christ, so as he would require an account of them all from him first, and let him look to it; and this he did to make the covenant sure. Thus 2 Corinthians 5:19, it is said (the Apostle speaking of God's transaction of this business with Christ) that God was in Christ, namely from everlasting, reconciling the world (of elect believers) to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and made him sin who knew no sin. Observe that as he laid our sins on Christ, so withal he discharged us in his compact between Christ and himself, not imputing their trespasses to them. So then, all was laid upon Christ, and he was to look to it, or else his soul was to have gone for it. This is not the manner of other creditors; they use to charge the debt on both the surety and the debtor. But in this covenant of grace namely, Christ's single bond is entered; he alone is the covenant, so as God will have nothing to say to us till Christ fails him. He has engaged himself first to require satisfaction at Christ's hands, who is our surety.

Now then, 2. to make use of this notion for the clearing of the point in hand. It might afford us matter of unspeakable comfort only to hear of Christ's having been arrested by God for our debt and cast into prison, and his bond sued and an execution or judgment served on him, as the phrases are, Isaiah 53:8. For thereby we should have seen how God had begun with our surety (as minded to let us alone) and that it lay on him to discharge the debt, who was so able to do it. And thereby we might also see how he was made sin for us, and therefore we might very well have quieted our hearts from fearing any arrests or God's coming upon us, till we should hear that our surety were not sufficiently able to pay the debt (as you have heard he is). But yet our hearts would still be inquisitive (for all that) to hear whether indeed he has perfectly satisfied God or no, and would be extremely solicitous to know whether he has satisfactorily performed what he undertook, and how he got clear of that engagement and of being made sin for us. And therefore the Apostle comforts believers with this, that Christ shall the next time appear without sin: 'To them that look for him he shall appear the second time without sin, to salvation' (Hebrews 9:28). One would think it no great matter of comfort to us to hear that Christ should appear without sin — for who would imagine it could be otherwise with the Holy One, the Lord of Glory? There is no wonder in that. Ah, but (says the Apostle) your very salvation is interested in this as nearly as is possible. It is well for you that Christ is now without sin, for he having as your surety undertaken to satisfy for sin, and having accordingly been once made sin and arrested for it by God at his death — in that now he is got clear of that engagement (which could be no way but by satisfaction, which he undertook) this does plainly evince it and assure you that you shall never be condemned for it; for by the law, if the surety has discharged the debt, the debtor is then free. And therefore no news would or could be more welcome to sinners than to have a certain and infallible evidence given that their surety were well come off and had quit all to satisfaction.

Now then to evidence this serves his resurrection: Christ is risen — nothing so sure. Therefore certainly the debt is discharged, and he has paid it to the full, and so is now without our sin and fully got clear of it. For God having once arrested Christ and cast him into prison and begun a trial against him and had him to judgment, he could not come forth till he had paid the very uttermost farthing. And there is the greatest reason for it to assure us that can be: for he was under those bonds and bolts which if it had been possible would have detained him in the grave (Acts 2:24). The strength of sin and God's wrath and the curse against sin ('you shall die the death') did as cords hold him (as the Psalmist's phrase is). Other debtors may possibly break their prisons, but Christ could not have broken through this, for the wrath of the all-powerful God was this prison, from which there was no escaping, no bail — nothing would be taken to let him go out but full satisfaction. And therefore to hear that Christ is risen and so has come out of prison is an evidence that God is satisfied and that Christ is discharged by God himself, and so is now without sin, he walking abroad again at liberty. And therefore the Apostle proclaims a mighty victory obtained by Christ's resurrection over death, the grave, the strength of sin, the law (1 Corinthians 15:55–56), and cries out, 'Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord' (verse 57). You may now rest secure indeed: Christ is risen — who therefore shall condemn?

CHAP. 4.

Now secondly, to come to that other head proposed: the influence Christ's resurrection has into our justification. The demonstration or making out of which depends on two things put together: the first, how Christ was appointed by God and himself acted the part of a common person representing us in what he did, and more particularly in his resurrection — of this in this chapter.

The second is how from that consideration arises not only an evidence to our faith but a real influence into our justification and non-condemnation, so as: 'Who shall condemn?' because Christ is risen again as a common person representing us therein.

For the first of these, to illustrate and prove it in general, that instance of Adam serves most fitly, and is indeed made use of in the Scripture to that end. Adam, as you all know, was reckoned as a common public person, not standing singly or alone for himself, but as representing all mankind to come of him, so as by a just law what he did was reckoned to his posterity whom he represented. And what was by that law threatened or done to him for what he did is threatened against his posterity also. Now this man was herein a lively type of our Lord Christ, as you have it, Romans 5:14: 'Who was the type of him who was to come.' To which purpose the titles which the Apostle gives these two, Christ and Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), are exceedingly observable: he calls Adam 'the first man' and Christ our Lord 'the second man,' and both for that very purpose and respect which we have in hand. For first he speaks of them as if there had never been any more men in the world nor were ever to be for time to come except these two. And why? but because these two between them had all the rest of the sons of men hanging at their belt, because they were both common persons that had the rest in like (though opposite) considerations included and involved in them. Adam had all the sons of men born into this world included in himself, who are therefore called earthly men (verse 48) in a conformity to him the earthly man (verse 47), and Christ the second man had all his elect (who are the firstborn and whose names are written in heaven, and therefore in the same verse are oppositely called heavenly men) included in him. You see how he sums up the number of all men in two and reckons but two men in all; these two in God's account standing for all the rest. And further observe that because Adam was in this his being a common person to his, the shadow and the lively type of Christ who was to come after him, therefore he is called 'the first man' (of these two) and Christ 'the second man,' as typified out by him.

Now if you ask wherein Christ was a common person representing us and standing in our stead, I answer: if in anything, then in all those conditions and states wherein he was, in what he did or befell him while here on earth especially, for he had no other end to come down into this world but to sustain our persons and to act our parts, and to have what was to have been done to us, acted upon him.

Thus first, in their two several conditions, qualifications, and states, they both were common persons — that is, look what state or condition the one or the other was made in, is by a just law to be put upon those whom they represented. So the Apostle reasons from it, verse 48: 'As is the earthly man' (namely the first man, Adam) 'such are the earthly' — namely, to be earthly men as well as he, because he who was a common person representing them was in his condition but an earthly man. And oppositely, by the same law it follows, 'As is the heavenly man' (namely the second man, Christ) 'such are and must be the heavenly' who pertain to him, because he also is a common person ordained to personate them, and Adam who came after him was therein but his type.

And as thus in this place to the Corinthians the Apostle argues Christ to be a common person in respect of his condition and state by an argument of parallels taken from his type Adam — so secondly, in Romans 5 he argues Christ to have been a common person in his actions which he did on earth, and this also from the similitude of Adam, whom verse 14 he therein makes to have been Christ's type. And he speaks of Adam there as a common person both in respect of what he did (namely his sin) and also in respect of what befell him for his sin (namely death and condemnation). And because he was in all these not to be considered as a single man but as one that was all men by way of representation — hence, both what he did they are said to do in him, and what condemnation or death was deserved by his sin fell upon them all by this law of his being a public person for them.

1. For what he did: he sinned, you know; and verse 12, all are said to have sinned, namely in his sin. Indeed, and according to those words in the Greek which are added there, you may render that sentence (and the original bears it, and it is also varied in the margin) thus: 'In whom all have sinned,' namely in Adam as in a public person. Their act was included in his because their persons were included in his.

And 2. for what befell him for sin, that befell them also by the same law of his being a person representing them. Hence verse 12, death is said to pass upon all men, namely for this, that Adam's sin was considered as theirs, as it there follows. It is said to pass even as a sentence of death passes upon a condemned malefactor. And verse 18, judgment is said to come by that one man's offense upon all men to condemnation. Now in Genesis 2:17 the threatening was spoken only to Adam as but one man: 'In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die'; and Genesis 3:19 that sentence seems only to pass upon him alone: 'To dust you shall return.' Yet in threatening Adam, God threatened us all, and in sentencing Adam to death he sentenced us also. The curse reaches us too; death passed upon all men then, and therefore by a just law death reigns over all (as verses 14 and 17), because Adam was in all this a common person representing us and so in our stead, and so all this concerns us as truly and as nearly as it did him. I say by a just law; for indeed the Scripture upon the equity of this rule pronounces a statute out against all men that they should die (Hebrews 9:27): 'It is appointed by a statute law that all should die.' Now if you search for this statute, when and where enacted, you will find that the original record and roll is that in Genesis 3:19, spoken only of Adam but holding true of us: 'To dust you shall return.'

Just thus the matter stands in the point of our justification and salvation between Christ and elect believers, for Adam was herein his type. Christ was considered and appointed of God as a common person, both in what he did and in what was done to him, so as by the same law what he did for us is reckoned or imputed to us as if we ourselves had done it, and what was done to him tending to our justification and salvation is reckoned as done to us. Thus when Christ died he died as a common person, and God reckons that we died also. When Christ rose he rose as our head and as a common person, and so then God accounts that we rose also with him. And by virtue of that communion which we had with him in all those actions of his, it is that now when we are born again we do all rise both from the guilt of sin and from the power of it, even as by virtue of the like communion we had with (or being one in) Adam we come to be made sinful when we begin first to exist as men and to be first born.

Thus in his death he was considered as a common person, and God reckoned us dying then and would have us reckon so also. So Romans 6:10, the Apostle speaking of Christ says, 'In that he died, he died to sin once; but in that he lives, he lives to God.' Then verse 11, speaking of us, he says, 'Likewise reckon you yourselves to be dead to sin but alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' The meaning of this is plainly that whereas regenerate men are for the present in reality but imperfectly mortified and dead to sin as considered in themselves and in respect of the work of it as wrought in them, yet being considered in Christ as their head and a common person representing them, they may truly by a way of faith reason or reckon themselves wholly dead in and through Jesus Christ our Lord, in that he once died perfectly to sin as a common person representing them. So as what yet is wanting in the work of mortification in their sense and experience of it, they may supply by faith from the consideration of Christ their head, even themselves to have died when he died. The Apostle (I say) would have them by reason conclude or infer (for so the Greek word signifies, as chapter 3:28: 'therefore we conclude' — it is the same word) from Christ's death that they are dead, which conclusion cannot be made unless this be one of the propositions in this argument: that we died in Christ when he died. And so though in ourselves we are not yet wholly dead to sin nor perfectly alive to God, yet 'through Jesus Christ your Lord and head' (says he) 'reckon yourselves so,' in that (as verse 10) he died and now lives, and you were included in him. And indeed this consideration the Apostle suggests to our faith both as the greatest encouragement against imperfect mortification begun — that yet we may comfort ourselves by faith as reckoning ourselves wholly dead in Christ's death, and so may assure ourselves we shall one day be perfectly dead in ourselves by virtue of it — and also as the strongest argument and motive to mortification, to endeavor to attain to the highest degree of it, which therefore he carries along in his discourse throughout that whole chapter. He would have them by faith or spiritual reasoning take in and apprehend themselves long since dead to sin in Christ when he died, and so should think it the greatest absurdity in the world to sin even the least sin, we being dead long since and that wholly when Christ our head died: 'And how shall we that are dead to sin live any longer in it?' And verse 7: 'He that is dead is free from sin' — and how then shall we do the least service to it? Now all this he puts upon Christ's dying and our dying then with him: verse 6, 'Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him' (even when he was crucified) 'that it might be destroyed' one day in us fully and perfectly, Christ's body representing therein as a public person the elect and their body of sin joined with them. So as thus by faith they are to reason themselves wholly dead to sin in Christ, and to use it as a reason and motive to stir up themselves not to yield to the least sin. I use this expression of being wholly dead because if he had spoken merely of that imperfect mortification begun in us the argument would not have been a perfect motive against the least sins. 'We who are dead, how shall we live in sin' or yield to the least sin? For it might be said: Alas, we are but imperfectly dead; and from an imperfect death could but an imperfect argument have been drawn. But the Scripture elsewhere tells us that Christ by his death has 'perfected forever all that are sanctified' (Hebrews 10), so as in his death they may reckon themselves perfectly dead by faith and perfectly sanctified, though yet the work be not actually and fully perfected.

And all this communion with Christ as a common person representing them in his death he there instructs them to be represented and sealed up to them by their baptism, so verses 3–4, as I shall show afterwards.

Now as this place holds forth Christ as a common person in his death representing us; so other places hold forth the like of his Resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:20, the Apostle argues, that elect believers must and shall rise, because now Christ is risen from the dead, and is become the first-fruits of them that sleep. See the force of this argument founded upon this notion and consideration, that Christ was a common person representing all the rest; and this strongly presented in that expression of his being the first-fruits, in allusion to the rite in the Levitical law. All the sheaves in a field being unholy of themselves, there was some one sheaf in the name and room of all the rest, (which was called the first-fruit) which was lifted up, and waved before the Lord; and so all the sheaves abroad in the field, by that act done to this one sheaf, were consecrated to God (Leviticus 23:10, etc.) by virtue of that law. The meaning of which rite, the Apostle expounding, alleges (Romans 11:16): "If the first-fruits be holy, all the lump is holy also." Thus when we were all dead, Christ as the first-fruits rises, and this in our name and stead, and so we all rise with him and in him. And although the saints departed are not, in their own persons, as yet risen, (as we all who are now alive, are not in our own persons yet dead) yet in the meantime, because thus they are risen in Christ, as their first-fruits; hence, in the very words following, he says, they are but asleep — "He is become the first-fruits of them that sleep" — because they remain alive in Christ their Head, and shall rise one day: because in him they virtually are already risen; and this in God's account in as true and just a sense, as we (though personally alive) are yet all reckoned dead in Adam, because in him as a common person had the sentence of death pronounced on him, by virtue of which we must die; and this by the force of the same law, even of that which we have inculcated of being a common person, representing us. And indeed, so it follows, (which argues this to be the Apostle's meaning) verse 21: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." His argument lies thus: Adam was the first-fruits of them that died; Christ, of them that rise. Hence therefore we are elsewhere said (though in respect to another life) to be risen with Christ (Ephesians 2:5-6), and (which is yet more) to sit together with him in heaven: because he as a common person representing us, sits there in our name and stead, as you shall hear when I come to it in the text, in the next section.

CHAP. 5.

Now then to come to the other branch of the demonstration, namely, how this relation to us as a common person representing us in his Resurrection, has a real influence into our justification: and this is the point I drive at; and for the clearing of which that large and general discourse by way of digression in the former chapter was but to make way for.

I shall absolve and dispatch this branch, by showing two things:

1. That Christ himself was justified, and that at his Resurrection.

2. That he was justified then as a common person, representing us therein, as well as that he rose as a common person; and so that we were then justified in him and with him; and by this means it is that by that act then done to him, our justification is made irrepealable forever.

For the explicating of the first: as Christ was in his death made sin for us, and so sustained our persons in his satisfying for sin by his death, (which is the matter of our righteousness) so in and upon his Resurrection he was justified and acquitted from our sins by God, as having now fully in his death satisfied for them, which I make forth by these three things put together:

First, in reason, if Christ were made sin for us, and satisfied for it, there must then some act pass, whereby Christ should be pronounced acquit of our sins, and fully clear of them, and so be himself formally justified, in respect of those sins, for which he undertook to satisfy. For according to the course of all proceedings, if a charge of guilt be formally laid, there must be as formal an act of acquitting, and of giving a Quietus est: there is no man, but for his own discharge and security would desire it. Nor is there any wise man that pays a debt for which he is legally sued, that will not have upon the payment of it, as legal an acquittance. Paul, when he was cast into prison by a public act of authority, he stood upon it to have a public act of release from the same magistrates, and would not go forth of prison privately, though themselves sent to him so to go out (Acts [reconstructed: 16:36-37]). Now God himself did lay the iniquities of us all upon Christ (Isaiah 53:6), and had him to prison, and to judgment for them (verse 8). There must therefore some act pass from God, legally to take them off from him, and declaring him discharged, to deliver him from prison and judgment.

And de facto it is evident, that there was some such act passed from God; for as we read, that Christ while he lived, and also in his death, was made sin, and did bear the sin of many, as the phrase is (Hebrews 9:28), so we read in the very next words, that he shall appear the second time without sin, which must needs be spoken in a direct opposition to his having borne our sins, and appearing then with all our sins laid to his charge. He appeared charged with them then, but now he shall appear as apparently and as manifestly to be without those sins, (for of our sins it must needs be meant) and so to be discharged of them as fully, as ever he appeared charged with them: for it is said, he shall appear without sin; and therefore to the judgments of all it shall be made manifest, that that God who once charged him with them, has now fully discharged him of them. The Apostle speaks of it as of a great alteration made in this respect between Christ as he was while on earth, and Christ as he is to appear the second time, and is now in heaven. And this alteration or discharge must necessarily be made by God; for he is the creditor who followed the suit, and therefore he alone can give the acquittance.

Now secondly, from this it will follow, that there must be some time when this alteration was first made, and discharge given; when Christ from being sin, as he was made, should become without sin, through God's acquitting of him; and this, I say, was at his Resurrection. It is not deferred as then to be first done, when he is to appear the second time, though then it appears indeed, but it is really done before; for he comes then to judge others for sin. Now in reason, when should this acquittance or justification from our sins be first given to Christ, and legally pronounced on him, but when he had paid the last farthing of the debt, and made his satisfaction complete? Which was then done, when he began to rise: for his lying in the grave was a part of his humiliation, and so of his satisfaction, as generally orthodox divines hold. Now therefore when he began to rise, then ended his humiliation; and that was the first moment of his exaltation. His acquittance therefore bears date from there, even from that very hour.

Hence thirdly, we read, as that Christ was condemned, so that he was justified. Thus (1 Timothy 3:16), God is said to be manifest in the flesh, and then that this God-man was justified in the spirit: that is, whereas God was manifest or appeared in flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, as (Romans 8), that same God-man was also justified in the spirit from all those sins, and so received up to glory, as it follows there. And not to go far, the very words of this my text, [It is God that justifies] are taken out of (Isaiah 50:8-9), and as there, they are first spoken by Christ of himself, then, when he gave his back to the smiters, in his death, (as in the verses before) and was put to death as a condemned man, he comforts himself with this, [He is near that justifies me, who shall condemn?] And when was that done, or to be done, but at his Resurrection? So the phrase in Timothy imports, if you compare it with another in Peter, (1 Peter 3:18), Being put to death in the flesh, [and quickened in (or by) the spirit.] Paul, he says, [Justified in the spirit;] Peter, he says, [Quickened in the spirit:] both mean one and the same thing. By [Spirit] is meant the power of his Godhead, and divine nature, whereby he was at once both raised from the grave, and from under the guilt of sin together. He was at once both quickened, (or raised) and justified also. And that by [Spirit] they mean his divine nature, the opposition in both places evidently implies; for it is opposed to his [Flesh] or human nature. Now because he was quickened (or raised) by the power of the Godhead, and at that raising him, he was justified also by God, and declared justified by that Resurrection, (as he had been declared condemned by his death) hence, to [be justified] is put for his Resurrection; for that was his justification, or declaration to all the world, that he was justified from all the sins laid to his charge. And that other place I cited out of Isaiah, has the same meaning also; for Christ there comforts himself against the Jews condemning him, and putting him to death, with the hopes of God's justifying of him, when he should have gone through that work. And Christ's meaning there is this, God will raise me up, and acquit me, though you condemn and kill me. In the other Prophets you shall find Christ still comforting himself against his condemnation at his death, with the thoughts of his Resurrection which he foresaw as shortly to follow after it; as here in Isaiah he comforts himself with these hopes of his being justified after their condemnation of him. For instance, (Psalm 16:9), My flesh shall rest in hope, you will not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer your holy One to see corruption. Which words (you know) Peter in the Acts does twice interpret of Christ's Resurrection. In like manner here in Isaiah, against his death and condemnation he comforts himself with the hopes of God's justification of him at his Resurrection, He is near who justifies me, (and he shall help me) who shall condemn? And further, to confirm and strengthen this notion, because his Resurrection was the first moment of this his justification from our sins, therefore it is, that God calls it his first begetting of Christ, [This day have I begotten you] speaking manifestly of his Resurrection, (Acts 13:35). And the reason of his so calling it, is, because all the while before he was covered with sin, and the likeness of sinful flesh; but now having flung it off, he appears like God's Son indeed, (as if newly begotten.) And thus also there comes to be the fuller conformity between Christ's justification and ours: for as our justification is at our first being born again, so was Christ's also at this his first glorious begetting. He was under an attainder before; here was the act of restitution first passed. And as at our conversion (which is to us a Resurrection) we pass from death to life; (that is, from an estate of death and condemnation, to justification of life) so did Christ also at his Resurrection, (which to him was a begetting) pass from an estate of death and guilt laid on him, to an estate of life and glory, and justification from guilt; and so shall appear, as the word is, Hebrews 9, last verse, (as he does now in heaven) without sin; for he became to be without sin from that very moment. Thus I have shown how Christ was justified at his Resurrection.

Now then in the second place, I am to show that this his justification, and pronouncing him without sin, thus done at his Resurrection, was done to him as the first-fruits, and as to a common person bearing our persons, and so, in our names. From which will necessarily follow, as the conclusion of all, that the persons of all the elect believers, have been justified before God in Christ, as their Head, at, or from the time of his Resurrection; and so that act of justification to have been so firmly passed, as it cannot be revoked forever.

Now this is proved first by the very same reason or respect that he was said to be the first-fruits of them that sleep as representing the rest in his resurrection (which I showed at large in the former chapter): upon the same ground he is to be so looked at also in this his justification pronounced upon him at his resurrection, even as the first-fruits also of them that are justified. And so in the same sense and by the same reason that we are said to be risen with Christ in his resurrection, we must also be said to be justified with him in this his justification at his resurrection. And indeed (to enlarge this a little), as there is the same reason and ground for the one that there is for the other (he being a public person in both), so the rule will hold in all other things which God ever does to us or for us which are common with Christ and were done to him — that in them all Christ was the first-fruits and they may be said to have been done in us or to us, indeed by us, in him and with him. Indeed whatever God meant to do for us and in us, whatever privilege or benefit he meant to bestow upon us, he did that thing first to Christ and (some way) bestowed the like on him as a common person, that so it might be by a solemn formal act ratified and be made sure to be done to us in our persons in due time, having first been done to him representing our persons, and that by this course taken it might (when done to us) be effected by virtue of what was first done to him. Thus God meaning to sanctify us, he sanctifies Christ first, in him as a common person sanctifying us all: 'For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through your truth' (John 17:19). He sanctifies the human nature of Christ personal, that he may sanctify Christ mystical (that is, his body), and him first as a common person representing us, that so we being virtually and representatively sanctified in him may be sure to be sanctified afterwards in our own persons by means of his sanctification. And so in like manner for our sakes he was justified in the Spirit, because we were to be justified, and so to be justified first in him and with him as a common person. Now this rule holds in all blessings else bestowed; for Paul pronounces of them all that 'God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus' (Ephesians 1:3), which God did so order (as he speaks of ordaining salvation to be by faith, Romans 4:16) that all those blessings might be sure to all the seed. For this formal investiture of estating us into all blessings by such solemn acts done to Christ as our head and representer of us makes what he intends to bestow sure beforehand by an irrepealable act and sentence, which has its warrant in all laws of men, as I have shown and shall anon again urge.

And secondly, by the equity of the same law that in Adam we were all condemned (Adam being a type of him in this) — by the same law (I say) we were all justified in Christ when he was justified, else the type were not therein fulfilled. Now the sentence of condemnation was first passed upon Adam alone, yet considered as a common person for us; therefore also this acquittance and justification was then passed towards Christ alone as a public person for us. Indeed, in this his being justified, Christ must much rather be considered as a common person representing us than Adam was in his condemnation, for Christ in his own person, as he had no sin, so he had no need of any justification from sin nor should ever have been condemned, and therefore this must be only in a respect to our sins imputed to him, and if so then in our stead. And so herein he was more purely to be considered as a common person for us than ever Adam was in his being condemned. For Adam, besides his standing as a common person for us, was furthermore condemned in his own person, but Christ in being justified from sin could only be considered as standing for others. Thus Romans 5:18: 'Therefore as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of that one man Christ, the free gift came upon all men (namely in Christ) to justification of life.' He parallels both with a 'so,' only with this difference between Adam's being a common person for us (and so between the ground of our being condemned in him) and Christ his being a common person for us (and our acquittance in him): that the condemnation came upon all by a necessary natural covenant (for by such a covenant was Adam appointed a common person for us) but Christ his being appointed thus a common person for us, it was by a free gift of grace, and therefore in like manner by a free gift of grace it is that the imputation of that which he did or was done to him is reckoned ours. As then in Adam all died when he sinned (as the Apostle speaks), so in Christ were all justified when he was justified. For as in his death Christ was a public person for us and in all that befell him, so in his resurrection and in all that was then done to him, and so in this his being then justified. And as when he died the just was put to death for the unjust (as Peter speaks), so when he rose and was justified, the just that needed no justification was justified for the unjust who else had been condemned, and so we were then justified with him.

CAP. 6.

And upon this is grounded this triumph of faith here from Christ's resurrection: 'Who shall condemn? It is Christ that is risen' — the meaning of which is that he was justified at his resurrection ('justified in the Spirit' and 'quickened in the Spirit' being all one), and we in him. Indeed, a 'rather' is put upon this rather than upon his death; for this act was a solemn discharge from all sin and condemnation; it was a legal acquittance given to Christ for all our sins and so to us also considered as in him. His death was but the satisfaction and payment, but this is the first act of absolution. Indeed this is the original act which is upon record between God and Christ, and our justification and atonement (when we are justified by faith in Christ) is but a copy fetched from this roll and court sentence then pronounced.

And such a way and course to ratify and make acts good and legal (even to have them done by another representing one's person) is common among men, as those instances I formerly gave do show. An attorney at law receives a debt or an acquittance for a debt paid or given for another man, and it is as legal as if the man himself or creditor had done it and the debtor had received the acquittance himself. Indeed acts of the greatest and highest concern are oftentimes no otherwise transacted: as the marriages of princes are by proxy solemnized, their ambassadors representing their persons and contracting and marrying their wives in their stead, which acts are thereby made as irrevocable and irrepealable as if themselves had in person done them. And so if we were justified when Christ did rise and was justified, our justification then cannot be reversed but stands as legal and warrantable as any act that God or man ever ratified or confirmed. And who then shall condemn?

Only, for further explanation's sake (lest there be a mistake), let me add this: that it is necessary that we be justified in our own persons by faith (notwithstanding this former act thus legally passed), whereby we lay hold upon what God did thus before for us in Christ, to the end that God upon our believing may according to his own rules justify his justifying of us to all the world, which until we do believe he could not do. For according to the revealed rules of his word (which he professes to proceed by at the latter day), there is a curse and a sentence of condemnation pronounced against us under which we stand till he shall take it off by giving us faith, to which he has in the same word made the promise of justifying us in our own persons as before he had done in Christ. Yet still notwithstanding so, that although when we first believe, then only justification is actually and personally applied to us, yet at Christ's resurrection and in his being then justified, this act and sentence was virtually pronounced upon us, and so does necessarily require and exact at God's hands the bestowing faith upon us, that so by virtue of this former act passed we come to be actually justified in our own consciences and before all the world. And so our justification which was but secretly wrought and passed upon us in Christ is never made void but stands irrepealable, and so ratified that our personal justification by faith does always infallibly follow and succeed it. And (to illustrate it a little) our condemnation in Adam and this our justification in Christ do in this hold parallel together: that as in Adam we were all virtually condemned ('in Adam all die') — and that legally enough too, for thereupon came out that statute law, 'It is appointed that all should die' — and yet we are not actually in our own persons condemned till we are born of him, nor do we personally die until we lay down our flesh — even so is it in the matter of our justification: it was done virtually in Christ, and afterwards when we believe is actually passed in and upon ourselves. Now I call this former but a virtual justification, even as by the sentence of condemnation passed upon a malefactor he is called a dead man — that is, he is so virtually and in law (as we say) though naturally he does not die many days after but in that respect may be still alive — so by Christ's being justified, we are all virtually and in law justified, through a secret yet irrepealable covenant between God and Christ, who only did then know who were his.

And for a confirmation even of this also — that God accounts all the elect justified in his justifying of Christ — we shall not need to go any further than the words of this text, if we do but diligently compare their standing here with that of theirs in that place out of which they are taken and where we find them first recorded and spoken, namely in Isaiah 50:7–8: 'He is near that justifies me; who is he that shall condemn?' Now there (as interpreters agree and as the context shows) those words are spoken by Christ himself, for verse 5 he speaks of God's boring his ear to do his will (the same expression that is used of Christ, Psalm 40:6) and further says, 'I gave my back to the smiters and my cheeks to them that pulled off the hair, and I hid not my face from shame and spitting' (all which you may read in Christ's sufferings, Matthew 26 and 27). And he spoke before (in verse 4) of God's having given him the tongue of the learned to speak a word in season to him that is weary (which you may read done by Christ, Matthew 11:28). Now those words were spoken by Christ to comfort himself against the Jews' condemning him, as considering that God would justify him, as at his resurrection (you have heard) he did. Now mark it: those very words which Isaiah brings in Christ speaking as of himself alone, those very words Paul here boldly applies (in the like triumph) to all the elect of Christ — 'Who shall condemn? It is God that justifies' — and this because Christ is dead and risen and acquitted by God. Christ spoke those words as a public person in the name of all his elect whom he in his death and in his justification represented, and for that very respect Paul speaks the like words over again of all elect believers, as being as truly and really intended of them when spoken by Christ as of himself and his own person. 'He is near that justifies me' (says Christ) — 'who shall condemn?' — namely me, or my elect whose persons I sustain. And 'who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?' (says Paul) — 'It is God that justifies; who shall condemn?' — for Christ has died and been condemned for them, and Christ was justified from that condemnation, and they in him. And because the justification of himself which Christ spoke of as looked for from God was to be made at his resurrection (as has been said), therefore Paul here puts a 'rather' upon his resurrection.

And further to establish this: as you heard before out of Romans 6:10 that in respect of sanctification we were dead with Christ even then when he died, so in Colossians 2:13 we are said to be risen with him in respect of our justification (which is the thing in hand). The words are: 'And you being dead in your sins' (namely the guilt of your sins) 'and the uncircumcision of your flesh' (that is, in respect of the power of corrupt nature) 'has he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all your trespasses.' See here: the forgiveness of our sins or our justification is called a quickening or a raising up of us (as verse 12 has it) together with him, in a conformity and relation to that justification from our sins which at his resurrection he received in our names. His meaning is: he was justified then and in our names, and so we are now justified through the virtue of that our communion with him therein. For if you mark the connection of the words with what follows, verse 14, you will find this forgiving of their trespasses (verse 13) through their being quickened together with him, not only to have been done when they believed and so when they had that justification personally first applied to them (of which it is true the words in verse 12 are to be understood) — but also then to have been done when he, having (as it follows in verse 14) blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, nailing it to his cross, and having spoiled principalities and powers and got the victory (namely in his rising again), had made a show of them openly in his ascending to heaven, triumphing over them 'in himself' (as the margin has it) — so as then when Christ did this in himself, then were our sins forgiven; then were we acquitted with him and triumphed with him, he doing all this in our stead representing us.

CHAP. 7.

And all this our communion with Christ in his resurrection, both in respect of sanctification (which Romans 6 holds forth) and of justification (which this place in Colossians holds forth), is lively (as both places declare) set out and sealed up to us in the sacrament of baptism. Romans 6:3–4: we are said to be buried with him in baptism, etc., and Colossians 2:12: 'Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him.' The eminent thing signified and represented in baptism is not simply the blood of Christ as it washes us from sin, but there is a further representation therein of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection — in the baptized's being first buried under water and then rising out of it — and this not in a bare conformity to Christ but in a representation of a communion with Christ in that his death and resurrection. Therefore it is said 'We are buried with him in baptism' and 'Wherein you are risen with him' — it is not simply said 'like as he was buried and rose,' but 'with him.' So as our communion and oneness with him in his resurrection is represented to us therein, and not only our conformity or likeness to him therein. And so baptism represents this to us: that Christ having once in himself sustained the persons of all the elect in his burial and resurrection, that now upon the party himself who is baptized is personally, particularly, and apparently re-acted the same part again in his baptism, thereby showing what his communion with Christ before was in what was then done to Christ — that he then was buried with Christ and rose with him — and upon that ground is now in this outward sign of baptism (as in a show or representation) both buried and also rises again.

And moreover, hence it is that the answer of a good conscience (which is made the inward effect of this ordinance of baptism, 1 Peter 3:21) is there also attributed to Christ's resurrection as the thing signified and represented in baptism and as the cause of that answer of a good conscience: 'Even baptism' (says he) 'does now also save us' (as being the ordinance that seals up salvation) 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh or the washing of the outward man, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.' To open these words: our consciences are that principle in us which are the seat of the guilt of all the sins of the whole man, to whose court they all come to accuse us as to God's deputy, which conscience is called good or evil as the state of the man is. If his sin remains unpardoned, then as his estate is damnable so his conscience is evil; if his sins be forgiven and his person justified, his conscience is said to be good, conscience having its denomination from the man's state, even as urine is called good or bad as the state of the man's body is healthy or unsound, whose urine it is. Now in baptism, forgiveness of sins and justification being sealed up to a believer's faith and conscience under that lively representation of his communion with Christ in his resurrection, hence this is made the fruit of baptism: that the good conscience of a believer sealed up in baptism has from there an answer to all accusations of sin that can or do at any time come in upon him, and all this as it is there added, 'by virtue of the resurrection of Jesus Christ' — namely in this respect, that his communion with Christ in his resurrection has been represented in his baptism as a ground of his faith and of that answer to all accusations. So that indeed the same thing that Paul says by way of triumph and defiance to all accusations, 'Who shall condemn? Christ is risen,' the very same thing Peter here mentions, though not by way of defiance yet of a believer's answer and apology: that if sins do come to condemn or accuse, a good conscience is ready to say, 'Christ is risen, and I was then justified in him; there is my answer, which nothing in heaven nor hell is able to reply to.' This is the answer of a good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now to crown this second pillar of faith with this crown or conclusion, by way of application or direction to a believer's faith: how to make use of Christ's resurrection in point of non-condemnation. You heard before out of Romans 6 that in respect of mortification (as the Apostle there reasons) we may be truly said to have been perfectly dead to all sin in Christ's dying to sin once, and through his representing us therein as dying to sin in and with him. So as although we be for the present but imperfectly mortified in ourselves, yet when corruptions arise the Apostle bids us help ourselves against them by faith, reasoning ourselves to stand wholly dead to sin when Christ died, and so to conclude from there that we shall one day be fully dead to sin because we then did perfectly die in Christ to it. Which kind of reasoning also God would have us use as a motive (and of all motives that are in the gospel it is the strongest) against any corruption when it arises: 'Shall I that am dead to sin in Christ (and so am freed from it) live any longer in it?' (verse 2). Now as God would have our faith make this use of our communion with Christ in his death in point of sanctification, just so, when guilt of sin arises in your conscience to accuse or threaten condemnation, reason yourself (as the Apostle's word is in that other case) or reckon yourself (as our translation has it) justified in Christ in his justification which was done at his resurrection. Indeed, and since God would have you use your communion with Christ in his death as an argument to move you to mortify sin (bidding you to reckon yourself dead to sin in Christ), do you desire him in like manner to reckon you as justified at Christ's resurrection (for the ground of both is the same) and return that as an argument to him to move him to justify you. And this is that answer of a good conscience which Peter speaks of; this is the meaning of Paul's challenge, 'Who shall condemn? Christ is risen.'

And should your heart object and say, 'But I do not know whether I was one of those that God reckoned justified with Christ when he arose,' then go you to God and ask him boldly whether he did not do this for you, and whether you were not one of them intended by him; put God to it, and God will (by virtue of Christ's resurrection for you) even himself answer your faith this question before you are aware. He will not deny it. And to secure you the more, know that however Christ will be sure to look to that for you, so as that you having been then intended (as if your heart be drawn to give itself up to Christ, you were) shall never be condemned.