Chapter 12: The Imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto the Law, Declared and Vindicated

FRom the foregoing General argument, another does issue in Particular, with respect unto the imputation of the Active obedience or righteousness of Christ unto us, as an Essential part of that righteousness whereon we are justified before God. And it is as follows, If it were necessary that the Lord Christ, as our Surety, should undergo the penalty of the law for us, or in our stead, because we have all sinned; then it was necessary also, that as our Surety he should yield obedience unto the preceptive part of the law for us also: And if the imputation of the former be needful for us unto our justification before God, then is the imputation of the latter also necessary unto the same end and purpose. For why was it necessary, or why would God have it so, that the Lord Christ, as the Surety of the covenant should undergo the curse and penalty of the law, which we had incurred the guilt of, by sin, that we may be justified in his sight? Was it not, that the glory and honor of his righteousness, as the author of the law, and the Supream Governor of all Mankind, thereby might not be violated in the absolute impunity of the infringers of it: And if it were requisite unto the glory of God, that the penalty of the law should be undergone for us, or suffered by our Surety in our stead, because we had sinned: Wherefore is it not as requisite unto the glory of God, that the preceptive part of the law be complied withal for us, in as much as obedience thereunto is required of us? And as we are no more able of our selves to fulfil the law, in a way of obedience, then to undergo the penalty of it, so as that we may be justified thereby: So no reason can be given, why God is not as much concerned in honor and glory, that the preceptive power and part of the law be complied withal, by perfect obedience, as that the Sanction of it be established by undergoing the penalty of it. Upon the same grounds therefore, that the Lord Christs suffering the penalty of the law for us, was necessary that we might be justified in the sight of God, and that the satisfaction he made thereby be imputed unto us, as we our selves had made satisfaction unto God, as Bellarmine speaks and grants: On the same it was equally necessary, that is, as unto the glory and honor of the Legislator and Supream Governor of all by the law, that he should fulfil the Preceptive part of it, in his perfect obedience thereunto, which also is to be imputed unto us for our justification.

Concerning the first of these, namely, the satisfaction of Christ, and the imputation of it unto us, our principal difference is with the socinians. And I have elswhere written so much in the vindication of the truth therein, that I shall not here again reassume the same argument: It is here therefore taken for granted, although I know that there are some different Apprehensions about the notion of Christs suffering in our stead, and of the imputation of those sufferings unto us. But I shall here take no notice of them, seeing I press this argument no farther, but only so far forth, that the obedience of Christ unto the law, and the imputation thereof unto us, is no less necessary unto our justification before God, then his suffering of the penalty of the law, and the imputation thereof unto us, unto the same end. The nature of this imputation, and what it is formally that is imputed, we have considered elswhere.

That the obedience of Christ the Mediator is thus imputed unto us, shall be afterwards proved in particular by testimonies of the scripture. Here I intend only the vindication of the argument as before laid down, which will take us up a little more time then ordinary. For there is nothing in the whole doctrine of justification, which meets with a more fierce and various opposition: But the truth is great and will prevail.

The things that are usually objected and vehemently urged against the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto our justification, may be reduced unto three heads. (1.) That it is impossible. (2.) That it is useless. (3.) That it is pernitious to believe it. And if the arguments used for the inforcement of those objections, be as cogent as the charge it self is fierce and severe, they will unavoidably overthrow the perswasions of it in the minds of all sober persons. But there is oft-times a wide difference between what is said, and what is proved, as will appear in the present case.

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

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

3. Pernitious also they say it is, as that which takes away the necessity of our own personal obedience, introducing Antinomianism, Libertinism, and all manner of evils.

For this last part of the charge, I refer it unto its proper place: For although it be urged by some against this part of the doctrine of justification in a peculiar manner, yet is it managed by others, against the whole of it. And although we should grant, that the obedience of Christ unto the law, is not imputed unto us unto our justification, yet shall we not be freed from disturbance by this false accusation; unless we will renounce the whole of the satisfaction and merit of Christ also: And we intend not to purchase our peace with the whole world, at so dear a rate. Wherefore I shall in its proper place give this part of the charge its due consideration, as it reflects on the whole doctrine of justification, and all the causes thereof, which we believe and profess.

The first part of this charge, concerning the Impossibility of the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto us, is insisted on by Socinus de Servat. part 3. cap. 5. And there has been nothing since pleaded unto the same purpose, but what has been derived from him, or wherein, at least, he has not prevented the Inventions of other Men, and gone before them. And he makes this consideration the principal engine wherewith he indeavors the overthrow of the whole doctrine of the merit of Christ. For he supposs, that if all he did in a way of obedience, was due from himself on his own Account, and was only the duty which he owed unto God for himself in his station and circumstances, as a Man in this world, it cannot be meritorious for us, nor any way imputed unto us. And in like manner to weaken the doctrine of his satisfaction, and the imputation thereof unto us, he contends that Christ offered as a Pri for himself, in that kind of offering which he made on the Cross. part. 2. cap. 22. And his real opinion was, that whatever was of offering or sacrifice in the death of Christ, it was for himself; that is, it was an Acts of obedience unto God which pleased him, as the savor of a sweet smelling sacrifice. His offering for us, is only the presentation of himself in the presence of God in heaven; now he has no more to do for himself in a way of duty. And the truth is, if the obedience of Christ had respect unto himself only; that is, If he yielded it unto God, on the necessity of his condition, and did not do it for us, I see no foundation left to assert his merit upon, no more then I do for the imputation of it unto them that believe.

That which we plead is, That the Lord Christ fulfilled the whole law for us; he did not only undergo the penalty of it due unto our sins, but also yielded that perfect obedience which it did require. And herein I shall not immix my self in the debate of the distinction between the Active and Passive obedience of Christ. For he exercised the highest Active obedience in his suffering, when he offered himself to God through the Eternal Spirit. And all his obedience, considering his person was mixed with suffering, as a part of his Exinanition and humiliation; whence it is said, That though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things that he suffered. And however, doing and suffering are in various categories of things, yet scripture testimonies are not to be regulated by Philosophical artifices and terms. And it must needs be said, that the sufferings of Christ as they were purely penal, are imperfectly called His passive righteousness. For all righteousness is either in habit, or in action, whereof suffering is neither; nor is any Man righteous, or so esteemed from what he suffers. Neither do sufferings give satisfaction unto the commands of the law, which require only obedience. And hence it will unavoidably follow, that we have need of more then the mere sufferings of Christ, whereby we may be justified before God, if so be that any righteousness be required thereunto. But the whole of what I intend is, That Christs fulfilling of the law in obedience unto its commands, is no less imputed unto us for our justification, then his undergoing the Penalty of it is.

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

To this purpose is his discourse, part 3. cap. 5. de Servat. Jam vero manifestum est, Christum quia homo natus fuerat, & quidem, ut inquit Paulus, factus sub lege, legi divinae inquam, quae aeterna & immutabilis est, non minus quam caeteri homines obnoxium fuisse. Alioqui potuisset Christus aeternam Dei legem negligere, sive etiam universam si voluisset infringere, quod impium est vel cogitare. Immo ut supra alicubi explicatum fuit, nisi ipse Christus legi divinae servandae obnoxius fuisset, ut ex Pauli verbis colligitur, non potuisset iis, qui ei legi servandae obnoxii sunt, opem ferre & eos ad immortalitatis firmam spem traducere. Non differebat igitur hac quidem ex parte, Christus quando homo natus erat a caeteris hominibus. Quocirca nec etiam pro aliis, magis quam quilibet alius homo, legem divinam conservando satisfacere potuit, quippe qui ipse eam servare omnino debuit. I have transcribed his words, that it may appear with whose weapons some young Disputers, among our selves, do contend against the truth.

The substance of his Plea is, That our Lord Jesus Christ was for himself, or on his own account, obliged unto all that obedience which he performed. And this he indeavors to prove with this reason, Because if it were otherwise, then he might, if he would, have neglected the while law of God, and have broken it at his pleasure. For he forgot to consider, That if he were not obliged unto it upon his own account, but was so on ours, whose cause he had undertaken, the obligation on him unto most perfect obedience, was equal to what it would have been, had he been originally obliged on his own account. However hence he infers, that what he did, could not be for us, because it was so for himself, no more then what any other man is bound to do in a way of duty for himself, can be esteemed to have been done also for another. For he will allow of none of those considerations of the person of Christ which makes what he did and suffered, of another nature and efficacy, then what can be done or suffered by any other Man. All that he adds, in the process of his discourse, is, That what ever Christ did that was not required by the law in general, was upon the especial command of God, and so done for himself; whence it cannot be imputed unto us. And hereby he excludes the church from any benefit by the mediation of Christ, but only what consists in his doctrine, example, and the exercise of his power in heaven for our good, which was the thing that he aimed at: But we shall consider those also which make use of his arguments, though not as yet openly unto all his ends.

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

1. The obedience we treat of, was the obedience of Christ the Mediator. But the obedience of Christ as the Mediator of the covenant, was the obedience of his person: For God redeemed his church with his own Blood, Acts 20:28. It was performed in the Humane nature, but the person of Christ was he that performed it. As in the person of a Man, some of his acts, as to the immediate principle of operation, are acts of the body, and some are so of the soul; yet in their performance and accomplishment, are they the acts of the person. So the Acts of Christ in his mediation, as to their or immediate operation, were the actings of his distinct natures; some of the Divine, and some of the Humane, immediately. But as unto their , and the perfecting efficacy of them, they were the Acts of his whole person: His Acts who was that person, and whose power of Operation was a property of his person. Wherefore the obedience of Christ which we plead to have been for us, was the obedience of the Son of God; but the Son of God was never absolutely made under the law, nor could be formally obliged thereby. He was indeed, as the apostle witnesss, made so in his Humane nature, wherein he performed this obedience, made of a Woman, made under the law, Galatians 4:4. He was so far forth made under the law, as he was made of a Woman. For in his person he abode Lord of the Sabbath, Mark 2:28. And therefore of the whole law. But the obedience it self, was the obedience of that person, who never was, nor ever could absolutely be made under the law, in his whole person. For the Divine nature cannot be subjected unto an outward work of its own, such as the law is; nor can it have an Authoritative commanding power over it, as it must have, if it were made under the law. Thus the apostle argues, That Levi paid Tithes in Abraham, because he was then in his Loyns, when Abraham himself paid Tithes unto Melchisedec, Hebrews 7. And thence he proves, That he was inferior unto the Lord Christ, of whom Melchisedec was a type. But may it not thereon be replied, that then no less the Lord Christ was in the Loyns of Abraham then Levi: For verily, as the same apostle speaks; he took on him the Seed of Abraham. It is true therefore, that he was so in respect of his Humane nature; but as he was typed and represented by Melchisedec in his whole person, without father, without Mother, without Genealogy, without beginning of Days or end of life: So he was not absolutely in Abrahams Loyns, and was exempted from being tithed in him. Wherefore the obedience whereof we treat, being not the obedience of the Humane nature abstractedly, however performed in and by the Humane nature, but the obedience of the person of the Son of God, however the Humane nature was subject to the law, (in what sense, and unto what ends shall be declared afterwards) it was not for himself, nor could be for himself, because his whole person was not obliged thereunto. It is therefore a fond thing to compare the obedience of Christ, with that of any other Man, whose whole person is under the law. For although that may not be for himself and others, (which yet we shall shew that in some cases it may;) yet this may, yea must be for others, and not for himself. This then we must strictly hold unto. If the obedience that Christ yielded unto the law were for himself, whereas it was the Acts of his person, his whole person, and the Divine nature therein, were made under the law, which cannot be. For although it is acknowledged, that in the Ordination of God, his Exinanition was to precede his glorious Majestical exaltation, as the scripture witnesss. Philippians 2:9. Luke. 24:26. Romans 14:9. yet absolutely his glory was an immediate consequent of the Hypostatical union. Hebrews 1:6. Matthew 2:11.

Socinus, I confess, evades the force of this argument, by denying the Divine person of Christ. But in this disputation I take that for granted, as having proved it elswhere, beyond what any of his followers are able to contradict. And if we may not build on Truths by him denied, we shall scarce have any one principle of Evangelical truth left us to prove any thing from. However, I intend them only at present, who concur with him in the matter under debate, but renounce his opinion concerning the person of Christ.

2. As our Lord Jesus Christ owed not in his own person this obedience for himself, by vertue of any authority or power that the law had over him, so he designed and intended it not for himself, but for us. This added unto the former consideration, gives full evidence unto the truth pleaded for: For if he was not obliged unto it for himself, his person that yielded it, not being under the law; and if he intended it not for himself, then it must be for us, or be useless: It was in our Humane nature, that he performed all this obedience. Now the susception of our nature, was a voluntary Acts of his own, with reference unto some end and purpose; and that which was the end of the Assumption of our nature, was in like manner the end of all that he did therein. Now it was for us, and not for himself, that he assumed our nature; nor was any thing added unto him thereby: Wherefore in the issue of his work, he proposs this only unto himself, That he may be glorified with that glory which he had with the father, before the world was, by the removal of that veil which was put upon it in his Exinanition. But that it was for us, That he assumed our nature, is the foundation of Christian religion; as it is asserted by the apostle, Hebrews 2:14. Philippians 2:5, 6, 7, 8.

Some of the Antient Schoolmen disputed, That the Son of God should have been incarnate, although Man had not sinned and fallen. The same opinion was fiercely pursued by Osiander as I have elswhere declared; but none of them once imagined, that he should have been so made Man, as to be made under the law, and be obliged thereby unto that obedience which now he has performed: But they judged that immediately he was to have been a glorious head unto the whole creation. For it is a common notion and presumption of all Christians, but only such as will sacrifice such notions unto their own private conceptions, That the obedience which Christ yielded unto the law on the earth, in the state and condition wherein he yielded it, was not for himself, but for the church, which was obliged unto perfect obedience, but was not able to accomplish it. That this was his sole end and design in it, is a Fundamental Article, if I mistake not, of the Creed of most Christians in the world; and to deny it, does consequentially overthrow all the grace and love both of the father, and Son in his mediation.

It is said, That this obedience was necessary as a Qualification of his person, that he might be meet to be a Mediator for us; and therefore was for himself. It belongs unto the necessary constitution of his person, with respect unto his Mediatory work: But this I positively deny. The Lord Christ was every way meet for the whole work of mediation, by the ineffable union of the Humane nature with the Divine, which exalted it in dignity, honor, and Worth, above any thing, or all things that insued thereon. For hereby he became in his whole person the object of all Divine worship and honor; for when he brings the first begotten into the world, he says, And let all the Angels of God worship him. Again, That which is an effect of the person of the Mediator as constituted such, is not a qualification necessary unto its constitution; that is, what he did as Mediator, did not concur to the making of him meet so to be. But of this nature was all the obedience which he yielded unto the law, for as such, It became him to fulfil all righteousness.

Whereas therefore he was neither made Man, nor of the Posterity of Abraham for himself, but for the church, namely, to become thereby the Surety of the covenant, and Representative of the whole, his obedience as a Man unto the law in general, and as a Son of Abraham unto the law of Moses, was for us, and not for himself; so designed, so performed, and without a respect unto the church, was of no use unto himself. He was born to us, and given to us, lived for us, and died for us, obeyed for us, and suffered for us; that by the obedience of one, many might be made righteous. This was the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; and this is the faith of the Catholick church. And what he did for us, is imputed unto us. This is included in the very notion of his doing it for us, which cannot be spoken in any sense, unless that which he so did, be imputed unto us. And I think Men ought to be wary, that they do not by distinctions and studied evasions, for the defense of their own private opinions, shake the Foundations of Christian religion. And I am sure it will be easier for them, as it is in the Proverb, To wrest the Club out of the hand of Hercules, then to dispossess the minds of true believers of this perswasion: That what the Lord Christ did in obedience unto God according unto the law, he designed in his love and grace to do it for them. He needed no obedience for himself, he came not into a capacity of yielding obedience for himself, but for us; and therefore for us it was, that he fulfilled the law in obedience unto God according unto the terms of it. The obligation that was on him unto obedience, was originally no less for us, no less needful unto us, no more for himself, no more necessary unto him, then the obligation that was on him as the Surety of the covenant, to suffer the penalty of the law, was either the one, or the other.

3. Setting aside the consideration of the grace and love of Christ, and the compact between the father and the Son, as unto his undertaking for us, which undeniably proves all that he did in the pursuit of them to be done for us, and not for himself: I say setting aside the consideration of these things, and the Humane nature of Christ, by virtue of its union with the person of the Son of God, had a right unto, and might have immediately been admitted into the highest glory whereof it was capable, without any antecedent obedience unto the law. And this is apparent from hence, In that from the first instant of that union, the whole person of Christ with our nature existing therein, was the object of all Divine worship from Angels and Men, wherein consists the highest exaltation of that nature.

It is true, there was a peculiar glory that he was actually to be made Partaker of, with respect unto his antecedent obedience and suffering. Philippians 2:8, 9. The Actual Possession of this glory was in the Ordination of God, to be consequential unto his obeying and suffering, not for himself, but for us. But as unto the right and capacity of the Humane nature in it self, all the glory whereof it was capable, was due unto it from the instant of its union. For it was therein exalted above the condition that any creature is capable of by mere creation. And it is but a socinian fiction, that the first Foundation of the Divine glory of Christ was laid in his obedience, which was only the way of his Actual Possession of that part of his glory, which consists in his Mediatory power and authority over all. The Real Foundation of the whole, was laid in the union of his person; whence he prays that the father would glorifie him, (as unto manifestation) with that glory which he had with him before the world was.

I will grant, that the Lord Christ was Viator whil he was in this world, and not absolutely Possessor; yet I say withal he was so, not that any such condition was necessary unto him for himself; but he took it upon him by especial dispensation for us. And therefore the obedience he performed in that condition, was for us, and not for himself.

4. It is granted therefore, that the Humane nature of Christ was made , as the apostle affirms, That which, was made of a Woman, was made under the law. Hereby obedience became necessary unto him, as he was, and whil he was Viator. But this being by especial dispensation, intimated in the expression of it, He was made under the law, namely, as he was made of a Woman, by especial dispensation and Condescension expressed, Philippians 2:6, 7, 8. The obedience he yielded thereon, was for us, and not for himself. And this is evident from hence, For he was so made under the law, as that not only he owed obedience unto the precepts of it, but he was made obnoxious unto its curse. But I suppose it will not be said, that he was so for himself, and therefore not for us. We owed obedience unto the law, and were obnoxious unto the curse of it, or . obedience was required of us, and was as necessary unto us, if we would enter into life, as the answering of the curse for us was, if we would escape death eternal. Christ as our Surety, is made under the law for us, whereby he becomes liable and obliged unto the obedience which the law required, and unto the penalty that it threatned. Who shall now dare to say, that he underwent the Penalty of the law for us indeed, but he yielded obedience unto it for himself only? The whole Harmony of the work of his mediation, would be disordered by such a supposition.

Judah, the Son of Jacob, undertook to be a Bondman instead of Benjamine his Brother, that he might go free, Genesis 44:33. There is no doubt but Joseph might have accepted of the stipulation. Had he done so, the service and bondage he undertook, had been necessary unto Judah, and righteous for him to bear; howbeit he had undergone it, and performed his duty in it, not for himself, but for his Brother Benjamine; and unto Benjamine, it would have been imputed in his liberty. So when the apostle Paul wrote those words unto Philemon concerning Onesimus,, Vers. 18. If he has wronged you, dealt unrighteously or injuriously with you, or oweth you ought, wherein you hast suffered loss by him, put it on my account, or impute it all unto me; I will repay it, or answer for it all. He supposs that Philemon might have a double action against Onesimus; the one injuriarum, and the other damni or debiti, of wrong and injury, and of loss or debt; which are distinct actions in the law: If he has wronged you, or oweth the ought. Hereon he proposs himself, and obligs himself by his express obligation . I Paul have written it with my own hand, that he would answer for both, and pay back a valuable consideration if required. Hereby was he obliged in his own person to make satisfaction unto Philemon; but yet he was to do it for Onesimus, and not for himself. Whatever obedience therefore was due from the Lord Christ, as to his Humane nature whil in the form of a servant, either as a Man, or as an israelite, seeing he was so not necessarily by the necessity of nature for himself, but by voluntary condescension and stipulation for us, for us it was, and not for himself.

5. The Lord Christ in his obedience was not a private, but a public person. He obeyed as he was the Surety of the covenant, as the Mediator between God and Man. This I suppose will not be denied. He can by no imagination be considered out of that capacity. But what a public person does as a public person, that is, as a Representative of others, and an undertaker for them, whatever may be his own concernment therein, he does it not for himself, but for others. And if others were not concerned therein, if it were not for them, what he does would be of no use or signification. Yea, it implies a contradiction that any one should do any thing as a public person, and do it for himself only. He who is a public person, may do that wherein he alone is concerned, but he cannot do so as he is a public person. Wherefore as Socinus, and those that follow him would have Christ to have offered for himself, which is to make him a Mediator for himself, his offering being a Mediatory act, which is both foolish and impious; so to affirm his Mediatory obedience, his obedience as a public person, to have been for himself, and not for others, has but little less of impiety in it.

6. It is granted, That the Lord Christ having an Humane nature, which was a creature, it was impossible but that it should be subject unto the law of creation. For there is a relation that does necessarily arise from, and depend upon the Beings of a Creator and a creature. Every rational creature is eternally obliged from the nature of God, and its relation thereunto, to love him, obey him, depend upon him, submit unto him, and to make him its end, Blessedness, and reward. But the law of creation thus considered, does not respect the world, and this life only, but the future state of heaven, and eternity also. And this law, the Humane nature of Christ is subject unto, in heaven and glory, and cannot but be so, whil it is a creature, and not God, that is, whil it has its own being. Nor do any Men fancy such a transfusion of divine properties into the Humane nature of Christ, as that it should be self-subsisting, and in it self absolutely immense; for this would openly destroy it. Yet none will say, that he is now under the law, in the sense intended by the apostle. But the law in the sense described, the Humane nature of Christ was subject unto on its own account, whil he was in this world. And this is sufficient to answer the objection of Socinus, mentioned at the entrance of this discourse; namely, That if the Lord Christ were not obliged unto obedience for himself, then might he, if he would, neglect the whole law, or infringe it. For besides that it is a foolish imagination concerning that holy thing which was hypostatically united unto the Son of God, and thereby rendered incapable of any deviation from the Divine will; the eternal indispensible law of love, Adherence, and Dependance on God, under which the Humane nature of Christ was, and is as a creature, gives sufficient security against such Suppositions.

But there is another consideration of the law of God, namely, as it is imposed, on creatures by especial dispensation, for some time, and for some certain end; with some considerations, rules, and orders, that belong not essentially unto the law, as before described. This is the nature of the Written law of God, which the Lord Christ was made under, not necessarily as a creature, but by especial dispensation. For the law, under this consideration, is presented unto us as such, not absolutely and eternally, but whil we are in this world, and that with this especial end, that by obedience thereunto, we may obtain the reward of Eternal life. And it is evident, that the obligation of the law, under this consideration, ceass when we come to the injoyment of that reward. It obligs us no more formally by its command, Do this and live, when the life promised, is injoyed. In this sense the Lord Christ was not made subject unto the law for himself, nor did yield obedience unto it for himself. For he was not obliged unto it by virtue of his created condition. Upon the first instant of the union of his natures, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, he might, notwithstanding the law that he was made subject unto, have been stated in glory. For he that was the object of all Divine worship, needed not any new obedience, to procure for him a state of Blessedness. And had he naturally, merely by virtue of his being a creature been subject unto the law in this sense, he must have been so eternally, which he is not. For those things which depend solely on the natures of God and the creature, are eternal and immutable. Wherefore, as the law in this sense was given unto us, not absolutely, but with respect unto a future state and reward; so the Lord Christ did voluntarily subject himself unto it for us, and his obedience thereunto was for us, and not for himself. These things added unto what I have formerly written on this subject, whereunto nothing has been opposed, but a few impertinent cavils, are sufficient to discharge the first part of that charge laid down before, concerning the impossibility of the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto us; which indeed is equal unto the Impossibility of the imputation of the Disobedience of Adam unto us; whereby the apostle tells us, That we were all made sinners.

The second part of the objection or Charge against the imputation of the obedience of Christ unto us, is, That it is useless unto the persons that are to be justified. For whereas they have in their justification the pardon of all their sins, they are thereby righteous, and have a right or title unto life and Blessedness: For he who is so pardoned, as not to be esteemed guilty of any sin of omission or commission, wants nothing that is requisite thereunto. For he is supposed to have done all that he ought, and to have omitted nothing required of him in a way of duty. Hereby he becomes not unrighteous, and to be not unrighteous, is the same as to be righteous. As he that is not dead, is alive. Neither is there, nor can there be any middle state between death and life. Wherefore those who have all their sins forgiven, have the Blessedness of justification; and there is neither need, nor use of any farther imputation of righteousness unto them. And sundry other things of the same nature, are urged unto the same purpose, which will be all of them either obviated in the insuing discourse, or answered elswhere.

Answ. This cause is of more importance, and more evidently stated in the scriptures, than to be turned into such niceties, which have more of Philosophical subtilty, than Theological solidity, in them. This exception therefore might be dismissed without farther answer, than what is given us in the known rule, That a truth well established and confirmed, is not to be questioned, much less relinquished on every intangling sophism, though it should appear insoluble. But as we shall see, there is no such difficulty in these arguings, but what may easily be discussed. And because the matter of the Plea contained in them, is made use of by sundry learned persons who yet agree with us in the substance of the doctrine of justification, namely, that it is by faith alone, without works, through the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Christ. I shall as briefly as I can discover the mistakes that it proceeds upon.

1. It includes a supposition, That he who is pardoned his sins of omission and commission, is esteemed to have done all that is required of him, and to have committed nothing that is forbidden. For without this supposition, the bare pardon of sin, will neither make, constitute, nor denominate any Man righteous. But this is far otherwise, nor is any such thing included in the nature of pardon. For in the pardon of sin, neither God nor Man do judge, That he who has sinned, has not sinned; which must be done, if he who is pardoned be esteemed to have done all that he ought, and to have done nothing that he ought not to do. If a Man be brought on his tryal for any evil fact, and being legally convicted thereof, is discharged by Soveraign pardon; it is true, that in the eye of the law, he is looked upon as an innocent man, as unto the punishment that was due unto him; but no Man thinks that he is made righteous thereby, or is esteemed not to have done that which really he has done, and whereof he was convicted. Joab and Abiathar the Pri were at the same time guilty of the same crime. Solomon gives order that Joab be put to death for his crime; but unto Abiathar he gives a pardon. Did he thereby make, declare or constitute him righteous? Himself expresss the contrary, affirming him to be unrighteous and guilty, only he remitted the punishment of his fault. 1 king. 2:26. Wherefore the pardon of sin dischargs the guilty person from being liable or obnoxious unto anger, wrath, or punishment, due unto his sin; but it does not suppose, nor infer in the least, that he is thereby or ought thereon to be esteemed or adjudged to have done no evil, and to have fulfilled all righteousness. Some say, pardon gives a righteousness of Innocency, but not of obedience. But it cannot give a righteousness of Innocency, absolutely, such as Adam had. For he had actually done no evil. It only removs guilt, which is the respect of sin unto punishment, insuing on the Sanction of the law. And this Supposition which is an evident mistake, animates this whole objection.

The like may be said of what is in like manner supposed, namely, That not to be unrighteous, which a man is on the pardon of sin, is the same with being righteous. For if not to be unrighteous be taken privatively, it is the same with being just or righteous: For it supposs, that he who is so, has done all the duty that is required of him, that he may be righteous. But not to be unrighteous negatively, as the expression is here used, it does not do so. For at best it supposs no more, but that a Man as yet has done nothing actually against the rule of righteousness. Now this may be when yet he has performed none of the duties that are required of him to constitute him righteous, because the times and occasions of them, are not yet. And so it was with Adam in the state of Innocency; which is the height of what can be attained by the compleat pardon of sin.

2. It proceeds on this Supposition, That the law, in case of sin, does not oblige unto punishment and obedience both; so as that it is not satisfied, fulfilled, or complied withal, unless it be answered with respect unto both, For if it does so, then the pardon of sin, which only frees us from the penalty of the law, does yet leave it necessary, that obedience be performed unto it, even all that it does require. But this, in my judgment, is an evident mistake, and that such as does not establish the law, but make it void. And this I shall demonstrate.

1. The law has two parts or powers. (1.) Its preceptive part, commanding and requiring obedience, with a promise of life annexed: Do this and live. (2.) The sanction on supposition of disobedience, binding the sinner unto punishment, or a meet recompence of reward. In the day you sinn, you shalt die. And every law properly so called, proceeds on these suppositions of obedience or disobedience, whence its commanding and punishing power are inseparate from its nature.

2. This law, whereof we speak, was first given unto Man in innocency; and therefore the first power of it, was only in act: It obliged only unto obedience. For an innocent person could not be obnoxious unto its sanction, which contained only an obligation unto punishment, on supposition of disobedience. It could not therefore oblige our first Parents unto obedience and punishment both, seeing its obligation unto punishment could not be in actual force, but on supposition of actual disobedience. A Moral cause of, and Motive unto obedience it was, and had an influence into the preservation of Man from sin. Unto that end it was said unto him, In the day you eat, you shalt surely die. The neglect hereof, and of that ruling influence which it ought to have had on the minds of our first Parents, opened the door unto the entrance of sin. But it implies a contradiction, that an innocent person should be under an actual obligation unto punishment from the sanction of the law. It bound only unto obedience, as all laws, with Penalties, do before their transgression. But

3. On the committing of sin, (and it is so with every one that is guilty of sin) Man came under an actual obligation unto punishment. This is no more questionable than whether at first he was under an obligation unto obedience. But then the question is, whether the first Intention and obligation of the law unto obedience, does cease to affect the sinner, or continue so, as at the same time to oblige him unto obedience and punishment, both its powers being in act towards him. And hereunto I say

1. Had the punishment threatened, been immediately inflicted unto the utmost of what was contained in it, this could have been no question. For Man had died immediately both temporally and eternally, and been cast out of that state wherein alone he could stand in any relation unto the preceptive power of the law. He that is finally executed, has fulfilled the law so, as that he ows no more obedience unto it.

But 2. God in his wisdom and patience, has otherwise disposed of things. Man is continued a Viator still in the way unto his end, and not fully stated in his eternal and unchangeable condition, wherein neither promise nor Threatning; reward nor punishment could be proposed unto him. In this condition he falls under a twofold consideration. (1.) Of a guilty person, and so is obliged unto the full punishment, that the law threatens. This is not denied. (2.) Of a Man, a Rational creature of God, not yet brought unto his Eternal end.

3. In this state, the law is the only instrument and means of the continuance of the relation between God and him. Wherefore under this consideration it cannot but still oblige him unto obedience, unless we shall say, that by his sin he has exempted himself from the Government of God. Wherefore it is by the law, that the rule and Government of God over Men, is continued whil they are in statu Viatorum: For every Disobedience, every Transgression of its rule and order as to its commanding power casts us afresh, and further, under its power of obliging unto punishment.

Neither can these things be otherwise; neither can any Man living, not the worst of Men, chuse but judge himself whil he is in this world, obliged to give obedience unto the law of God, according to the notices that he has of it by the light of nature or otherwise. A wicked servant that is punished for his fault, if it be with such a punishment as yet continues his being, and his state of servitude is not by his punishment freed from an obligation unto duty, according unto the rule of it. Yea, his obligation unto duty, with respect unto that crime for which he was punished, is not dissolved, until his punishment be capital, and so put an end unto his state. Wherefore seeing that by the pardon of sin, we are freed only from the obligation unto punishment, there is moreover required unto our justification, an obedience unto what the law requirs.

And this greatly strengthns the argument, in whose Vindication we are ingaged; for we being sinners, we were obnoxious both unto the command and curse of the law. Both must be answered, or we cannot be justified. And as the Lord Christ could not by his most perfect obedience, satisfy the curse of the law, dying you shalt die; so by the utmost of his suffering, he could not fulfil the command of the law, Do this and live. Passion as Passion is not obedience, though there may be obedience in suffering, as there was in that of Christ unto the height. Wherefore as we plead that the death of Christ is imputed unto us for our justification, so we deny that it is imputed unto us for our righteousness. For by the imputation of the sufferings of Christ, our sins are remitted or pardoned, and we are delivered from the curse of the law, which he underwent. But we are not thence esteemed just or righteous, which we cannot be without respect unto the fulfilling of the commands of the law, or the obedience by it required. The whole matter is excellently expressed by Grotius in the words before alledged, Cum duo nobis peperisse Christum dixerimus impunitatem & praemium, illud satisfactioni hoc merito Christi distincte tribuit vetus Ecclesia. Satisfactio consistit in meritorum translatione, meritum in perfectissimae obedientiae pro nobis praestitae imputatione.

3. The objection mentioned proceeds also on this Supposition, That pardon of sin gives title unto Eternal Blessedness in the injoyment of God: For justification does so, and according to the authors of this opinion, no other righteousness is required thereunto but pardon of sin. That justification does give right and title unto adoption, Acceptation with God, and the Heavenly Inheritance, I suppose will not be denied, and it has been proved already. pardon of sin depends solely on the death or suffering of Christ: In whom we have redemption through his Blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Ephesians 1:7. But suffering for punishment gives right and title unto nothing, only satisfies for something; nor does it deserve any reward: It is no where said, Suffer this and live, but Do this and live.

These things, I confess, are inseparably connected in the ordinance, Appointment, and covenant of God. Whosoever has his sins pardoned, is accepted with God, has right unto Eternal Blessedness. These things are inseparable, but they are not one and the same. And by reason of their inseparable relation, are they so put together by the apostle. Romans 4:6, 7, 8. Even as David also describs the Blessedness of the Man, unto whom God imputes righteousness without works: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: Blessed is the Man unto whom the Lord will not impute sin. It is the imputation of righteousness, that gives right unto Blessedness; but pardon of sin is inseparable from it, and an effect of it, both being opposed unto justification by works, or an Internal righteousness of our own. But it is one thing to be freed from being liable unto Eternal death; and another to have right and title unto a Blessed and Eternal life. It is one thing to be redeemed from under the law, that is the curse of it; another to receive the adoption of Sons. One thing to be freed from the curse, another to have the blessing of Abraham come upon us; as the apostle distinguishs these things. Galatians 3:13, 14. & 4:4, 5, And so does our Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 26:18. That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance (a Lot and right to the Inheritance) amongst them that are sanctified by faith that is in me. which we have by faith in Christ is only a dismission of sin from being pleadable unto our condemnation; on which account there is no condemnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus. But a right and title unto glory, or the Heavenly Inheritance, it givs not. Can it be supposed, that all the great and glorious effects of present grace and future Blessedness, should follow necessarily on, and be the effect of mere pardon of sin? Can we not be pardoned, but we must thereby of necessity be made Sons, Heirs of God, and Coheirs with Christ?

Pardon of sin is in God, with respect unto the sinner, a free gratuitous act; forgiveness of sin through the riches of his grace. But with respect unto the satisfaction of Christ, it is an Acts in judgment. For on the consideration thereof as imputed unto him, does God absolve and acquit the sinner upon his tryal. But pardon on a juridical tryal, on what consideration soever it be granted, gives no right nor title unto any favor, benefit, or priviledge, but only mere deliverance. It is one thing to be acquitted before the throne of a king of Crimes, laid unto the charge of any Man, which may be done by clemency, or on other considerations; another to be made his Son by adoption, and Heir unto his kingdom.

And these things are represented unto us in the scripture, as distinct and depending on distinct causes. So are they in the Vision concerning Joshua the High Pri. Zechariah 3:4 5 And he answered and spoke unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him: And unto him he said, Behold I have caused yours iniquity to pass from you; and I will cloath you with change of rayment. And I said, Let them set a fair Miter upon his head; so they set a fair Miter on his head, and cloathed him with garments. It has been generally granted, That we have here a Representation of the justification of a sinner before God. And the taking away of filthy garments, is expounded by the passing away of iniquity. When a Mans filthy garments are taken away, he is no more defiled with them; but he is not thereby cloathed. This is an additional grace and favor thereunto, namely to be cloathed with change of garments. And what this rayment is, is declared Isaiah 61:10. He has cloathed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, which the apostle alludes unto Philippians 3:9. Wherefore these things are distinct; namely, the taking away of the filthy garments, and the cloathing of us with change of rayment; or the pardon of sin, and the robe of righteousness; by the one are we freed from condemnation, by the other have we right unto salvation. And the same is in like manner represented Ezekiel 16:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

This place I had formerly urged to this purpose about communion with God, page 187. which Mr. Hotch. in his usual manner attempts to answer. And to omit his reviling expressions, with the crude unproved assertion of his own conceits, his answer is, That by the change of rayment mentioned in the prophet, our own personal righteousness is intended. For he acknowledgs that our justification before God is here represented. And so also he expounds the place produced in the confirmation of the Exposition given, Isai. 61:10. where this change of rayment is called The garments of salvation, and the robe of righteousness; and thereon affirms, That our righteousness it self, before God, is our Personal righteousness, page 203. That is, in our justification before him, which is the only thing in question. To all which Presumptions, I shall oppose only the testimony of the same prophet, which he may consider at his leisure, and which, at one time or other he will subscribe unto. Chap. 64:6. We are all as an unclean thing, and all our Righteousnesses are as filthy rags. He who can make garments of salvation, and robes of righteousness of these filthy rags, has a skill in composing Spiritual Vestments that I am not acquainted withal. What remains in the chapter wherein this answer is given unto that testimony of the scripture, I shall take no notice of, it being after his accustomed manner, only a perverse wresting of my words unto such a sense, as may seem to countenance him in casting a reproach upon my self and others.

There is therefore no force in the comparing of these things unto life and death natural, which are immediately opposed; So that he who is not dead is alive, and he who is alive, is not dead, there being no distinct state between that of life and death. For these things being of different natures, the comparison between them is no way argumentative. Though it may be so in things natural, it is otherwise in things Moral and Political, where a proper Representation of justification may be taken, as it is forensick. If it were so, that there is no difference between being acquitted of a crime at the Bar of a judge, and a right unto a kingdom, nor different state between these things, it would prove, that there is no intermediate estate between being pardoned, and having a right unto the Heavenly Inheritance. But this is a fond imagination.

It is true, That right unto Eternal life, does succeed unto freedom from the guilt of Eternal death. That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified. But it does not so do, out of a necessity in the nature of the things themselves, but only in the free constitution of God. believers have the pardon of sin, and an immediate right and title unto the favor of God, the adoption of Sons, and Eternal life. But there is another state in the nature of the things themselves, and this might have been so actually, had it so seemed good unto God: For who sees not, that there is a Status or Conditio Personae, wherein he is neither under the guilt of condemnation, nor has an immediate right and title unto glory, in the way of Inheritance. God might have pardoned Men all their sins past, and placed them in a state and condition of seeking righteousness for the future, by the works of the law, that so they might have lived: For this would answer the original state of Adam. But God has not done so; true; but whereas he might have done so, it is evident that the disposal of Men into this state and condition of right unto life and salvation, does not depend on, nor proceed from the pardon of sin, but has another cause, which is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, as he fulfilled the law for us.

And in truth, this is the opinion of the most of our Adversaries in this cause: For they do contend, that over and above the remission of sin, which some of them say is absolute, without any respect unto the merit or satisfaction of Christ, others refer it unto them; they all contend that there is moreover, a righteousness of works required unto our justification; only they say, this is our own incomplete, imperfect righteousness, imputed unto us, as if it were perfect, that is, for what it is not; and not the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us for what it is.

From what has been discoursed, it is evident that unto our justification before God, is required, Not only that we be freed from the damnatory sentence of the law, which we are by the pardon of sin, but moreover, that the righteousness of the law be fulfilled in us, or, that we have a righteousness answering the obedience that the law requires, whereon our acceptance with God, through the riches of his grace, and our title unto the heavenly Inheritance do depend. This we have not in and of our selves, nor can attain unto, as has been proved. Wherefore the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, or in the sight of God we can never be justified.

Nor are the cavilling objections of the socinians, and those that follow them, of any force against the truth herein. They tell us that the righteousness of Christ can be imputed but unto one, if unto any. For who can suppose that the same righteousness of One should become the righteousness of many, even of all that believe. Besides he performed not all the duties that are required of us in all our relations, he being never placed in them. These things I say, are both foolish and impious, destructive unto the whole gospel. For all things here depend on the Ordination of God. It is his ordinance that as through the offence of One many are dead; so his grace, and the Gift of grace, through one man Christ Jesus has abounded unto many; and as by the Offence of one judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, so by the righteousness of One, the free Gift came upon all unto the righteousness of life, and by the obedience of One many are made righteous; as the apostle argues Romans 5. For God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. Romans 8:3, 4. For he was the end of the law (the whole end of it) for righteousness unto them that do believe, Chap. 10:4. This is the Appointment of the wisdom, righteousness and grace of God, that the whole righteousness and obedience of Christ should be accepted as our compleat righteousness before him, imputed unto us by his grace, and applied unto us or made ours through believing, and consequently unto all that believe. And if the actual sin of Adam be imputed unto us all, who derive our nature from him unto condemnation, though he sinned not in our Circumstances and relations, is it strange that the actual obedience of Christ should be imputed unto them who derive a Spiritual nature from him, unto the justification of life? Besides both the satisfaction and obedience of Christ, as relating unto his person, were in some sense infinite, that is, of an infinite Value, and so cannot be considered in parts, as though one part of it were imputed unto one, and another unto another, but the whole is imputed unto every one that does believe; And if the israelites could say, that David was worth ten thousand of them, 2 Samuel 21:3. we may well allow the Lord Christ, and so what he did and suffered, to be more than us all, and all that we can do and suffer.

There are also sundry other mistakes that concur unto that part of the Charge against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, which we have now considered. I say of his righteousness; for the apostle in this case useth those two words , and righteousness and obedience, as , of the same signification, Romans 5:18, 19. such are those, that remission of sin and justification are the same, or that justification consists only in the remission of sin; that faith it self as our Acts and duty, being it is the condition of the covenant, is imputed unto us for righteousness or that we have a personal inherent righteousness of our own, that one way or other is our righteousness before God unto justification; either a condition it is, or a Disposition unto it; or has a congruity in deserving the grace of justification, or a down-right merit of Condignity thereof. For all these are but various expressions of the same thing, according unto the Variety of the Conceptions of the minds of men about it. But they have been all considered and removed in our precedent discourses.

To close this argument, and our Vindication of it, and therewithal to obviate an objection, I do acknowledg that our Blessedness and life eternal is in the scripture oftimes ascribed unto the death of Christ: But it is so (1.) as the principal cause of the whole, and as that without which no imputation of obedience could have justified us; for the Penalty of the law was indispensibly to be undergone. (2.) It is so ; not exclusively unto all obedience whereof mention is made in other Places, but as that whereunto it is inseparably conjoyned, Christus in vita passivam habuit actionem; in morte passionem activam sustinuit; dum salutem operaretur in medio terrae. Bernard. And so it is also ascribed unto his resurrection with respect unto evidence and Manifestation. But the death of Christ exclusively as unto his obedience is no where asserted as the cause of eternal life, comprizing that exceeding Weight of glory wherewith it is accompanied.

Hitherto we have treated of and Vindicated the imputation of the Active obedience of Christ unto us, as the truth of it was deduced from the preceding argument about the obligation of the law of creation. I shall now briefly confirm it with other reasons and testimonies.

1. That which Christ the Mediator and Surety of the covenant, did do in obedience unto God, in the discharge and performance of his Office, that he did for us, and that is imputed unto us. This has been proved already, and it has too great an evidence of truth to be denied. He was born to us, given to us. Isaiah 9:6. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, Romans 8:3, 4. Whatever is spoken of the grace, love and purpose of God in sending or giving his Son, or of the love, grace and Condescention of the Son in coming and undertaking of the work of redemption designed unto him, or of the Office it self of a Mediator or Surety, gives testimony unto this assertion. Yea, it is the Fundamental principle of the gospel, and of the faith of all that truly believe. As for those by whom the Divine person and satisfaction of Christ are denied, whereby they evert the whole work of his mediation, we do not at present consider them. Wherefore what he so did, is to be enquired into. And

1. The Lord Christ our Mediator and Surety was in his Humane nature made under the law, Galatians 4:1. That he was not so for himself by the necessity of his condition, we have proved before. It was therefore for us. But as made under the law, he yielded obedience unto it; this therefore was for us, and is imputed unto us. The exception of the socinians that it is the Judicial law only that is intended, is too frivolous to be insisted on. For he was made under that law whose curse we are delivered from. And if we are delivered only from the curse of the law of Moses, wherein they contend that there was neither promises nor Threatning of eternal things, of any thing beyond this present life, we are still in our sins, under the curse of the Moral law, notwithstanding all that he has done for us. It is excepted with no color of sobriety, that he was made under the law only as to the curse of it. But it is plain in the Text, that Christ was made under the law as we are under it. He was made under the law to redeem them that were under the law. And if he was not made so as we are, there is no consequence from his being made under it, unto our redemption from it. But we were so under the law, as not only to be obnoxious unto the curse, but so as to be oblieged unto all the obedience that it required, as has been proved. And if the Lord Christ has redeemed us only from the curse of it by undergoing it, leaving us in our selves to answer its obligation unto obedience, we are not freed nor delivered. And the Expression of under the law does in the first place and properly signifie being under the obligation of it unto obedience, and consequentially only with a respect unto the curse. Galatians 4:21. Tell me ye that desire to beunder the law; They did not desire to be under the curse of the law, but only its obligation unto obedience; which in all usage of Speech, is the first proper sense of that Expression. Wherefore the Lord Christ being made under the law for us, he yielded perfect obedience unto it for us, which is therefore imputed unto us. For that what he did, was done for us, depends solely on imputation.

2. As he was thus made under the law, so he did actually fulfil it by his obedience unto it. So he testifis concerning himself; Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfil, Matthew 5:17. These words of our Lord Jesus Christ as recorded by the evangelist, the jews continually object against the Christians, as contradictory to what they pretend to be done by him, namely that he has destroyed and taken away the law. And Maimonides in his treatise De fundamentis Legis, has many blasphemous Reflections on the Lord Christ as a false prophet in this matter. But the reconciliation is plain and easie. There was a twofold law given unto the church. The Moral and the Ceremonial law. The first as we have proved is of an eternal obligation. The other was given only for a Time. That the latter of these was to be taken away and abolished the apostle proves with invincible testimonies out of the Old testament against the obstinate jews, in his epistle unto the Hebrews. Yet was it not to be taken away without its Accomplishment when it ceased of it self. Wherefore our Lord Christ did no otherwise dissolve or destroy that law, but by the Accomplishment of it; and so he did put an end unto it, as is fully declared, Ephesians 2:14, 15, 16. But the law , that which obligs all men unto obedience unto God always, he came not to destroy; that is , to abolish it, as an is ascribed unto the Mosaical law, Hebrews 9. (In the same sense is the word used, Matthew 24:2. Chap. 26:6 Chap. 27:40. Mark 13:2. Chap. 14:58. Chap. 15:29. Luke. 21:6. Acts 5:38, 39. Chap. 6:14. Romans 14:20. 2 Corinthians 5:1. Galatians 2:18. mostly with an Accusative case, of the things spoken of.) or , which the apostle denys to be done by Christ, and faith in him, Romans 3:31. . Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea we establish the law. is to confirm its obligation unto obedience, which is done by faith only with respect unto the Moral law, the other being evacuated as unto any power of obliging unto obedience. This therefore is the law which our Lord Christ affirms that he came, not to destroy; so he expressly declares in his ensuing discourse, shewing both its power of obliging us always unto obedience, and giving an Exposition of it. This law the Lord Christ came , in the scripture is the same with in other writers; that is, to yield full perfect obedience unto the commands of the law, whereby they are absolutely fulfilled; , is not to make the law perfect; for it was always , a perfect law, Jam. 1:25. but to yield perfect obedience unto it; the same that our savior calls , Matthew 3:15. to fulfil all righteousness; that is, by obedience unto all Gods commands and Institutions, as is evident in the Place. So the apostle useth the same Expression, Romans 13:8. he that lovs another, has fulfilled the law.

It is a vain exception that Christ fulfilled the law by his doctrine, in the Exposition of it. The Opposition between the words and to fulfill and to destroy, will admit of no such sense. And our savior himself expounds this fulfilling of the law, by doing the commands of it, verse 19. Wherefore the Lord Christ as our Mediator and Surety fulfilling the law by yielding perfect obedience thereunto, he did it for us, and to us it is imputed.

This is plainly affirmed by the apostle, Romans 5:18, 19. Therefore as by the Offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free Gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by the disobedience of One many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous. The full plea from and Vindication of this testimony, I refer unto its proper place in the testimonies given unto the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto our justification in general. Here I shall only observe that the apostle expressly and in terms affirms that by the obedience of Christ, we are made righteous or justified, which we cannot be but by the imputation of it unto us. I have met with nothing that had the appearance of any sobriety for the eluding of this express testimony, but only, that by the obedience of Christ, his death and sufferings are intended, wherein he was obedient unto God; as the apostle says, he was Obedient unto death; the death of the Cross, Philippians 2:8. But yet there is herein no color of probability. For, 1. It is acknowledged that there was such a near conjunction and alliance between the obedience of Christ, and his sufferings, that though they may be distinguished, yet can they not be separated. He suffered in the whole course of his obedience, from the Womb to the Cross; and he obeyed in all his sufferings unto the last moment wherein he expired. But yet are they really things distinct, as we have proved; and they were so in him, who learned obedience by the things that he suffered. Hebrews 5:8. (2.) In this place , Ver. 19. And , Ver. 18. are the same: obedience and righteousness. By the righteousness of One, and by the obedience of One, are the same. But suffering, as suffering is not , is not righteousness. For if it were, then every one that suffers what is due to him, should be righteous, and so be justified, even the Devil himself. (3) The righteousness and obedience here intended, are opposed , to the offence. By the offence of One; But the offence intended was an actual Transgression of the law; so is , a fall from or a fall in the Course of obedience. Wherefore the or righteousness must be an actual obedience unto the commands of the law, or the force of the apostles Reasoning and Antithesis cannot be understood. (4.) Particularly it is such an obedience as is opposed unto the disobedience of Adam. One man's Disobedience, one man's obedience. But the disobedience of Adam was an actual Transgression of the law; and therefore the obedience of Christ here intended, was his active obedience unto the law; which is that we plead for. And I shall not at present farther pursue the argument, because the force of it in the confirmation of the truth contended for, will be included in those that follow.

From the preceding general argument, a particular argument follows concerning the imputation of Christ's active obedience and righteousness to us as an essential part of the righteousness on which we are justified before God. It runs as follows: if it was necessary that the Lord Christ, as our Surety, undergo the law's penalty for us and in our place — because we have all sinned — then it was equally necessary that as our Surety He yield obedience to the preceptive part of the law for us as well. And if the imputation of the former is needed for our justification before God, then the imputation of the latter is needed for the same end. Why was it necessary — why did God require — that the Lord Christ as the covenant's Surety should bear the curse and penalty of the law that we had incurred by sin, in order for us to be justified before Him? Was it not so that the honor and glory of God's righteousness — as the author of the law and the supreme Governor of all mankind — might not be violated by the sins of its transgressors going entirely unpunished? If it was essential to God's glory that the law's penalty be borne for us, or suffered by our Surety in our place, because we had sinned, why is it not equally essential to God's glory that the preceptive part of the law be fulfilled for us — since obedience to it is required of us? We are no more able to fulfill the law through obedience by our own power than we are to undergo its penalty in a way that justifies us. And no reason can be given why God is any less concerned for His honor and glory in having the law's preceptive authority met by perfect obedience than in having its sanction upheld by the suffering of its penalty. Therefore on the same grounds that it was necessary for the Lord Christ to suffer the law's penalty for us so that we might be justified in God's sight — and that the satisfaction He thereby made should be imputed to us as if we ourselves had made it to God, as Bellarmine himself says and grants — on those same grounds it was equally necessary, for the honor and glory of the Lawgiver and supreme Governor, that He fulfill the law's preceptive demands through His perfect obedience, which is also to be imputed to us for our justification.

On the first of these points — Christ's satisfaction and its imputation to us — our primary dispute is with the Socinians. I have written extensively elsewhere in defense of the truth on that subject and will not repeat those arguments here. That point is therefore taken for granted here, though I am aware that some have different views about the nature of Christ's suffering in our stead and the imputation of those sufferings to us. I will not address those differences here, since I press this argument only to this point: that the imputation of Christ's obedience to the law is no less necessary for our justification before God than the imputation of His suffering of the law's penalty to the same end. The nature of this imputation and what formally is imputed has already been addressed elsewhere.

That Christ the Mediator's obedience is thus imputed to us will be proved below from specific scriptural testimonies. Here my aim is only to defend the argument as stated above, which will take somewhat more time than usual. For no part of the whole doctrine of justification faces more fierce and varied opposition than this. But the truth is great and will prevail.

The objections typically urged against the imputation of Christ's obedience to our justification can be grouped under three headings. First, that it is impossible. Second, that it is useless. Third, that it is dangerous to believe it. If the arguments used to support these objections are as strong as the charges themselves are fierce and severe, they would inevitably overthrow this conviction in the minds of all sober people. But there is often a wide difference between what is asserted and what is actually proved, as will become evident in this case.

First, the charge of impossibility rests on a single ground: that Christ's obedience to the law was owed by Him on His own account and was performed by Him for Himself, as a man placed under the law. What was necessary for Himself and done for Himself, it is argued, cannot be said to have been done for us in a way that could be imputed to us.

Second, the charge of uselessness is based on this reasoning: since all our sins of omission and commission are pardoned in justification on account of Christ's death and satisfaction, we are thereby made completely righteous. There is therefore no need and no use for the imputation of Christ's obedience to us.

Third, some say it is dangerous — that it removes the necessity of our own personal obedience and introduces antinomianism, moral license, and all manner of evils.

The third charge I will address in its proper place. Though some urge it specifically against this aspect of justification, others direct it against the whole doctrine. And even if we were to grant that Christ's obedience to the law is not imputed to us for justification, we would still not be free from this false accusation — unless we were also prepared to abandon the entirety of Christ's satisfaction and merit. We do not intend to purchase our peace with the world at that price. I will therefore address this charge in its proper place, as it applies to the whole doctrine of justification and all its components that we believe and profess.

The first charge — that the imputation of Christ's obedience to us is impossible — is pressed by Socinus (de Servat., part 3, cap. 5). Everything since argued to the same effect has been derived from him, or at least anticipated by him before others arrived at it. He makes this argument the primary weapon with which he tries to overthrow the entire doctrine of Christ's merit. His reasoning is that if everything Christ did in obedience was owed by Him on His own account — being simply the duty He owed to God for Himself in His station and circumstances as a man in this world — then it cannot be meritorious for us or imputed to us in any way. In a similar move, he weakens the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction and its imputation to us by arguing that Christ offered as a priest for Himself in the offering He made on the cross (part 2, cap. 22). His actual view was that whatever was sacrificial or offering-like in Christ's death was for Himself — that is, it was an act of obedience to God that pleased Him as a sweet-smelling fragrance. Christ's offering for us, in Socinus's view, consists only in His presenting Himself in God's presence in heaven, now that He no longer has any duty to perform for Himself. And the truth is: if Christ's obedience had reference only to Himself — if He yielded it to God out of the necessity of His own condition and not for us — I see no remaining foundation for asserting His merit, any more than I see a foundation for its imputation to those who believe.

What we contend for is this: the Lord Christ fulfilled the whole law for us. He not only bore the law's penalty due to our sins but also yielded the perfect obedience it required. I will not here enter into the debate about the distinction between Christ's active and passive obedience. For He exercised the highest active obedience in His very suffering, when He offered Himself to God through the eternal Spirit. And all His obedience — given who He was as a person — was mingled with suffering as part of His self-emptying and humiliation, which is why Scripture says that though He was a Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered. Moreover, while doing and suffering belong to different categories of things, scriptural testimony is not to be regulated by philosophical distinctions. It must also be said that Christ's sufferings, considered purely as penal, are only imprecisely called His passive righteousness. All righteousness consists either in a disposition or in an action — and suffering is neither. No one is considered righteous, or is deemed righteous, on the basis of what they suffer. Sufferings also give no satisfaction to the law's commands, which require only obedience. It therefore unavoidably follows that we need more than Christ's sufferings alone to be justified before God, if any righteousness is required for that justification. But all I am arguing here is this: Christ's fulfilling of the law through obedience to its commands is no less imputed to us for our justification than His bearing of the law's penalty.

I cannot help thinking that it sounds deeply wrong to the ears of all Christians to say that the Lord Jesus Christ's obedience as Mediator and Surety to the whole law of God was for Himself alone and not for us — or that what He did in that obedience was not so that He might be the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe, nor a means of fulfilling the law's righteous requirement in us. This is especially so given that the faith of the church is that He was given to us, born for us — that for us and for our salvation He came down from heaven and did and suffered all that was required of Him. But since those who deny the imputation of Christ's obedience to us for justification press mainly on the second charge — its uselessness — I will under this first head consider only the arguments of Socinus, which are the primary tools some use to confuse the truth in our own day.

His argument runs as follows (de Servat., part 3, cap. 5): "It is plain that Christ, because He was born a man, and indeed — as Paul says — made under the law, was no less subject to the divine law, which is eternal and unchangeable, than other men. Otherwise Christ could have neglected God's eternal law or even broken it entirely if He chose — which is impious even to think. In fact, as was explained above, unless Christ Himself had been subject to keeping the divine law — as Paul's words indicate — He could not have helped those who are subject to keeping that law, nor brought them to a firm hope of immortality. In this respect, therefore, Christ when born as a man did not differ from other men. Therefore He could not, by keeping the divine law, render satisfaction on behalf of others any more than any other man could — since He was Himself entirely obligated to keep it." I have transcribed his words exactly so that it may be seen with whose weapons some young disputants among us take the field against the truth.

The substance of Socinus's argument is that our Lord Jesus Christ was obligated to all the obedience He performed by virtue of His own standing, on His own account. He tries to prove this by arguing: if it were otherwise — if He were not obligated to obedience on His own account — then He could have neglected the whole law of God and broken it at will. But Socinus forgot to consider that if Christ was not obligated to obedience on His own account but on ours — because He had taken up our cause — the obligation of obedience upon Him was no less complete and perfect than it would have been if He had been personally obligated on His own account. From his premise, Socinus infers that what Christ did could not have been for us, because it was done for Himself — just as whatever any other person is bound to do in duty for himself cannot be reckoned as having been done for another. For Socinus will not allow any consideration of the person of Christ that would give what He did and suffered a different nature and efficacy from what any other man could do or suffer. The only additional point he makes in the course of his argument is that whatever Christ did that was not required by the law in general was done on the special command of God and therefore for Himself — so it cannot be imputed to us. By this reasoning he excludes the church from any benefit from Christ's mediation except what consists in His teaching, example, and the exercise of His power in heaven on our behalf — which was in fact his goal. But we must also address those who make use of his arguments without yet openly sharing all his conclusions.

To clarify the truth here, the following points must be observed.

First: the obedience under discussion was the obedience of Christ the Mediator. But the obedience of Christ as Mediator of the covenant was the obedience of His person — for God redeemed His church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). It was performed in the human nature, but the person of Christ was the one who performed it. Just as in any human being, some acts are immediately acts of the body and some of the soul, yet in their performance they are acts of the whole person — so the acts of Christ in His mediation were, as to their immediate operation, the acts of His distinct natures: some of the divine and some of the human. But as to their full accomplishment and effective power, they were the acts of His whole person — the person who performed them and whose power of operation was a property of that person. Therefore the obedience we are discussing was the obedience of the Son of God. But the Son of God was never absolutely placed under the law as a whole person, nor could He formally be bound by it. He was indeed, as the apostle testifies, placed under the law in His human nature — "born of a woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4) — to the extent that He was born of a woman. Yet in His person He remained Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) — and therefore Lord of the whole law. The obedience itself was the obedience of a person who was never, and could never be, absolutely placed under the law in His whole person. The divine nature cannot be subjected to an external work of its own such as the law, nor can the law have authoritative commanding power over it — as it would have to if Christ were placed under the law in His divine nature. The apostle argues similarly that Levi paid tithes in Abraham, because he was in Abraham's body when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (Hebrews 7), and from this proves that Levi was inferior to the Lord Christ, of whom Melchizedek was a type. But could it not be replied that Christ was in Abraham's body no less than Levi? For, as the same apostle says, He took on Himself the seed of Abraham. It is true that He did so with respect to His human nature — but as He was represented by Melchizedek in His whole person, without father or mother or genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, He was not absolutely in Abraham's body and was exempt from being tithed in him. Therefore the obedience we are discussing is not the obedience of the human nature in abstraction — even though it was performed in and through the human nature — but the obedience of the person of the Son of God. Whatever the human nature's subjection to the law (in what sense and to what ends will be addressed later), this obedience was not for Himself, and could not have been for Himself, because His whole person was not under the law's obligation. It is therefore absurd to compare Christ's obedience with that of any other man, whose whole person is under the law. For while another man's duty performed for himself might not be reckoned as done for others (though we will show that in some cases it may), Christ's obedience both could and must have been for others, and not for Himself. This we must hold firmly. If the obedience Christ yielded to the law had been for Himself — since it was the act of His person, His whole person — then the divine nature within that person would have been placed under the law, which is impossible. For although God's ordering of things required that Christ's self-emptying precede His glorious and majestic exaltation, as Scripture testifies (Philippians 2:9; Luke 24:26; Romans 14:9), yet absolutely His glory was an immediate consequence of the hypostatic union (Hebrews 1:6; Matthew 2:11).

Socinus evades the force of this argument by denying the divine person of Christ. But in this discussion I take that as established, having proved it elsewhere beyond what any of his followers have been able to counter. If we may not build on truths he denies, we will scarcely have any principle of evangelical truth left from which to prove anything. In any case, I intend to address only those who share his position on the matter under debate while rejecting his view of the person of Christ.

Second: as our Lord Jesus Christ did not personally owe this obedience for Himself by any authority or power the law held over Him, so He did not intend or design it for Himself but for us. This point, added to the first, gives full confirmation to the truth we are defending. For if He was not obligated to obedience for Himself — His person not being under the law — and if He did not intend it for Himself, then it must have been for us, or it was pointless. He performed all this obedience in our human nature. But the taking on of our nature was His own voluntary act, done with reference to a specific end and purpose. Whatever was the purpose of assuming our nature was equally the purpose of all He did within that nature. Now He assumed our nature for us and not for Himself — nothing was added to Him by it. In the outcome of His work, His only goal for Himself was to be restored to the glory He had shared with the Father before the world was, by the removal of the veil placed on it through His self-emptying. But that He assumed our nature for us is the foundation of the Christian faith, as the apostle affirms (Hebrews 2:14; Philippians 2:5-8).

Some of the ancient schoolmen debated whether the Son of God would have become incarnate even if man had not sinned and fallen. Osiander fiercely pursued the same opinion, as I have noted elsewhere. But none of them ever imagined that He would have been made man so as to be placed under the law and obligated to the obedience He has now performed. They believed He would have been, immediately upon incarnation, a glorious head to the whole creation. For it is the common and virtually universal conviction of all Christians — except those who sacrifice such convictions to their own private theories — that the obedience Christ yielded to the law on earth, in the state and condition in which He yielded it, was not for Himself but for the church, which was obligated to perfect obedience but unable to render it. That this was His sole end and design is, if I am not mistaken, a foundational article of the creed of most Christians in the world. To deny it is to undercut all the grace and love of both the Father and the Son in His mediation.

It is said that this obedience was necessary as a qualification of His person to make Him fit to serve as Mediator for us, and therefore was for Himself. It belongs, the claim goes, to the necessary constitution of His person with respect to His mediatorial work. This I positively deny. The Lord Christ was fully equipped in every way for the whole work of mediation by the ineffable union of the human nature with the divine — a union that elevated the human nature in dignity, honor, and worth beyond anything else or any combination of things that followed from it. Through this union He became in His whole person the object of all divine worship and honor, for when God brings the Firstborn into the world He says, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." Furthermore, what is an effect of the Mediator's person as already constituted cannot be a qualification necessary to constitute it. That is: what He did as Mediator did not contribute to making Him fit to be Mediator. And all the obedience He yielded to the law was of this character — performed as Mediator, because "it was fitting for Him to fulfill all righteousness."

Since He was made man and of the line of Abraham not for Himself but for the church — specifically to become thereby the Surety of the covenant and the representative of the whole — His obedience as a man to the law in general, and as a son of Abraham to the law of Moses, was for us and not for Himself. It was designed as such, performed as such, and apart from its reference to the church it would have served no purpose for Him. He was born for us, given to us, lived for us, died for us, obeyed for us, and suffered for us — so that through the obedience of One, many might be made righteous. This is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is the faith of the universal church. And what He did for us is imputed to us. This is included in the very concept of His doing it for us — for that phrase has no meaning unless what He so did is imputed to us. People should be careful not to shake the foundations of the Christian faith through clever distinctions and studied evasions in defense of their own private opinions. And I am certain it will be easier, as the proverb says, to wrest the club from the hand of Hercules than to dislodge from the minds of true believers the conviction that what the Lord Christ did in obedience to God according to the law, He designed in His love and grace to do for them. He had no need of obedience for Himself. He did not enter into a capacity for yielding obedience for His own benefit, but for ours. Therefore it was for us that He fulfilled the law in obedience to God according to its terms. The obligation laid on Him to obedience was as entirely for us, as needful to us, as not for Himself, and as unnecessary for His own sake, as was the obligation laid on Him as the covenant's Surety to bear the law's penalty — neither more nor less.

Third: setting aside the grace and love of Christ and the compact between the Father and the Son regarding His undertaking for us — which undeniably proves that everything He did in the pursuit of that undertaking was done for us and not for Himself — even apart from those considerations, the human nature of Christ, by virtue of its union with the person of the Son of God, had a right to and could have been immediately admitted into the highest glory of which it was capable, without any prior obedience to the law. This is evident from the fact that from the very first moment of that union, the whole person of Christ — with our nature existing in it — was the object of all divine worship from angels and men, in which consists the highest possible exaltation of that nature.

It is true that there was a particular form of glory that Christ was actually to receive in connection with His prior obedience and suffering (Philippians 2:8-9). By God's ordination, His actual possession of this glory was to follow His obeying and suffering — not for Himself but for us. But as to the right and capacity of the human nature itself, all the glory of which it was capable was due to it from the instant of the union. For in that union it was exalted above the condition that any creature is capable of through mere creation. It is a Socinian fiction that the first foundation of Christ's divine glory was laid in His obedience. His obedience was only the path to His actual possession of that portion of His glory that consists in His mediatorial power and authority over all. The true foundation of the whole was laid in the union of His person — from which He prays that the Father would glorify Him (in outward manifestation) with the glory He had with Him before the world was.

I will grant that the Lord Christ was a traveler through this world — a pilgrim in the state of obedience, not yet in possession of full glory. Yet I say that this was not a necessary condition for His own sake but was something He took upon Himself by special arrangement for us. Therefore the obedience He performed in that condition was for us and not for Himself.

Fourth: it is granted that Christ's human nature was placed under the law, as the apostle affirms — "born of a woman, born under the law." By this, obedience became necessary for Him in His capacity as a pilgrim in this world. But since this was by special arrangement — expressed in the very language of the text, "made under the law" in the same way He was "made of a woman," by deliberate condescension (Philippians 2:6-8) — the obedience He rendered as a result was for us and not for Himself. This is clear from the following: He was placed under the law in such a way that He owed not only obedience to its precepts but was also made liable to its curse. Surely no one would say that His liability to the curse was for Himself and not for us. We owed obedience to the law and were under its curse. Obedience was required of us, and was just as necessary if we were to enter life as bearing the curse on our behalf was necessary if we were to escape eternal death. Christ as our Surety was placed under the law for us — bound both to the obedience the law required and to the penalty it threatened. Who would dare say that He bore the law's penalty for us but yielded obedience to it for Himself alone? Such a supposition would throw the whole harmony of His mediatorial work into disorder.

Judah, the son of Jacob, undertook to become a slave in Benjamin's place so that his brother might go free (Genesis 44:33). There is no doubt that Joseph could have accepted this offer. Had he done so, the service and bondage Judah undertook would have been obligatory on Judah and right for him to bear — yet he would have borne it not for himself but for his brother Benjamin, and to Benjamin it would have been credited as his freedom. Similarly, when Paul wrote to Philemon about Onesimus (verse 18): "If he has wronged you or owes you anything, charge that to my account; I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand — I will repay it" — he assumed that Philemon might have two possible claims against Onesimus: one for the wrong or injury done him, and one for loss or debt. Paul put himself under personal obligation to answer for both and to repay a full settlement if required. By this he was personally obligated to make satisfaction to Philemon — yet he was doing so for Onesimus and not for himself. Therefore whatever obedience was due from the Lord Christ in His human nature while in the form of a servant — whether as a man or as an Israelite — since He was in that condition not by natural necessity for His own sake but by voluntary condescension and undertaking for us, it was done for us and not for Himself.

Fifth: the Lord Christ in His obedience was not a private person but a public person. He obeyed as the Surety of the covenant and as the Mediator between God and man. I assume this will not be denied. He cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered apart from that capacity. But what a public person does as a public person — that is, as the representative of others and the one who has undertaken on their behalf — he does not for himself but for others. If others were not involved, if it were not for them, what he does would have no meaning or purpose. In fact, it is a contradiction for anyone to act as a public person and yet do so only for himself. One who holds a public office may do things that concern himself alone, but he cannot do them in his capacity as a public person. Therefore, just as Socinus and his followers would have Christ offered for Himself — making Him a Mediator for Himself, since His offering was a mediatorial act, which is both foolish and impious — so to say that His mediatorial obedience, His obedience as a public person, was for Himself and not for others falls little short of equal impiety.

Sixth: it is granted that because Christ had a human nature, which was a creature, that nature was necessarily subject to the law of creation. There is a relationship that necessarily arises from and depends on the very existence of Creator and creature. Every rational creature is eternally obligated, by the nature of God and its relationship to Him, to love Him, obey Him, depend on Him, submit to Him, and make Him its end, blessedness, and reward. But the law of creation in this sense does not pertain only to this world and this life — it pertains to the future state of heaven and eternity as well. Christ's human nature is subject to this law in heaven and glory, and cannot but be so as long as it remains a creature and not God — that is, as long as it has its own existence. No one imagines such an infusion of divine properties into Christ's human nature that it would become self-subsisting and absolutely immense in itself, for that would openly destroy it. Yet no one would say that He is now under the law in the sense the apostle intends. Christ's human nature, in the sense just described, was subject to the law of creation on its own account while He was in this world. And this is enough to answer Socinus's objection raised at the outset of this discussion — namely, that if the Lord Christ was not obligated to obedience for Himself, then He could, if He chose, neglect or break the whole law. For apart from the fact that this is a foolish notion with respect to that holy nature hypostatically united to the Son of God — and thereby rendered incapable of any deviation from the divine will — the eternal, indispensable law of love, adherence, and dependence on God, to which Christ's human nature is subject as a creature, provides sufficient security against any such suggestion.

But there is another way of considering God's law: as imposed on creatures by special arrangement, for a limited time and a specific end, with particular rules and regulations that do not belong essentially to the eternal law as described above. This is the character of the written law of God, under which the Lord Christ was placed — not by necessity of creaturehood, but by special arrangement. For the law in this sense is presented not as binding absolutely and eternally, but as binding while we are in this world, with the specific purpose that through obedience to it we might obtain the reward of eternal life. It is evident that the law's obligation in this sense ceases when we come to enjoy that reward. The command "do this and live" no longer formally binds when the life it promises is already being enjoyed. In this sense the Lord Christ was not placed under the law for Himself, nor did He yield obedience to it for Himself. He was not obligated to it by virtue of His created condition. From the very first instant of the union of His natures, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, He could, notwithstanding the law He submitted to, have been placed immediately in glory. For One who was the object of all divine worship had no need of new obedience to procure a state of blessedness for Himself. And if He had been subject to the law in this sense purely by virtue of being a creature, He would have to be subject to it eternally — which He is not. For what depends solely on the natures of God and the creature is eternal and unchangeable. Therefore, just as this law was given to us not absolutely but with respect to a future state and reward, so the Lord Christ voluntarily subjected Himself to it for us — and His obedience under it was for us and not for Himself. These arguments, added to what I have written previously on this subject — to which nothing but a few irrelevant quibbles has been opposed — are sufficient to dismiss the first part of the charge: that the imputation of Christ's obedience to us is impossible. That impossibility would be no greater than the impossibility of imputing Adam's disobedience to us, by which the apostle tells us we were all made sinners.

The second charge against the imputation of Christ's obedience to us is that it is useless to those being justified. The argument runs: since in justification believers receive the pardon of all their sins, they are thereby made righteous and have a title to life and blessedness. One who is pardoned so completely as to be reckoned not guilty of any sin — whether of omission or commission — is treated as if he had done everything he was required to do and omitted nothing. He is therefore not unrighteous, and to be not unrighteous is the same as being righteous — just as one who is not dead is alive, with no middle state possible between death and life. Those who have all their sins forgiven therefore have the full blessedness of justification, and there is neither need nor use for any further imputation of righteousness. Various other arguments of the same kind are pressed to the same effect, and these will either be addressed in the following discussion or answered elsewhere.

In answer: this matter is too important and too clearly set forth in Scripture to be settled by the kind of philosophical cleverness that has more subtlety than theological substance. This objection could therefore be dismissed without much reply, on the well-known principle that a truth well established and confirmed is not to be questioned — much less abandoned — simply because of every tangled sophism that appears difficult to unravel. But as we shall see, there is no great difficulty in these arguments that cannot easily be resolved. And since the reasoning behind them is employed by a number of learned persons who nevertheless agree with us on the substance of the doctrine of justification — that it is by faith alone, without works, through the imputation of Christ's merit and satisfaction — I will as briefly as possible identify the errors on which this argument rests.

First: this objection assumes that one who has been pardoned for sins of omission and commission is reckoned to have done everything required of him and to have committed nothing forbidden. Without this assumption, the bare pardon of sin would neither make, constitute, nor designate anyone as righteous. But this assumption is false, and no such thing is included in the nature of pardon. In pardoning sin, neither God nor any human judge decides that the one who sinned did not sin — but that decision is exactly what would have to be made if one who is pardoned were reckoned to have done everything he ought and nothing he ought not. If a man is brought to trial for a crime, legally convicted, and then released by a sovereign pardon, he is indeed treated in the eyes of the law as innocent with respect to the punishment due to him. But no one thinks that he is thereby made righteous, or that he is regarded as not having done what he plainly did and was convicted of. Joab and Abiathar the priest were both guilty of the same crime at the same time. Solomon ordered Joab to be put to death for his crime, but granted Abiathar a pardon. Did that pardon make, declare, or constitute Abiathar righteous? Solomon himself says the opposite — he affirms Abiathar was unrighteous and guilty, and only remitted the punishment for his fault (1 Kings 2:26). Therefore, pardon of sin frees the guilty person from being liable to the anger, wrath, and punishment due to sin — but it does not imply, nor warrant in the slightest, that the pardoned person is therefore to be regarded as having done no wrong and having fulfilled all righteousness. Some say pardon gives a righteousness of innocence, but not of obedience. But it cannot give even an absolute righteousness of innocence like Adam's, for he had actually done no wrong. Pardon only removes guilt — the relationship of sin to punishment that follows from the law's sanction. This false assumption is what drives this entire objection.

The same may be said about the related claim that being "not unrighteous" — which is what a pardoned person is — is the same thing as being righteous. If "not unrighteous" is taken in the privative sense — as a settled positive state — then it does equal being just or righteous, since it assumes that the person has done everything duty requires. But "not unrighteous" used negatively, as it is in this argument, does not mean that. At best it means only that a person has as yet done nothing actually contrary to the rule of righteousness. This can be true even when a person has fulfilled none of the positive duties required to constitute him righteous, simply because the occasions for them have not yet arisen. This was Adam's condition in the state of innocence — and that is the height of what can be achieved by complete pardon of sin.

Second: this objection also proceeds on the assumption that in the case of sin, the law does not simultaneously obligate to both punishment and obedience — and therefore that the law is fully satisfied and complied with when only the penalty is dealt with. But if the law does obligate to both, then the pardon of sin, which only frees us from the law's penalty, still leaves the fulfillment of its commands necessary. In my judgment, the opposite assumption is a clear mistake — and one that does not establish the law but makes it void. I will demonstrate this.

First: the law has two parts or powers. The first is its preceptive part, commanding and requiring obedience with a promise of life attached: "Do this and live." The second is its sanction in the case of disobedience, binding the sinner to punishment or a fitting recompense: "In the day you sin, you shall die." Every law properly so called operates on these two suppositions — obedience and disobedience — and its commanding and punishing powers are therefore inseparable from its nature.

Second: this law was first given to man in innocence, and at that point only the first power was active — it bound only to obedience. An innocent person could not be subject to the law's sanction, which contained only an obligation to punishment on the supposition of disobedience. The law therefore could not oblige our first parents to both obedience and punishment simultaneously, since the obligation to punishment could not be active except on the supposition of actual disobedience. The threatened sanction did serve as a moral cause and motive for obedience and had influence in preserving man from sin. To that end God said to Adam, "In the day you eat, you shall surely die." The failure to heed this warning and allow it to rule the minds of our first parents opened the door to sin. But it is a contradiction to say that an innocent person could be under an actual obligation to punishment from the law's sanction. Before the law's transgression, it bound only to obedience, as every law with penalties does before it is broken.

Third: upon the commission of sin — as is the case with everyone who has sinned — man came under an actual obligation to punishment. This is no more questionable than the fact that he was originally under an obligation to obedience. But the question is this: does the law's original and first obligation to obedience cease to apply to the sinner, or does it continue — so that both powers of the law are simultaneously active toward him, binding him to both obedience and punishment? To this I say:

First: had the threatened punishment been immediately inflicted to its full extent, this would not be a question at all. Man would have died immediately — both temporally and eternally — and been removed from the only state in which he could stand in any relation to the law's preceptive power. One who has been fully executed has satisfied the law's claims in such a way that he owes it no further obedience.

But second: God in His wisdom and patience has arranged things otherwise. Man continues as a traveler still making his way toward his final end, not yet fixed in his eternal and unchangeable condition where neither promise nor threat, neither reward nor punishment, could be offered to him. In this condition he falls under a twofold consideration. First, as a guilty person, he is bound to the full punishment the law threatens. This is not disputed. Second, as a man — a rational creature of God — who has not yet reached his eternal end.

Third: in this state, the law is the only instrument and means by which the relationship between God and man is maintained. Under this consideration, the law cannot but continue to oblige man to obedience — unless we say that by sinning he has exempted himself from God's governance. Therefore it is through the law that God's rule and governance over human beings is maintained while they are in this present life. For every act of disobedience, every violation of the law's rule and order in its commanding power, places us further and more deeply under the law's power to demand punishment.

This cannot be otherwise. No person alive, not even the most wicked, can avoid judging himself, while he remains in this world, to be obligated to obey God's law to the extent that he knows it — whether through natural conscience or otherwise. A wicked servant who is punished for a fault, if the punishment is not fatal and his condition of service continues, is not freed from his obligation to duty. Indeed, his obligation regarding the very crime for which he was punished is not dissolved until a capital sentence ends his existence entirely. Therefore, since pardon of sin frees us only from the obligation to punishment, there is something more required for our justification: obedience to what the law commands.

This greatly strengthens the argument we are defending. Since we are sinners, we were liable to both the command and the curse of the law. Both must be answered, or we cannot be justified. Just as the Lord Christ could not by His most perfect obedience satisfy the curse of the law — "in the day you die, you shall die" — so by the fullest extent of His suffering He could not fulfill the command of the law — "do this and live." Suffering as suffering is not obedience, even though there can be obedience in suffering — as there supremely was in Christ's. Therefore, just as we affirm that Christ's death is imputed to us for our justification, we deny that it alone is imputed to us for our righteousness. Through the imputation of Christ's sufferings, our sins are remitted and pardoned and we are delivered from the curse of the law that He bore. But we are not thereby reckoned just or righteous — which we cannot be without reference to the fulfilling of the law's commands and the obedience it requires. Grotius expresses this excellently in the words quoted earlier: "When we say Christ has obtained for us both freedom from punishment and the reward of eternal life, the ancient church attributed the former distinctly to His satisfaction and the latter to His merit. Satisfaction consists in the transfer of deserved punishment; merit consists in the imputation of most perfect obedience rendered on our behalf."

Third: this objection also assumes that pardon of sin gives a title to eternal blessedness in the enjoyment of God. Justification does indeed give such a title, and according to the authors of this view, no righteousness other than pardon of sin is required for it. That justification gives a right and title to adoption, acceptance with God, and the heavenly inheritance, I trust will not be denied — and it has already been demonstrated. But pardon of sin depends solely on the death and suffering of Christ: "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7). Suffering in payment for punishment, however, gives a right or title to nothing — it only satisfies for something. Suffering deserves no reward. The law nowhere says "suffer this and live" — only "do this and live."

These things are, I acknowledge, inseparably joined in God's ordinance, appointment, and covenant. Whoever has his sins pardoned is accepted with God and has a right to eternal blessedness. These things are inseparable — but they are not one and the same. Because they are inseparably connected, the apostle places them together: "Even as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account'" (Romans 4:6-8). It is the imputation of righteousness that gives a right to blessedness, and pardon of sin is inseparably connected to it and flows from it — both being set in contrast to justification by works or by any internal righteousness of our own. But it is one thing to be freed from liability to eternal death and another to have a right and title to blessed and eternal life. It is one thing to be redeemed from under the law — that is, from its curse — and another to receive the adoption of sons. It is one thing to be freed from the curse and another to have the blessing of Abraham come upon us, as the apostle distinguishes these things (Galatians 3:13-14; 4:4-5). So also does our Lord Jesus Christ: "that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance" — that is, a share in and a right to the inheritance — "among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me" (Acts 26:18). Forgiveness of sins removes sin from being a ground of condemnation — so that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. But it does not give a right and title to glory or the heavenly inheritance. Can it seriously be supposed that all the great and glorious effects of present grace and future blessedness must necessarily flow from and rest entirely on the mere pardon of sin? Can we not be pardoned without necessarily being made sons, heirs of God, and co-heirs with Christ?

Pardon of sin, considered with reference to the sinner, is a free and gracious act of God — "forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace." But with reference to the satisfaction of Christ, it is an act of judgment. For it is on the consideration of that satisfaction imputed to the sinner that God absolves and acquits him at his trial. But pardon granted at a judicial trial — on whatever grounds it is given — confers no right or title to any favor, benefit, or privilege beyond mere deliverance. It is one thing to be acquitted before a king's throne of charges brought against someone — whether by clemency or on other grounds — and quite another to be made his son by adoption and heir to his kingdom.

Scripture represents these things as distinct and as resting on distinct causes. So they appear in the vision of Joshua the high priest (Zechariah 3:4-5): "He spoke to those who were standing before him, saying, 'Remove the filthy garments from him.' And he said to him, 'See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes.' Then I said, 'Let them put a clean turban on his head.' So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments." It is generally agreed that this vision represents the justification of a sinner before God. The removal of the filthy garments is explained as the passing away of iniquity. When a man's filthy garments are removed, he is no longer defiled by them — but he is not thereby clothed. Being clothed with a change of garments is an additional grace and favor beyond mere removal of defilement. What this change of garments is, is declared in Isaiah 61:10: "He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness" — which the apostle alludes to in Philippians 3:9. These two things are therefore distinct: the removal of the filthy garments and the clothing with a change of raiment — that is, the pardon of sin and the robe of righteousness. By the one we are freed from condemnation; by the other we have a right to salvation. The same is represented in similar fashion in Ezekiel 16:6-12.

I had previously urged this passage for this purpose in my work on communion with God (page 187), which Mr. Hotch. attempts to answer in his usual manner. Passing over his abusive language and the crude, unproved assertions of his own opinions, his answer is that by the change of garments the prophet describes our own personal righteousness. He acknowledges that our justification before God is here represented. He likewise interprets the confirming passage from Isaiah 61:10 — where this change of garments is called "the garments of salvation" and "the robe of righteousness" — as referring to our personal righteousness before God in justification (page 203). To all these presumptions I will set only one testimony from the same prophet, which he may consider at his leisure and which sooner or later he will have to acknowledge: "We are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment" (Isaiah 64:6). One who can make garments of salvation and robes of righteousness out of filthy rags has a skill in composing spiritual vestments that I am not acquainted with. As for the rest of that chapter in his work, I will not address it — it is, after his customary fashion, nothing but a perverse twisting of my words into a meaning designed to make me and others look contemptible.

There is therefore no force in the analogy between justification and life and death in nature, where the two are directly and immediately opposed — so that one who is not dead is alive, and one who is alive is not dead, with no distinct state between them. These matters are of different kinds, and the comparison therefore carries no argumentative weight. Though it may hold in natural things, it does not hold in moral and legal matters, where the proper representation of justification is forensic. If it were true that there is no difference between being acquitted of a crime at a judge's bench and having a right to a kingdom — and no distinct state between these — then it might prove there is no intermediate state between being pardoned and having a right to the heavenly inheritance. But this is an empty notion.

It is true that a right to eternal life follows upon freedom from the guilt of eternal death: "that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified." But this is not because the nature of the things themselves requires it — it is solely by God's free appointment. Believers have the pardon of sin and an immediate right and title to God's favor, adoption as sons, and eternal life. But in the nature of things themselves, another state is possible — and it might actually have been so, had it pleased God. For who cannot see that there is a condition in which a person is neither under the guilt of condemnation nor does he have an immediate right and title to glory as an inheritance? God could have pardoned all men's past sins and placed them in a condition of seeking righteousness going forward through obedience to the law, so that they might live — for this would correspond to Adam's original state. God has not done so, it is true. But since He could have, it is clear that placing people in a condition of right and title to life and salvation does not depend on or follow from the pardon of sin, but has another cause: the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, as He fulfilled the law on our behalf.

And in truth, this is the view held by most of our opponents in this controversy. They contend that over and above the remission of sins — which some of them say is absolute and unconnected to Christ's merit or satisfaction, while others connect it to them — there is a righteousness of works required for our justification. The only difference is that they say this righteousness is our own incomplete and imperfect righteousness, imputed to us as if it were perfect — that is, credited to us for what it is not — rather than the righteousness of Christ imputed to us for what it is.

From everything that has been discussed, it is clear that for our justification before God, more is required than merely being freed from the law's condemning sentence — which we are through the pardon of sin. Beyond that, the righteousness of the law must be fulfilled in us, or we must have a righteousness answering the obedience the law requires, on which our acceptance with God through the riches of His grace and our title to the heavenly inheritance depend. This we do not have in or of ourselves, nor can we attain to it, as has been proved. Therefore either the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, or we can never be justified in God's sight.

The quibbling objections of the Socinians and their followers carry no force against this truth. They claim that Christ's righteousness can be imputed to only one person, if to any — for who can suppose that the same righteousness of one person could become the righteousness of many, even of all who believe? They also argue that He did not perform all the duties required of us in all our various relationships, since He was never placed in them. Both of these objections, I say, are foolish and impious and destructive of the whole gospel. For everything here depends on God's ordination. It is His appointment that just as through the offense of one many died, so His grace and the gift of grace through the one man Jesus Christ abounded to many. And just as through one man's offense judgment came to all people for condemnation, so through one man's act of righteousness the free gift came to all people for justification of life, and through the obedience of one the many were made righteous — as the apostle argues in Romans 5. "For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Romans 8:3-4). "For Christ is the end of the law — its complete fulfillment — for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4). This is God's appointment in His wisdom, righteousness, and grace: that the whole righteousness and obedience of Christ should be accepted as our complete righteousness before Him — imputed to us by His grace and applied to us, made ours, through faith, and therefore to all who believe. And if the actual sin of Adam is imputed to all of us who derive our nature from him — to our condemnation — even though he did not sin in our specific circumstances and relationships, is it strange that the actual obedience of Christ should be imputed to those who derive a spiritual nature from Him, to the justification of life? Furthermore, both the satisfaction and the obedience of Christ, considered in relation to His person, were in some sense infinite — that is, of infinite value — and cannot therefore be parceled out as if one portion were imputed to one person and another portion to another. The whole is imputed to every one who believes. And if the Israelites could say that David was worth ten thousand of them (2 Samuel 21:3), we may well allow that the Lord Christ — and therefore everything He did and suffered — is worth more than all of us and all that we could ever do and suffer.

There are also several other errors underlying the part of the charge we have now addressed — the charge against the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. I say "righteousness" because the apostle in this context uses two words — righteousness and obedience — as equivalent in meaning (Romans 5:18-19). Such errors include: the claim that remission of sins and justification are the same thing, or that justification consists only in remission of sins; the claim that faith itself, as our act and duty, is imputed to us as righteousness because it is the condition of the covenant; and the claim that we have a personal inherent righteousness that in some way constitutes our righteousness before God for justification — whether as a condition of it, a disposition toward it, a congruity that deserves the grace of justification, or an outright merit of full desert. All of these are really various expressions of the same thing, differing only in how people have conceived of it. But all of them have been addressed and refuted in the preceding discussions.

To close this argument and its defense, and at the same time to address an objection, I acknowledge that in Scripture, eternal blessedness and life are often attributed to the death of Christ. But this is so, first, as the principal cause of the whole — that without which no imputation of obedience could have justified us, since the penalty of the law had to be borne without exception. Second, it is attributed to His death not exclusively as opposed to all obedience mentioned elsewhere, but as that to which His obedience is inseparably joined. As Bernard wrote: "In His life, Christ underwent active suffering; in His death, He bore active passion, while He was working salvation in the midst of the earth." Eternal life is also attributed to His resurrection with respect to evidence and demonstration. But nowhere is the death of Christ alone — to the exclusion of His obedience — asserted as the cause of eternal life, including the exceeding weight of glory that accompanies it.

Up to this point we have treated and defended the imputation of Christ's active obedience to us, as the truth of it was drawn from the preceding argument about the obligation of the law of creation. I will now briefly confirm it with additional reasons and testimonies.

First: whatever Christ the Mediator and Surety of the covenant did in obedience to God in the discharge of His office, He did for us, and it is imputed to us. This has already been proved, and it has too plain an evidence of truth to be denied. He was born for us, given to us (Isaiah 9:6). "For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Romans 8:3-4). Everything said about the grace, love, and purpose of God in sending or giving His Son, everything said about the love, grace, and condescension of the Son in coming and undertaking the work of redemption appointed to Him, and everything about the very office of Mediator or Surety itself — all of it bears witness to this assertion. Indeed, it is the foundational principle of the gospel and of the faith of all who truly believe. Those who deny the divine person and satisfaction of Christ — thereby overturning the whole of His mediatorial work — are not our present concern. What then did Christ do in this mediatorial capacity? This we must inquire into.

First: the Lord Christ our Mediator and Surety was, in His human nature, made under the law (Galatians 4:4). We have already shown that this was not because His own condition required it. It was therefore for us. But as one who was made under the law, He yielded obedience to it — and this obedience was therefore for us and is imputed to us. The Socinian exception that it refers only to the ceremonial law is too trivial to dwell on. For He was made under the same law whose curse we are delivered from. And if we are delivered only from the curse of the Mosaic law — which they argue contained neither promises nor threats of anything beyond this present life — we remain in our sins and under the curse of the moral law, regardless of what He has done for us. It is equally implausible to say that He was made under the law only with respect to its curse. The text is plain: Christ was made under the law in the same way we are under it. "He was born under the law to redeem those who were under the law." If He was not made under it as we are, there is no connection between His being made under the law and our redemption from it. But we were under the law in a way that obligated us not only to its curse but to all the obedience it required, as has been proved. And if the Lord Christ redeemed us only from its curse by bearing it, leaving us on our own to answer the law's obligation to obedience, we are neither freed nor delivered. The expression "under the law" primarily and properly signifies being under the law's obligation to obedience, and only secondarily refers to its curse. Paul confirms this: "Tell me, you who want to be under the law" (Galatians 4:21) — they did not want to be under its curse but under its obligation to obedience, which in all ordinary usage is the primary and proper meaning of the phrase. Therefore, the Lord Christ having been made under the law for us, He yielded perfect obedience to it for us — and this obedience is therefore imputed to us. For that what He did was done for us depends entirely on imputation.

Second: as Christ was made under the law, so He actually fulfilled it through His obedience to it. He testifies this concerning Himself: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). The Jews continually cite these words against Christians as contradicting what they claim Christ actually did — namely, that He abolished and removed the law. Maimonides, in his treatise on the foundations of the law, makes many blasphemous attacks on the Lord Christ as a false prophet on this point. But the reconciliation is straightforward. Two laws were given to the church: the moral law and the ceremonial law. The first, as we have proved, is of eternal obligation. The second was given for a limited time. The apostle proves with irresistible testimony from the Old Testament, against the stubbornness of the Jews, in his letter to the Hebrews, that the latter was to be taken away and abolished. Yet it was not to be removed without its own fulfillment — it came to its end by being accomplished. So the Lord Christ dissolved and ended that law only by fulfilling it, as is fully explained in Ephesians 2:14-16. But the moral law — which obligates all people to obedience to God always — He did not come to abolish or destroy. This is the law the Lord Christ says He came not to destroy, which He makes plain in the teaching that follows, demonstrating both its power to obligate us always to obedience and giving an exposition of what it requires. When Jesus says He came to "fulfill" this law, the word means the same as it does in other usage: to yield full and perfect obedience to the law's commands so that they are absolutely satisfied. "Fulfill" here does not mean making the law more perfect — it was always already perfect (James 1:25) — but yielding perfect obedience to it. This is the same thing our Savior calls "fulfilling all righteousness" in Matthew 3:15 — that is, obeying all God's commands and institutions, as the context makes clear. The apostle uses the same expression: "He who loves another has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8).

It is an empty exception to say that Christ fulfilled the law by teaching it — by giving an exposition of it. The contrast in the words between "destroying" and "fulfilling" allows no such sense. Our Savior Himself explains this fulfilling of the law as doing its commands (verse 19). Therefore the Lord Christ, as our Mediator and Surety, fulfilled the law by yielding perfect obedience to it — and He did so for us, so it is imputed to us.

This is plainly affirmed by the apostle: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:18-19). The full argument from and defense of this text I will address in its proper place among the scriptural testimonies to the imputation of Christ's righteousness for our justification. Here I will only observe that the apostle expressly and explicitly affirms that through Christ's obedience we are made righteous — that is, justified — which cannot happen except through the imputation of that obedience to us. The only response I have encountered with any appearance of seriousness is the claim that "the obedience of Christ" here refers to His death and sufferings, in which He was obedient to God — as the apostle says, "He became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:8). But this has no plausibility. First: it is acknowledged that there is a close and intimate connection between Christ's obedience and His sufferings, so that while they may be distinguished, they cannot be separated. He suffered throughout the entire course of His obedience from the womb to the cross, and He obeyed throughout all His sufferings to the final moment. But they are genuinely distinct, as has been proved — and they were distinct in Him: "He learned obedience from the things which He suffered" (Hebrews 5:8). Second: in this passage, "obedience" (verse 19) and "righteousness" (verse 18) are synonymous. "Through the righteousness of One" and "through the obedience of One" refer to the same thing. But suffering as suffering is not righteousness. If it were, then everyone who suffers what is due to them would be righteous and justified — even the devil himself. Third: the righteousness and obedience here in view are set in contrast to "the offense." "Through the offense of one" — and that offense was an actual transgression of the law. Therefore the "righteousness" must be an actual obedience to the commands of the law, or the force of the apostle's argument and antithesis cannot be understood. Fourth: it is specifically an obedience opposed to Adam's disobedience. "One man's disobedience" — "one man's obedience." But Adam's disobedience was an actual transgression of the law. Therefore the obedience of Christ here in view was His active obedience to the law — exactly what we are arguing for. I will not press this argument further here, because its force in confirming the truth we contend for will be included in the arguments that follow.