Part 10

Neither can any one be justified by performing active obedience to the law of God; for nothing is sufficient to answer that end, but what is perfect in all respects; it must be sinless obedience, and that not only as to what concerns the time to come, but as respecting the time past; and that is impossible, from the nature of the thing, to be said of a sinner; for it implies a contradiction in terms. This farther appears from the holiness of God, which cannot but detest the least defect; and therefore will not deal with a sinful creature, as though he had been innocent: and as for sins that are past, they render us equally liable to a debt of punishment, with those which are committed at present, or shall be hereafter, in the sight of God. Moreover, the honour of the law cannot be secured, unless it be perfectly fulfilled; which cannot be done if there be any defect of obedience.

As for those works which are done by us, without the assistance of the Spirit of God, these proceed from a wrong principle, and have many other blemishes attending them, upon the account whereof, they have only a partial goodness; and for that reason Augustine gives them no better a character than shining sins[31]: but whatever terms we give them, they are certainly very far from coming up to a conformity to the divine law. And as for those good works which are said to be wrought in us, and are the effect of the power and grace of God, and the consequence of our being regenerated and converted, these fall far short of perfection; there is a great deal of sin attending them, which, if God should mark, none could stand. This is expressed by Job, in a very humble manner; _How should man be just with God? if he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand_. And, _if I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me: for he is not a man as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment_, Job ix. 2, 3, 30-32. when God is said to _work in us that which is well pleasing in his sight_, Heb. xiii. 21. we are not to understand, that the grace which he works in us, renders us accepted in his sight, in a forensic sense, or, that it justifies us; for in this respect we are only _made accepted in the Beloved_, that is, in Christ, Eph. i. 3.

Moreover, as what is wrought in us, has many defects attending it; so it is not from ourselves, and therefore cannot be accepted as a payment of that debt of obedience which we owe to the justice of God; and consequently we cannot be justified thereby. Some, indeed, make the terms of acceptance, or justification in the sight of God, so very low, as though nothing were demanded of us but our sincere endeavours to yield obedience, whatever imperfections it be chargeable with. And others pretend, that our confessing our sins will be conducive hereunto; and assert, that our tears are sufficient to wash away the guilt of sin. The Papists add, that some penances, of acts of self-denial, will satisfy his justice, and procure a pardon for us; yea, they go farther than this, and maintain, that persons may perform works of supererogation, or pay more than the debt that is owing from them, or than what the law of God requires, and thereby not only satisfy his justice, but render him a debtor to them; and putting them into a capacity of transferring these arrears of debt, to those that stand in need of them, and thereby lay an obligation on them, in gratitude, to pay them honours next to divine. Such absurdities do men run into, who plead for human satisfactions, and the merit of good works, as the matter of our justification: and, indeed, there is nothing can tend more to depreciate Christ’s satisfaction, on the one hand, and stupify the conscience on the other; and therefore, it is so far from being an expedient for justification, that it is destructive to the souls of men.

As for our sincere endeavours, or imperfect obedience, these cannot be placed by the justice of God, in the room of perfect; for that is contrary to the nature of justice: We cannot suppose, that he who pays a pepper-corn, or a few mites, instead of a large sum, really pays the debt that was due from him; justice cannot account this to be a payment; therefore, a discharge from condemnation, upon these terms, cannot be styled a justification. And if it be said that it is esteemed so by an act of grace: this is to advance the glory of one divine perfection, and, at the same time, detract from that of another; nothing therefore can be our righteousness, but that which the justice of God may, in honour, accept of for our justification: and our own righteousness is so small and inconsiderable a thing, that it is a dishonour for him to accept of it in this respect; and therefore we cannot be justified by works done by us, or wrought in us.

This will farther appear, if we consider the properties of this righteousness; and in particular, that it must not only be perfect, and therefore, such as a sinful creature cannot perform; but it must also be of infinite value, otherwise it could not give satisfaction to the infinite justice of God; and consequently cannot be performed by any other than a divine person. And it must also bear some resemblance to that debt which was due from us, inasmuch as it was designed to satisfy for the debt which he had contracted; and therefore must be performed by one who is really man. But this having been insisted on elsewhere, under the head of Christ’s Priestly office[32], we shall not farther enlarge on it; but proceed to consider,

V. That our Lord Jesus Christ has wrought out this righteousness for us, as our Surety, by performing active and passive obedience; which is imputed to us for our justification. We have before considered that it is impossible that such a righteousness, as is sufficient to be the matter of our justification, should be wrought out by us in our own persons; it therefore follows; that it must be wrought out for us, by one who bears the character of a surety, and performs every thing that is necessary to our justification; such an one is our Lord Jesus Christ. In considering this head, we must,

1. Shew what we are to understand by a _surety_, since it is the righteousness of Christ, under this relation to us, which is the matter of our justification. A surety is one who submits to be charged with, and undertakes to pay a debt contracted by another, to the end that the debtor may hereby be discharged: thus the apostle Paul engages to be surety to Philemon, for Onesimus, who had fled from him, whom he had wronged or injured, and was hereby indebted to him; concerning whom, he says, _If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it_, Philem. ver. 18. And elsewhere, we read of Judah’s overture to be surety for his brother Benjamin, that he should return to his father, as a motive to induce him to give his consent that he should go with him into Egypt: _I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever_, Gen. xliii. 9. This is so commonly known in civil transactions of the like nature, between man and man, that it needs no farther explication; however, it may be observed,

(1.) That a person’s becoming surety for another, must be a free and voluntary act: for to force any one to bind himself to pay a debt, which he has not contracted, is as much an act of injustice, as it is in any other instance to exact a debt where it is not due.

(2.) He that engages to be surety for another must be in a capacity to pay the debt, otherwise he is unjust to the creditor, as well as brings ruin upon himself: therefore it is said, _Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts, if thou hast nothing to pay; why should he take away the bed from under thee?_ Prov. xxiii. 26, 27.

(3.) He who engages to be surety for another, is supposed not to have contracted the debt himself; and therefore the creditor must have no demands upon him, as being involved together with the debtor, and so becoming engaged antecedent to his being surety: nevertheless, he is deemed, in the eye of the law, consequent thereunto, to stand in the debtor’s room, and to be charged with his debt, and equally obliged to the payment thereof, as though he had contracted it, especially if the creditor be resolved to exact the payment of him, rather than of the original debtor[33].

(4.) As debts are of different kinds, so the obligation of a surety agreeably thereunto admits of different circumstances: thus there are pecuniary debts resulting from those dealings or contracts which pass between man and man in civil affairs; and there are debts of service or obedience; as also debts of punishment, as has been before observed, for crimes committed; in all which cases, as the nature of the debt differs, so there are some things peculiar in the nature of suretyship for it. In pecuniary debts the creditor is obliged to accept of payment at the hand of any one, who at the request of the debtor is willing to discharge the debt which he has contracted, especially, if what he pays be his own; but in debts of service or punishment, when the surety offers himself to perform of suffer what was due from another, the creditor is at his liberty to accept of, or refuse satisfaction from him, but might insist on the payment of the debt by him in his own person, from whom it was due.

2. Christ was such a surety for us, or substituted in our room, with a design to pay the debt which was due to the justice of God from us. Here, that we may assume the ideas of a surety but now-mentioned, and apply them to Christ, as our surety, let it be considered;

(1.) That what he did and suffered for us was free and voluntary; this appears from his readiness to engage therein, expressed by his saying, _Lo, I come to do thy will_, Heb. x. 9. And therefore whatever he suffered for us did not infer the least injustice in God that inflicted it[34].

(2.) He was able to pay the debt, so that there was not the least injury offered to the justice of God by his undertaking. This is evident, from his being God incarnate; and therefore in one nature he was able to do and suffer whatever was demanded of us, and in the other nature to add an infinite value to what he performed therein.

(3.) He was not rendered incapable of paying our debt, or answering for the guilt which we had contracted by any debt of his own, which involved him in the same guilt, and rendered him liable to the same punishment with us, as is evident from what the prophet says concerning him, who speaks of him, as charged with our guilt, though _he had done no violence, neither was any deceit found in his mouth_, Isa. liii. 9. That which the prophet calls _doing no violence_, the apostle Peter referring to, and explaining it, styles _doing_, or committing _no sin_ of any kind. He was not involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin, which would have rendered him incapable of being a surety to pay that debt for us; neither had he the least degree of the corruption of nature, being conceived in an extraordinary way, and sanctified from the womb[35]. Nor did he ever commit actual sin, for he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

(4.) Another thing observed in the character of a surety, which is very agreeable to Christ, is; that what he engaged to pay was his own, or at his own disposal, he did not offer any injury to justice, by paying a debt that was before due to it, or by performing any service which he had no warrant to do. It is true, he gave his life a ransom, but consider him as a divine Person, and he had an undoubted right to dispose or of, lay down that life which he had as man. Did he consent, in the eternal transaction between the Father and him, to be incarnate, and in our nature to perform the work of a Surety? this was an act of his sovereign will; and therefore whatever he paid as a ransom for us, was, in the highest sense, his own. The case was not the same as though one man should offer to lay down his life for another, who has no power to dispose of his life at pleasure. We are not lords of our own lives; as we do not come into the world by our own wills, we are not to go out of it when we please; but Christ was as God, if I may so express myself, lord of himself, of all that he did and suffered as man; by which I understand that he had a right as God to consent or determine to do, and suffer whatever he did and suffered as man; therefore the debt which he paid in the human nature was his own.

(5.) As it has been before observed, that in some cases he that is willing to substitute himself as a surety in the room of the debtor, must be accepted, and approved by him to whom it was due; and in this respect our Saviour’s substitution as our surety in our room, had a sanction from God the Father; who gave many undeniable evidences that what he did and suffered for us, was accepted by him as really as though it had been done by us in our own persons, which, as was before observed, might have been refused by him, it being the payment of a debt of obedience and sufferings. Now that God the Father testified his acceptance of Christ as our surety, appears,

1. From his well-pleasedness with him, both before and after his incarnation; before he came into the world, God seems to speak with pleasure in the fore-thought of what he would be, and do, as Mediator, when he says, _Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth_, Isa. xlii. 1. And he is also said to be _well pleased for his righteousness sake_, ver. 21. or in his determining before hand that he should, as Mediator, bring in that righteousness which would tend to magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Moreover, his having anointed him by a previous designation to this work, as the prophet intimates, speaking of him before his incarnation, Isa. lxi. 1, 2. is certainly an evidence of his being approved to be our surety. And when he was incarnate, God approved of him, when engaged in the work which he came into the world about: thus, when he was solemnly set apart, by baptism to the discharge of his public ministry, we read of a voice from heaven, saying, _This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased_, Matt. iii. 17. And to this we may add, that there was the most undeniable proof of God’s well pleasedness with him, as having accomplished this work, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand, in heavenly places.

2. This may be farther argued from his justifying and saving those for whom he undertook to be a surety, before the debt was actually paid; and his applying the same blessings to his people, since the work of redemption was finished. The application of what Christ undertook to purchase, is an evidence of the acceptableness of the price. And this may be considered, either as respecting those that were saved before his incarnation and death; or those who are, from that time, in all succeeding ages, made partakers of the saving benefits procured thereby. Before the actual accomplishment of what he undertook to do and suffer, as our surety, God the Father trusted him, and, by virtue of his promising to pay the debt, discharged the Old Testament saints from condemnation, as effectually as though it had been actually paid. There are some cases in which a surety’s undertaking to pay a debt, is reckoned equivalent to the actual payment of it; namely, when it is impossible that he should make a failure in the payment thereof, either though mutability, or a fickelness of temper, inducing him to change his purpose; or from unfaithfulness, which might render him regardless of his engagement to pay it: or from some change in his circumstances whereby, though he once was able to pay it, he afterwards becomes unable: I say, if none of these things can take place, and especially, if the creditor, by not demanding present payment, receives some advantage, which is an argument that he does not stand in need thereof: in these cases the promise to pay a debt is equivalent to the payment of it.

Now these things may well be applied to Christ’s undertaking to pay our debt: it was impossible that he should fail in the accomplishment of what he had undertaken; or change his purpose, and so, though he designed to do it, enter into other measures; or, though he had promised to do it, be unfaithful in the accomplishment thereof, these things being all inconsistent with the character of his person who undertook it; and, though he suffered for us in the human nature, it was his divine nature that undertook to do it therein, which is infinitely free from the least imputation of weakness, mutability, or unfaithfulness: and, whereas the present payment was not immediately demanded, nor designed to be made till the fulness of time was come, his forbearance hereof was compensated by that revenue of glory which accrued to the divine name, and that honour that redounded to the Mediator, by the salvation of the elect, before his incarnation; and this was certainly an undeniable evidence of God’s approving his undertaking.

And since the work of redemption has been completed, all those who are, or shall be brought to glory, have, in themselves, a convincing proof of God’s being well pleased with Christ, as substituted in their room and stead, to pay the debt that was due from them to his justice, as the foundation of their justification. From hence it plainly appears, that Christ was substituted as a surety in our room and stead, to do that for us which was necessary for our justification; and we have sufficient ground to conclude, that he was so from scripture, from whence alone it can be proved, it being a matter of pure revelation. Thus he is said, in express terms, to have been _made a surety of a better testament_, Heb. vii. 22. and that as our surety, he has paid that debt of sufferings which was due from us, is evident, in that he is said to _offer himself a sacrifice for our sins_, ver. 27. and to have been _once offered to bear the sins of many_, chap. ix. 28. and from his being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, the apostle argues, that he had no occasion to offer a sacrifice for himself, or that he had no sin of his own to be charged with, therefore, herein he bore or answered for our sins: thus the apostle Peter says, _He bare our sins in his own body, on the tree, by whose stripes we are healed_, 1 Pet. ii. 24. And elsewhere, we read of _his being made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him_, 2 Cor. v. 21. that is, he, who had no guilt of his own to answer for, submitted to be charged with our guilt, to stand in our room and stead, and accordingly to be made a sacrifice for sin; all this implies as much as his being made a surety for us. But this having been particularly insisted on elsewhere in speaking concerning Christ’s satisfaction, which could not be explained without taking occasion to mention his being substituted in the room and stead of those for whom he paid a price of redemption; and, having also considered the meaning of those scriptures that speak of his bearing our sins, we shall proceed to consider[36],

3. What Christ did, pursuant to this character, namely, as our surety, as he paid all that debt which the justice of God demanded from us, which consisted in active and passive obedience. There was a debt of active obedience demanded from man as a creature; and upon his failure of paying it, when he sinned, it became an out-standing debt, due from us; but such as could never be paid by us. God determines not to justify any, unless this out-standing debt be paid; Christ, as our surety, engages to take the payment of it on himself: and, whereas this defect of obedience, together with all actual transgressions, which proceeded from the corruption of our nature, render us guilty or liable to the stroke of vindictive justice, Christ, as our surety, undertakes to bear that also: this we generally call the imputation of our sin to Christ, the placing our debt to his account, and the transferring the debt of punishment, which was due from us to him, upon which account he is said to yield obedience, and suffer in our room and stead, or to perform active and passive obedience for us; which two ideas the apostle joins in one expression, when he says, that he _became obedient unto death_, Phil. ii. 8. But this having been been insisted on elsewhere, under the head of Christ’s satisfaction[37], where we shewed, not only that Christ performed active as well as passive obedience for us, but endeavoured to answer the objections that are generally brought against Christ’s active obedience, being part of that debt which he engaged to pay for us; we shall pass it by at present.

But that which may farther be added, to prove that our sin and guilt were imputed to him, may be argued from his being said to be _made a curse for us_, in order to his redeeming us from the curse of the law, Gal. iii. 13. and also from his _being made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him_, 2 Cor. v. 21. And also from other scriptures, that speak of him as suffering, though innocent; punished for sin, though he was at the same time the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish; dealt with as guilty, though he had never contracted any guilt, and being made a sacrifice for sin, though sinless, which could not have been done consistently with the justice of God, had not our sins been placed to his account, or imputed to him.

It is indeed a very difficult thing to convince some persons, how Christ could be charged with sin, or have sin imputed to him, in consistency with the sinless purity of his nature, which some think to be no better than a contradiction, though it be agreeable to the scripture mode of speaking, _viz._ _He was made sin for us_, and yet _knew no sin_, 2 Cor. v. 21. However, when we speak of sin’s being imputed to him, we are far from insinuating, that he committed any acts of sin; or, that his human nature was, in the least, inclined to, or defiled thereby; we choose therefore to use the scripture phrase, in which he is said to have _borne our sins_, rather than to say, that he was a sinner; much less would I give countenance to that expression which some make use of, that he was the greatest sinner in the world; since I do not desire to apply a word to him, which is often taken in a sense not in the least applicable to the holy Jesus. We cannot be too cautious in our expressions, lest the most common sense in which we understand the greatest sinner, when applied to men, should give any one a wrong idea of him, as though he had committed, or were defiled with sin. All that we assert is, that he was charged with our sins, when he suffered for them, not with having committed them; but with the guilt of them, which, by his own consent, was imputed to him; otherwise his sufferings could not have been a punishment for sin; and if they had not been so, our sin could not have been expiated, nor would his sufferings have been the ground of our justification. This leads us to consider,

4. The reference that Christ’s suretyship-righteousness has to our justification. This is generally styled its being imputed; which is a word very much used by those who plead for the scripture-sense of the doctrine of justification, and as much opposed by them that deny it; and we are obliged to defend the use of it; otherwise Christ’s righteousness, how glorious soever it be in itself, would not avail for our justification. Here it is necessary for us to explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.