[]AN ESSAY ON THE SURETISHIP OF CHRIST.

OBJECTION I.

THE famous Author of the Age of Reaſon ſays, ‘"The doctrine of Redemption has for its baſis, an idea of pecuniary juſtice, and not that of moral juſtice. If I owe a perſon money, and am not able to pay him, and he threatens to put me in priſon, another perſon may take the debt upon himſelf, and pay it for me; but if I have committed a crime, every circumſtance of the caſe is changed: moral juſtice cannot take the in⯑nocent for the guilty, even if the innocent would offer itſelf."’ To this we reply,

1. This diſtinction between moral Juſtice, and pecuniary Juſtice, has no [82] foundation in the nature of things. Juſtice is moral Juſtice ſtill, whether it has to do with money or with mur⯑der. When the moral law ſays, Owe no man any thing, it delivers a moral precept, and ſpeaks the language of moral Juſtice, no leſs than when it ſays, Thou ſhalt not kill. What! is it no crime to contract debts when we are not able to pay? Surely it is. Yet if my friend is willing to become Surety for me, however innocent he may be, moral Juſtice requires that he ſhould ſmart for it.

2. When a Surety is admitted in any caſe, his admiſſion is founded, not upon Juſtice only, but alſo upon mercy. If I owe money and am not able to pay it; and if Juſtice admits of ano⯑ther perſon taking the debt upon himſelf and diſcharging it for me, this is uniting Juſtice and mercy to⯑gether. [83] When my friend ſees me in diſtreſs, takes my place, and diſcharges my debts; this is an act of mercy;—Juſtice admits, but mercy performs it. Again: When my creditor demands payment of my Surety, his doing ſo is an act of Juſtice. So that, in this caſe, Juſtice demands, and mercy grants payment.

3. From hence we may diſcover the principle upon which the office of a Surety is founded. It is ordained chiefly for the ſake of harmonizing Juſtice and mercy. Theſe two attri⯑butes, in many caſes, ſeem to claſh. Juſtice might require the law to be put in force againſt an unfortunate or diſhoneſt debtor; while mercy might prompt a Judge to ſpare him, either for his own, or for his miſerable fami⯑ly's ſake. What is to be done in this caſe? If Juſtice is heard, mercy cries [84] in vain: if mercy prevails, Juſtice re⯑tires diſſatisfied: but by the interpoſi⯑tion of a Surety, mercy and Juſtice kiſs and embrace each other. Does this render either attribute leſs ami⯑able? Far from it: It heightens their native charms.—If Juſtice had refuſed the propoſal of a Surety—a Surety every way able to anſwer its demands, would it not ſeem too implacable? And upon the other hand, if mercy had inſiſted upon the debt being can⯑celled without payment, when the Surety could well afford it, would it not appear an enemy to Juſtice; and might not the creditor juſtly complain?

4. Having diſcovered the principle upon which the office of a Surety pro⯑ceeds, to determine, in any particular caſe, whether a Surety may or may not be admitted, we muſt conſider whether the circumſtances of the caſe [85] be ſuch, that, all things conſidered, the admiſſion of a Surety can ſubſerve the mutual purpoſes of Juſtice and mercy.

5. We can now explain how it comes to paſs that human laws can ſo ſeldom admit of a Surety in criminal caſes. I ſay, ſeldom, becauſe even human laws ſometimes go this far: as, for inſtance, when a crime is puniſh⯑ed by a fine, which is often the caſe, a man's friend may pay it for him. Again: ſometimes when a crime is committed, the criminal is ſet at liberty by finding ſureties for his future good behaviour; and if he afterwards is guilty of the ſame crime, his ſureties are liable to ſuffer in his ſtead. And again: National Hoſtages are a very ancient and general expedient. In this caſe it is univerſally allowed that, when any perſon delivers himſelf up [86] as the hoſtage or ſurety of his nation, he is liable to ſuffer for the crimes of his country. But, as has been obſer⯑ved, it is not always that human laws can admit of a ſurety in criminal caſes. This is not becauſe our legiſlators con⯑demn the principle itſelf; for if they did, how could they adopt it in the inſtances juſt alluded to? but the rea⯑ſon is, They find, in certain caſes, the circumſtances are ſuch that a Surety cannot be made to ſubſerve the mu⯑tual purpoſes of juſtice and mercy, or anſwer any good end; but would ra⯑ther be attended with many evil con⯑ſequences. For inſtance: When mur⯑der is committed, juſtice demands life for life; and here it is impoſſible, amongſt men, to make uſe of a ſurety. Becauſe (1) Who would willingly die for a murderer? (2) If ſuch a perſon could be found, who gave him power [87] over his life, to diſpoſe of it in ſuch a way? (3) There would be no ſecurity for the future conduct of the criminal; and therefore it would only be depri⯑ving ſociety of a uſeful member, to give back one who might immediately commence his former deſtructive practices. (4) It could not even ſerve the purpoſe of mercy, becauſe all that mercy might gain by the ſalvation of the criminal, it would loſe again in the death of his ſurety.

6. For theſe cauſes we grant to the objector, that, in many caſes of a cri⯑minal nature, ‘"All the circumſtances are ſo changed, that moral juſtice cannot take the innocent for the guilty;"’ that is, juſtice cannot, under theſe circumſtances, admit of a ſurety. But then, when theſe circumſtances come to be named, not one of them can be objected to the Suretiſhip of Chriſt. [88] For inſtance, (1) He had abſolute power over his own life, and a ſove⯑reign right to diſpoſe of it as he ſaw good. Moreover, having humbled himſelf to the ſtate of a ſervant, he acted, not only by his own choice, but in obedience to the commandment of his Father. (2) No individual beſide himſelf ſuſtained the leaſt inconveni⯑ence from his undertaking. He did not redeem his people that they might continue their pernicious practices; but made it abſolutely certain that they ſhould leave them off, and begin a life of righteouſneſs, the moment they ſhould be made acquainted with what he had done for them. Their language upon this occaſion is, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man. I reſtore him four-ſold. (3) In ſubſtituting Jeſus in the room [89] of the guilty, all the ends of mercy, as well as divine juſtice, were fully anſwered: Myriads of men were thus raiſed from the greateſt depth of guilt and miſery, to an eternity of holineſs and happineſs. And although this coſt our divine Surety much, yet, in the end he obtained what he deemed an ample recompenſe. He had power, not only to lay down his life, but alſo to take it again: he ſaw of the travel of his ſoul, and was ſatisfied: he ſaw the eternal happineſs of his people ſe⯑cured; and this gave him infinite de⯑light: he ſaw every perfection of the God-head glorified in the higheſt, and the foundation laid for eternal halle⯑lujah's from all the bleſſed: and he ſaw himſelf, in his human nature, crowned with that glory which, in his divine nature, he had with his Father before the world was. Theſe [90] conſiderations go to prove that it was perfectly conſiſtent with juſtice, as well as glorious to divine mercy, to ſubſtitute Jeſus in the room of his guilty people. To this we muſt add,

7. It would not be conſiſtent with juſtice to admit a ſinner to glory, with⯑out this ſubſtitution. Mercy might provide ſuch a ſurety as juſtice could admit; but mercy could not, conſiſ⯑tently with juſtice, beſtow happineſs on the guilty without a Surety. No reaſon can be given why juſtice ſhould refuſe this Surety; but many reaſons may be given why it ſhould demand him. For inſtance: If the ſinner had been ſaved without this Surety, the divine law would be made void. The part of a ſubject is to obey; the part of a Sovereign is to keep up the autho⯑rity of his laws. Though ſubjects neglect their part, the Sovereign may [91] do his. Though the law be broken, yet while that treatment is given to diſobedience and obedience which the Law-giver has appointed, the autho⯑rity of the law is ſtill kept up: but if the Sovereign neglect his part, diſ⯑penſe with the execution of the law, then the law paſſes away, and, in effect, the Governor reſigns his autho⯑rity and tolerates all manner of wicked⯑neſs and confuſion. It is ſhocking to that reaſon which God has given us, to ſee a magiſtrate without power over his ſubjects; to ſee a parent without authority among his children, or a maſter among his ſervants: but this is nothing in compariſon with be⯑holding GOD deſtitute of authority among his creatures. In other caſes, this want of authority would produce confuſion only in kingdoms or families; but in this caſe it would bring the [92] whole univerſe into diſorder. The former would infer confuſion only for a time: but this introduces confuſion to eternity.

I ſhall conclude this article with two very oppoſite ſpecimens of reaſon⯑ing; and leave the Reader to his choice.

Mr. Thomas Paine, after telling his readers that, ‘"No external evidence can, at this long diſtance of time, be produced to prove whether the church fabricated the doctrine of redemption or not," adds, "therefore the queſtion can only be referred to the internal evidence which the thing carries in itſelf; and this," continues he, "affords a very ſtrong preſumption of its being a fabrication; for the inter⯑nal evidence is, that the doctrine of redemption has for its baſis, an idea of pecuniary juſtice, and not that of moral juſtice."’

[93] Jonathan ſays,

Thus far Jonathan.

The objection we have now conſi⯑dered, is ſuppoſed to come, not only from Deiſts, but alſo from all thoſe nominal chriſtians who reject, altoge⯑ther, the Suretiſhip of Chriſt. As Deiſts deny the authority of the Bible, and as the others pay but little homage to it's divinity, I have hitherto avoided the impertinence of quoting that Book [99] in a way of proof. When arguing with ſuch perſons, it is neceſſary to meet them upon their own ground,—the light of nature.

The objections which follow, come from a different people—people who admit, in part, the Suretiſhip of Chriſt; and who profeſs a greater reverence for the Word of God. The queſtion, therefore, and the medium of proof, are both changed. In the former caſe, the queſtion was, Can divine Juſtice admit of a Surety to act and ſuffer for ſinful men? In the preſent caſe, this is granted; and the queſtion is, What was the ſinner's Surety bound to per⯑form? The former queſtion was argu⯑ed upon the ground of common ſenſe; but this is to be determined by the word of God. Not that we are now to lay aſide the uſe of our reaſon; only, whereas we formerly reaſoned from [96] [...] [97] [...] [98] principles of natural light, we muſt now reaſon from Revelation.

OBJECTION II.

‘"WE grant that Chriſt died as our Sub⯑ſtitute; but his conformity to the moral law is ſet before us as an example, which ſhews that he did not obey this law for us in his life, in the ſame preciſe ſenſe in which he obeyed it for us in his death, otherwiſe we ſhould have been as fully freed from obedi⯑ence to it in every reſpect, as we are from it's penalty or curſe."’

Anſwer.

His ſufferings alſo are laid before us as an example;^a and if his ſufferings may be both ſubſtitutional and exem⯑plary, why may not his obedience to the law be ſo alſo? If it be ſaid, His ſufferings are not exemplary in the ſame reſpect wherein they are ſubſti⯑tutional; I anſwer, Neither is his [100] obedience. Obedience to the law, conſidered as the condition of happineſs, is no more binding upon his diſciples^b than ſufferings are, conſidered as ex⯑piatory. And this indeed proves that he did obey the law for us, in the ſame reſpect in which he ſuffered for us; that is, As our Surety; for if he had not, we ſhould have been bound to obey it ourſelves, and that upon condition of obtaining happineſs; for, obedience to this law is the unaltera⯑ble condition upon which we may obtain eternal life. But I need not ſay much in reply to this objection. A babe in Chriſt will ſee that it betrays great ignorance of the nature of Chriſ⯑tianity. When we are told that, If Chriſt obeyed the law for us, we can⯑not be bound to obſerve it even as a rule of conduct; it is juſt like ſaying, [101] Since Chriſt has obeyed the law, as well as ſuffered its penalty, in order to give us a title to happineſs; there⯑fore we are under no obligation to glorify God for his mercy!

OBJECTION III.

‘"THE holineſs of Chriſt's heart and life, in conformity to the moral law, was a ne⯑ceſſary qualification of his own perſon—it qualified him for the work he came to finiſh as our ſubſtitute, but it was not the very work itſelf."’

Anſwer.

If Chriſt had not been made under the law to fulfil it as our ſubſtitute, his conformity to it could not have been a neceſſary qualification of his own perſon: Immanuel would have been perfectly holy in heart and life, if he had never been bound to obey thoſe precepts which are proper and pecu⯑liar to meer creatures—to men—ſinful men. Therefore when the incarnate God was made under the law, it was to redeem; not to qualify himſelf for re⯑deeming. Thus the objection ſeems [103] to form a flat contradiction to the word of God. To ſet this in a clearer light, let us conſider (1) The law to which Immanuel conformed: (2) His conformity to this law: (3) The dig⯑nity of the perſon who thus conform⯑ed to this law.

1. The law to which our divine Surety conformed, is the very ſame law which his people were under. ‘"He was made under the law, to re⯑deem them that were under the law."’ The moral law may indeed be conſi⯑dered as the one law unto all God's reaſonable creatures, in reſpect of the principle from which obedience ſhould proceed, namely, Love. But ſtill this law has different forms, according to the different natures, and alſo accord⯑ing to the different circumſtances of thoſe to whom it is given: ſo that, in ſome reſpects, the law given to Angels, [104] and the law given to men, will be different. It will not be ſaid unto Angels,—‘"Honour thy father and thy mother."’ Nor yet, ‘"Thou ſhalt not commit adultery."’ Such precepts as theſe are not adapted to their nature.—Again: The moral law will differ alſo according to the different circum⯑ſtances of creatures of the ſame ſpecies. I ſhall mention two remarkable inſtan⯑ces of this, which caſt conſiderable light upon the queſtion before us.—The firſt is that remarkable difference in the moral duties of men, which is cauſed by the entrance of Sin. The precept, ‘"Thou ſhalt love thy neigh⯑bour as thy ſelf,"’ although it be the ſame precept both before and after the fall; yet it now binds us to do many things which would not have been our duty, if we had never ſinned. For inſtance: If we had not ſinned, this [105] precept would only bind us to love the Righteous; for we and all our neighbours would have been of that deſcription; but ſince we have ſinned, this ſame precept binds us to love the unrighteous; for we and all our neigh⯑bours are (at leaſt by nature) of this character.—Another important differ⯑ence in the moral law, which de⯑pends upon the circumſtances of thoſe to whom it is given, is the difference between this law conſidered only as a rule of life, and conſidered as preſcrib⯑ing the condition of acquiring happi⯑neſs. This is not a fanciful but a real and important difference; and the perſons to whom I now ſpeak, will admit it. They know that all men are by nature under this law as pre⯑ſcribing the terms and condition of acquiring happineſs; but the believer in Jeſus has a title to glory independ⯑ent [106] of his own obedience; and he conforms to the law only as a rule of conduct.

2. We are to conſider Chriſt's con⯑formity to this law. And here we muſt obſerve, (1) Chriſt was made un⯑der the law, not before, but after the entrance of ſin;—not when it bound man to love none but the righteous; but when it bound us to love ſinners. (2) Chriſt's conformity to the law was conſtant and univerſal; that is, he continued in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. (3) His conformity to this law was properly obedience; that is, ſubmiſſion to its au⯑thority. This is plainly taught us when we are told that He was made under the law; for that expreſſion always imports the authority of the law over its ſubjects. To which we muſt add, (4) Chriſt was not only [107] bound to obey this law, as a rule of life, but in order to merit the reward of obedience. This is what the ſcrip⯑tures uſually intend by the phraſe, ‘"Under the law;"’ and there is no rea⯑ſon for underſtanding it differently when we are informed that Chriſt was made under the law. Upon the contra⯑ry, we have every reaſon for under⯑ſtanding the words in their uſual ſenſe; for, while he was fulfilling every jot and tittle of the law, we ſee him, not in the ſtate of enjoying, but of merit⯑ing the reward; and he obtained it DECAUSE he had loved righteouſneſs and hated iniquity.^c

3. Conſider now the Dignity of the Perſon who thus obeyed the law. He is not a meer creature, like thoſe upon whom this law is binding. He is the independent Jehovah.^d True, he has [108] clothed himſelf in human nature; but he is the ſame perſon ſtill. The per⯑ſon who made the world; who ſup⯑ports all things by the word of his power; whoſe ſovereign will is the ſupreme law of the univerſe,—this is the PERSON who was made under the law—a law adapted to creatures—meer creatures—creatures naturally below Angels, and made far lower ſtill by ſin!—This is the PERSON who obeyed this law—who obeyed it as dictating the terms and condition of acquiring happineſs! And ſhall we ſay, If He had not ſubmitted to this as our ſubſti⯑tute, He muſt have done ſo as his own perſonal qualification? Far be it!—Had man continued in his original purity, and had our Creator been plea⯑ſed to appear in our nature, his holi⯑neſs would, no doubt, incline him to love his imperfect image in ſinleſs [109] man: But this love would not be obe⯑dience to the moral law: His appearing in human nature would not bring him ſo upon a level with his creatures, that we might conſider God and man as neighbours bound by the ſame precept, and upon the ſame condition, to mu⯑tual love. Therefore, when Imma⯑nuel was made under the law, it muſt be that he might obey it as our ſub⯑ſtitute.

This argument acquires additional weight when we conſider our divine Surety as made under the law after the entrance of ſin. We have obſerved that the holineſs of Immanuel would incline him to love his own image in ſinleſs man; but it would be perfectly conſiſtent with his holineſs to deteſt the whole human race after they be⯑came ſinners; and therefore, to love ſinful man in conformity to the moral [110] law, could never be eſſential to the holineſs of our incarnate God. To what end then was he made under it? Why muſt he fulfil every jot and tittle of this law? Why muſt he do this in ſuch a low, obſcure, laborious, and ſorrowful ſtate? Why muſt he ſpend thirty years of his life in doing little elſe? Why muſt he do this in the form of a ſervant working for a reward? Why!—Becauſe he was made under the law to redeem them that were under it.

Altho' the objector cannot prove his point without refuting the forego⯑ing argument, yet I am at liberty to ſay, that this argument is not eſſen⯑tial to the doctrine I contend for; I mean, it is not ſo eſſential as that the truth of the doctrine depends upon it.—If it were not blafphemy I might grant, for ſake of argument, that the [111] incarnate God could not be holy if he had not been made under the moral law—if he had not obeyed that law in the manner in which we have ſeen he did obey it; yet it would not fol⯑low from hence that he did not obey this law for us; that is, as our Surety, and in our ſtead; for, ſince this law could have had no claim upon him if he had not been made man,—ſince he was made man upon our account,—and ſince his obedience is of infinitely greater merit than that of all the elect put together; therefore no good rea⯑ſon can be given why he might not obey this law for himſelf (if ſuch a thing could be neceſſary) and for us alſo. This alone is a ſufficient anſwer to the objection: Yet we muſt remind the reader of what was ſaid before, and that we by no means give up the former argument; for although holi⯑neſs [112] was eſſential to our Redeemer's Sacrifice, the obedience he yielded to the law was not eſſential to his own perſonal holineſs: he would have been perfectly holy if he had never been made under the law, or bound to obey its precepts in the manner in which he did obey them.

OBJECTION IV.

‘"IF Chriſt had obeyed the law as our Surety, and that all through the previous courſe of his life, it would have ſuperceded the neceſſity of his expiatory ſufferings and death; for the law has not a double demand, but an alternative, requiring either perfect obedience, or the ſuffering of its penalty."’

Anſwer.

This objection is made up of truth and error connected together by falſe reaſoning. It is not true that our Suretie's obedience to the law could ſupercede the neceſſity of his ſuffer⯑ings and death; becauſe the wages of ſin is death.—It is true that there are ſome caſes in which the law has not a double demand, but an alternative; but theſe caſes are ſo eſſentially differ⯑ent from the caſe of Chriſt and his people, that it muſt be falſe reaſoning [114] which concludes that no more can be demanded in one caſe than in the other. But we ſhall be more particular:

1. If a man could be found who had continued in all things that are writ⯑ten in the book of the law to do them, certainly he would not deſerve to ſuf⯑fer the penalty, becauſe, in this caſe, no ſin has been committed. But it is equally certain that thoſe for whom Chriſt obeyed the law, have ſinned; and this makes the difference.

2. When a ſinner has finiſhed his courſe of tryal, and filled up the mea⯑ſure of his iniquity, then the divine law conſigns him over to hopeleſs mi⯑ſery. The "Alternative" does not run thus, Either obey the commandments or ſuf⯑fer the penalty, and thou ſhalt obtain the reward; but rather thus, Obey, or thou haſt forfeited for ever the promiſed reward, and alſo ſubjected thyſelf to endleſs miſery.— [115] If obedience to the divine precepts, as a condition of life, as well as ſuffer⯑ing the curſe of a broken law, are not both required of the damned; it is becauſe their caſe is hopeleſs—they are utterly rejected, and ſhut up in eternal deſpair.

Now I know of no other caſe but theſe two, wherein the law does not make a double demand; and theſe are, each of them, eſſentially differ⯑ent from the caſe of Chriſt and his people. In the firſt of the two caſes mentioned, the law does not demand the perſonally righteous to ſuffer its penalty, becauſe they have not ſinned: In the ſecond caſe, the law does not re⯑quire the damned to obey its precepts as a condition of life; becauſe the proſpect of a reward is totally cut off from them: But the caſe of Chriſt and his people ſtands thus;—They have [116] ſinned, yet they do not ſuffer the penalty: They have not perfectly obeyed the commandments, yet they obtain the reward due to perfect obe⯑dience. This difference is of ſuch a nature as to demonſtrate the fallacy of the reaſoning in the objection. To ſee the truth of this, let us take (1) the caſe wherein the law does not de⯑mand the ſuffering of its penalty; and (2) that wherein it does not demand obedience to its precepts as a condition of happineſs; and let us reaſon from each of theſe caſes to that of Chriſt and his people. In the firſt inſtance the argument will ſtand thus:

The law does not require thoſe to ſuffer its penalty, who have obeyed its precepts and NEVER SINNED; therefore it cannot re⯑quire our Surety to obey its precepts and ſuffer its penalty, altho' we HAVE SINNED!—In the ſecond inſtance the argument [117] runs thus: The law does not require the damned, upon whom the penalty is inflict⯑ed, to obey its precepts as a condition of life, becauſe NO REWARD OF OBEDIENCE IS GIVEN OR HELD OUT TO THEM; there⯑fore the law cannot require our Surety to ſuffer its penalty and obey its precepts, al⯑though THE REWARD OF OBEDIENCE IS GIVEN TO US!—A man who can⯑not ſee into the fallacy of this reaſon⯑ing, I can only ſay of him, that his caſe is lamentable. Others, it is hoped, will ſee, that, ſince the de⯑merit of the damned, and the reward of the righteous, are both found in the caſe of a Chriſtian, therefore the work of his Surety muſt comprehend what anſwers to each; that is, the penalty and the righteouſneſs of the law. If not, it is evident that the eternal law muſt be made void in one reſpect or other. If our Surety had not ſuffered [118] for our ſins; and if, nevertheleſs we were to eſcape the wrath to come; it could no longer be ſaid, ‘"The wages of ſin is death."’ And if the command⯑ments of the law are not obeyed for us, and that perfectly, and yet if we obtain the reward of perfect obedi⯑ence; where ſhall we find the obedi⯑ence to which this reward is promiſ⯑ed? ^* If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. This is the language of that law concerning which it is ſaid,—Till heaven and earth paſs, one jot or one tittle ſhall in no wiſe paſs from the law, till all be fulfilled.^†

OBJECTION V.

‘"IF Chriſt anſwered this two-fold demand of the law;—if he not only ſuffered the penalty, but alſo obeyed its precepts, and that as our Subſtitute; how is it that the Scriptures ſo frequently aſcribe our ſalvation to his ſufferings?"’

Anſwer.

Becauſe it was chiefly in ſuffering the penalty of the law that he obeyed its precepts.—While he was growing up as a root out of a dry ground—a man of ſorrows and acquainted with grief:—while he ſuffered poverty, that we might be made rich:—while he ſuffered ſhame and reproach, that we might eſcape both:—while he was in agony, that we might rejoice:—while he was ſtripped and ſcourged, that we might be healed:—while he [120] was forſaken, that we might be ac⯑cepted:—while—in a word, while he bore all our griefs, and carried all our ſorrows, he was thereby manifeſt⯑ing the higheſt love to God and man; which is the very eſſence of the moral law, or eternal rule of Righteouſneſs. So that it is the ſame thing whether we ſay, We are juſtified by his blood; or, We are made Righteous by his obedience. The penalty and the commandments muſt be diſtinguiſhed; but, in the obedience of our Surety, they cannot be ſeparated—they include each other.

OBJECTION VI.

‘"IT is granted that Chriſt, in ſuffer⯑ing for ſin, manifeſted the higheſt love to God and man; but why ſhould this love be conſidered as a fulfilment of the Moral Law?"’

Anſwer.

1. A ſide from his ſuretiſhip engage⯑ments, I ſee no reaſon for conſidering his love in this light; but ſince he ſtood in our place, as our Head, Re⯑preſentative and Surety, it was neceſ⯑ſary he ſhould diſcharge every debt we owed, ſo far as to give us a title to the forfeited reward: and there⯑fore,

2. We are expreſſly told that God ſent forth his ſon, made of a woman, made under the law; ^a and that he came into the world to fulfil this law:^b which [122] he could not do but by manifeſting the higheſt love to God and man; for LOVE is the fulfilling of the Law. ^c—Hence alſo it is ſaid, ‘"The Lord is well pleaſed for his Righteouſneſs ſake; he ſhall magnify the Law, and make it honourable."’ And again, ‘"Chriſt is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs, to every one that believeth."^d’

OBJECTION VII.

‘"BUT if the inſpired writers conſi⯑dered the work of Chriſt in this light,—if they ſaw, in the work he performed as our Surety, not only the penalty of the law in⯑flicted, but alſo the righteouſneſs of the law fulfilled; then we might have expected to hear them aſcribing ſalvation to this work, conſidered ſometimes in the former light, and ſometimes in the latter."’

Anſwer.

The thing which we might have expected, has actually come to paſs. In the ſcriptures, the righteouſneſs (as well as the ſufferings) of our di⯑vine Surety, every where meets our eye. I ſhall here tranſcribe ſome paſſages, after juſt obſerving, that wherever ſalvation is aſcribed to RIGHTEOUSNESS, we may be ſure it [124] is the righteouſneſs of our Surety that is intended; for it is not by works of righteouſneſs which WE have done, that we are ſaved.^d

ADAM: He was the Type of Him that was to come. For if by one man's offence, death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the Gift of Righteouſ⯑neſs, ſhall reign in life by one, Jeſus Chriſt.^e

ABEL: By faith he offered a more excellent ſacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witneſs that he was Righteous. ^f

NOAH: He became heir of the Righteouſneſs which is by ſaith.^g

ABRAHAM: He is the father of all [125] them that believe, that Righteouſneſs might be imputed to them alſo.^h

MOSES: The Righteouſneſs which we obtain without works, was witneſſed by the Law and the Prophets; even the Righteouſneſs of God, which is by ſaith of Jeſus Chriſt unto all, and upon all them that believe.ⁱ

DAVID: He deſcribed the bleſſed⯑neſs^* of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth Righteouſneſs without works.^k

ISAIAH: Behold my ſervant whom [126] I uphold, mine Elect in whom my ſoul delighteth:—The Lord is well pleaſed for his Righteouſneſs ſake; He will magniſy the Law, and make it honourable!^l—Surely ſhall one ſay, In the Lord have I Righteouſneſs and ſtrength.^m—Hearken unto me ye ſtout-hearted, that are far from Righteouſneſs: I bring near My Righteouſneſs: it ſhall not be far off, and my ſalvation ſhall not tarry; and I will place ſalvation in Zion for Iſrael my glory.ⁿ—Every tongue that ſhall riſe in judgment againſt thee, thou ſhalt condemn: this is the heritage of the ſervants of the Lord, and their Righteouſneſs is of ME SAITH THE LORD.^o

JEREMIAH: Behold the days come, ſaith the Lord, that I will raiſe to David a Righteous Branch, and a [127] King ſhall reign and proſper, and ſhall execute juſtice and judgment in the earth. In his days Judah ſhall be ſaved, and Iſrael ſhall dwell ſafely: and this is his name whereby he ſhall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.^p

DANIEL: Seventy weeks are de⯑termined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, to finiſh the tranſgreſ⯑ſion, to make an end of ſins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlaſting Righteouſneſs. ^q

CHRIST: Think not that I am come to deſtroy the Law or the Pro⯑phets: I am not come to deſtroy but to fulfil. FOR verily I ſay unto you, Till heaven and earth paſs, one jot or one one tittle ſhall in no wiſe paſs from the LAW, till all be fulfilled.^r

[128] THE FOUR EVANGELISTS: They tell us of all things that Jeſus began both to Do and Teach, until the day in which he was taken up into hea⯑ven: for an abſtract of which I refer to the firſt part of this Eſſay.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES: In this book we have the ſubſtance of what the Apoſtles preached unto ſinners, and by which they were to be ſaved. In ſix of their ſermons, or diſcourſes, we find them careful to lay before their hearers, not only the ſufferings, but alſo the righteouſneſs of Chriſt. In theſe diſcourſes he is three times emphatically called, THE HOLY ONE OF GOD:^s and as often, THE JUST ONE.^t Peter gives a ſhort, but comprehenſive and beautiful de⯑ſcription of his character when he [129] ſays, He went about doing good: ^u and alſo when he calls him, A man approved of God. ^v—If it ſhould be objected, that although theſe teachers repreſent Chriſt as an Holy, Juſt, or Righteous perſon, yet they do not, in theſe diſ⯑courſes, expreſſly affirm that he wrought his righteouſneſs in the capa⯑city of our head, repreſentative, or Surety; I reply, neither do they, in theſe diſcourſes, expreſſly affirm that he ſuffered in this capacity. One anſwer will equally ſuit his righteouſneſs and ſufferings. The truth is, there was no neceſſity for the Apoſtles to affirm, in theſe diſcourſes, more expreſſly than they have done, that Chriſt obey⯑ed or ſuffered for ſinners: becauſe, when they preached the righteouſneſs and ſufferings of Chriſt as the ground of hope; telling the people that, [130] Through his name, whoſoever believed in him, ſhould receive the remiſſion of ſins;^w and that, By him all that be⯑lieve are juſtified from all things;^x—when the people heard this, I ſay, as many of them as underſtood it, would eaſily ſee that Chriſt muſt have ſtood in the capacity of our Surety; for it is this that lays a foundation for our being juſtified through him.

ROMANS. The doctrine of Imputed Righteouſneſs appears, in this Epiſtle, not only to be a doctrine of Chriſti⯑anity, but alſo to be one of the moſt important and fundamental doctrines of that religion. For the ſake of in⯑troducing this doctrine, the Apoſtle ſets himſelf to prove that the whole world is become guilty before God;^y and he makes the forgiveneſs of ſin,^z [131] juſtification,^a and eternal life,^b depend upon imputed righteouſneſs: and when he bewails the caſe of his brethren the jews, it is becauſe they were ignorant of this doctrine.^c

The Righteouſneſs which is impu⯑ted to the believer, is worthy of being made ſo much account of. The incar⯑nate God is the Lord our Righteouſ⯑neſs.^d The righteouſneſs which is unto and upon all them that believe, is the righteouſneſs of God.^e The righteouſneſs which is beſtowed as a gift, and which is upon all men who believe, is the righteouſneſs of one, Jeſus Chriſt.^f This is the Perſon who is the end of the law for righteouſneſs to every one that believeth.^g And it is through his righteouſneſs that grace reigns unto eternal life.^h

[132] Although the ſcriptures in general, and the Epiſtle before us in particular, are ſo very full and plain upon this, yet ſome men will remind us, in a way of oppoſition, that FAITH is imputed for righteouſneſs. But the Apoſtle muſt be underſtood in a way conſiſtent with himſelf.—It is a common thing with all writers, to uſe one and the ſame word to expreſs an Object, and the faculty or affection which regards that object. Hence the words—fear, hope, joy, peace, love, &c. are uſed indifferently to expreſs the objects of theſe affec⯑tions, and theſe affections themſelves. God is called the fear of his people,ⁱbecauſe they ſear him: Chriſt is our hope, ^k becauſe we hope for happineſs through him: He is our peace, ^l becauſe we enjoy peace with God through him: &c. So alſo the word faith is [133] uſed indifferently to expreſs the Truth which we believe, and our belief of the truth. So that it is the ſame thing whether we ſay,—Faith is come,^m or, Chriſt is come:—It is the ſame thing whether we ſay,—Paul preached the Faith, ⁿ or, He preached Chriſt:—It is the ſame thing whether we ſay, we are Juſtified by Faith, ^o or, By Him all that believe are juſtified:^p—It is the ſame thing whether we ſay,—Faith is imputed for righteouſneſs,^q or, Chriſt is the end of the law for righteouſneſs to every one that believeth.^r

CORINTHIANS. Of him are ye in Chriſt Jeſus, who of God is made unto us Wiſdom, and Righteouſneſs, and Sanctification, and Redemption: that, according as it is written, He that [134] glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.^s—If the miniſtration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the miniſ⯑tration of Righteouſneſs exceed in glory.^x—God, who hath reconciled us to himſelf by Jeſus Chriſt, hath given to us the miniſtry of reconciliation; to wit. that God was in Chriſt, recon⯑ciling the world unto himſelf, not im⯑puting their treſpaſſes unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are am⯑baſſadors for Chriſt, as though God did beſeech you by us: we pray you in Chriſt's ſtead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be ſin for us, who know no ſin; that we might be made the Righteouſneſs of God in him. ^t

GALATIANS. When the fulneſs of the time was come, God ſent forth [135] his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of ſons.—And if ſons, then heirs of God thro' Chriſt.^u

PHILIPIANS. Chriſt Jeſus, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himſelf of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a ſervant, and was made in the likeneſs of men: and being found in faſhion as a man, he humbled himſelf, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the croſs.^v—For whom, ſays Paul, I have ſuffered the loſs of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Chriſt and be found in him, not having mine own righteouſneſs which [136] is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Chriſt, the Righteouſneſs which is of God by faith.^w

HEBREWS. Unto the Son he ſaith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a Sceptre of Righteouſneſs is the Sceptre of thy Kingdom. Thou haſt loved Righteouſneſs and hated iniquity, THEREFORE God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladneſs above thy fellows.^x—Thou art a Prieſt for ever, after the order of Melchiſe⯑dec:^y—firſt, KING OF RIGHTEOUS⯑NESS, and after that, KING OF PEACE.^z

PAUL'S HOPE IN DEATH. I have kept the faith: hence forth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteouſneſs. ^a Compare this with Phillipians 3. 9. and Revelations 19. 8.

[137] PETER, a ſervant and an apoſtle of Jeſus Chriſt, to them that have ob⯑tained like precious faith with us, in the Righteouſneſs of our God and Sa⯑viour Jeſus Chriſt.^b

JOHN. Theſe things write I unto you that ye ſin not. And if any man ſin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jeſus Chriſt the Righteous: and he is the propitiation for our ſins.^c

REVELATIONS. Theſe things ſaith the AMEN.—I counſel thee to buy OF ME gold tried in the fire, that thou mayeſt be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayeſt be cloathed, and that the ſhame of thy nakedneſs do not ap⯑pear.^d—Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the mar⯑riage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herſelf ready. And [138] to her was granted, that ſhe ſhould be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the Righteouſneſs of the ſaints. ^e Upon this ground we may ſay,—I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my ſoul ſhall be joyful in my God, for he hath cloathed me with the garments of Salvation, he hath covered me with the ROBE OF RIGH⯑TEOUSNESS, as a bridegroom decketh himſelf with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herſelf with jewels. Iſa. lxi. 10. Thus we ſee how this doc⯑trine runs through the whole Bible.

OBJECTION VIII.

‘"THE DEATH of Chriſt is that obedi⯑ence by which we are made righteous. Chriſt's death was a voluntary act of obedience to the commandment of his Father; ſo he ſays, ‘"Therefore doth my Father love me, becauſe I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myſelf. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This com⯑mandment have I received of my Father."’ The will of God which he came to do, and by which his people are ſanctified, was the offer⯑ing up of his body once. By this act of obe⯑dience he at once fulfilled the law to the utmoſt, exerciſing the perfection of love to God and man, and ſatisfying all its penal demands up⯑on his guilty people. The ſpotleſs holineſs of his heart and life qualified him for this obedi⯑ence, and the divine dignity of his perſon gave it infinite worth and efficacy. ^* —In his life (ſays this Author in another place) he obeyed [140] the law for us as our example, but in his death he obeyed it for us as our ſubſtitute; the holineſs of his heart and life in conformity to the moral law, qualified him for performing that obedience by which we are made righte⯑ous, but in his death he actually performed it.—And although I could have no hope from his death or mediation, did I not conſider him as perfectly holy and free from ſin through the whole courſe of his life, yet I do not find that the ſcriptures aſcribe our juſtificati⯑on directly to this, but always to what he did in his death."’

Anſwer.

Some things in this objection have been already conſidered, viz. what is ſaid about Immanuel qualifying him⯑ſelf in holineſs by his obedience to the moral law; and alſo what is ſaid of his obedience to the law as an ex⯑ample. I mention theſe particulars now, only to make other parts of the [141] objection more plain to the Reader; for I find that many perſons who read the book referred to above, do not underſtand the Author, upon the ſub⯑ject in hand. The Argument contain⯑ed in the objection, ſhall be conſider⯑ed preſently; but I ſhall firſt make a few obſervations upon the ſentiment which that argument is intended to ſupport.

1. This ſentiment, underſtood in the moſt favourable light, will ſtand thus:—Chriſt did not begin to act as the Surety or Subſtitute of his people, until about the time of his death: his foregoing obedience and ſufferings were not ſubſtitutional, but intended for our example, and for his own per⯑ſonal qualification: but in his death he ſuffered the penalty, and alſo obeyed the commandments of the moral law, as his people's ſubſtitute and in their [142] ſtead. And if we aſk, How could he obey the commandments of the moral law in his death? the anſwer is,—In his death he manifeſted the perfection of love to God and man, which is the end of the commandment and the fulfilling of the law.

2. This appears to me to be a very dangerous ſentiment. It ſeems to ap⯑proach ſo near the Truth, and it is ſupported (in ſome inſtances) by ſuch plauſible reaſoning, and by ſo able an Advocate, that thoſe who are weak in the Faith are in danger of being carried away by it.—But the Good Shepherd has ſaid,—My ſheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eter⯑nal life; and they ſhall never periſh; neither ſhall any pluck them out of my hand.

3. This ſentiment is, I ſuppoſe, [143] perfectly new. It is no new thing, indeed, to deny that Chriſt fulfilled the commandments of the moral law in his people's ſtead; but it is of late that we have been told he did this in his death only, and not in his life. I cannot ſpeak with abſolute certain⯑ty upon the novelty of this ſentiment; but am of opinion that it was not thought of until the cloſe of the eigh⯑teenth Century. It has not, however, come too late to find footing in the world; for it ſeems to be adopted by ſeveral congregations in north and ſouth Britain, and perhaps it may give birth to another denomination of Chriſtians.

4. At times I fancy I underſtand this ſentiment pretty clearly; but at other times I find myſelf rather at a loſs. This uncertainty is owing to the prin⯑ciples upon which this ſentiment is [144] ſometimes deſended, and from which it's Advocates reaſon in order to op⯑poſe what they call the common popu⯑lar doctrine: for, theſe principles ſeem to me as inconſiſtent with their own doctrine, as with that which they re⯑ject. For inſtance,

1. Chriſt's obedience to the law is ſet before us as an example for us to copy after, which ſhews (they ſay) that he did not obey this law as our ſubſti⯑tute, in his life.—Now theſe ſame people know that Chriſt's obedience in his death is alſo ſet before us as an ex⯑ample to copy after; how then can they believe that he obeyed this law even in his death as our ſubſtitute?

2. They tell us that if Chriſt had obeyed the law for us in his life, it would have ſuperſeded his expiatory ſufferings. Strange!—But, waving all other remarks, what is the reaſon that [145] Chriſt's vicarious obedience to the law in his life, ſhould ſuperſede his expia⯑tory ſufferings; and yet his vicarious obedience to the law in his death, ſhould not ſuperſede them?—To this it has been replied,—‘"His fulfilling the law for us in his death, includes his expiatory ſufferings, and therefore cannot ſuperſede them."’ But this anſwer leaves me juſt where I was. To tell me that, The ſuffering of the penalty is included in Chriſt's vicarious obe⯑dience to the precepts of the law, is not to ſhew me the uſe and neceſſity of this; which is the thing I am inquiring after. It is the opinion of the Objector, that if Chriſt had obeyed the precepts of the law in his life as our ſubſtitute, then his ſufferings, conſidered as ex⯑piatory, would be ſuperfluous. See⯑ing this is his opinion, and ſeeing he profeſſes to believe that Chriſt did [146] obey theſe precepts for us (that is, as our ſubſtitute) in his death, I am at a loſs to conceive what neceſſity he finds for the ſufferings of Chriſt, con⯑ſidered as expiatory. To tell me that his obedience to the law in his death, includes his expiatory ſufferings; is only to provoke a repetition of the queſtion—Why?—why muſt this ſub⯑ſtitutional obedience include expiatory ſufferings? Or, ſeeing this obedience does in fact include theſe ſufferings, how is it that the former does not ren⯑der the latter ſuperfluous?

3. When we plead for our Suretie's vicarious obedience and ſufferings all through his life even unto death; the Objector tells us, that it is impoſſible to ſhew where the law makes this ‘"double demand."’ He inſiſts upon it that the law has not a double demand, but an alternative, requiring either [147] perfect obedience, or elſe the ſuffering of its penalty.^*—This way of talking makes it very difficult to underſtand what theſe people intend to admit. One would think that what is here ſaid, makes as much againſt their own ſentiment, as it does againſt ours; and when they are reminded of this, their explanation only tends to involve their ſentiment in complicated obſcurity. When we tell them that their own ſentiment, alſo, infers a double de⯑mand of the law upon the ſinner's Surety, they ſeem inclined to admit that it does ſo; but not ſuch a double demand as we plead for: and they ſay that the double demand which they admit, may be reduced to a ſin⯑gle one. Upon this I would obſerve.

(1.) If they realy intend to admit [148] that Chriſt did, at any time, living or dying, not only bear the curſe, but alſo ſulfil the precepts of the law as our ſubſtitute; this is the double de⯑mand we plead for. The difference between the life and death of Chriſt, affects not the queſtion concerning a double demand of the law; for it is not length of time, but the two things demanded which conſtitute the double demand. If our Surety had only to obey the precepts, or if he had only to ſuffer the penalty of the law, this would be but a ſingle demand, al⯑though he had been bound thus to obey, or elſe to ſuffer, all through life even unto death; and upon the other hand, if he was bound to obey, and alſo to ſuffer for us, this is a double demand, although he had thus obeyed and ſuffered only in the hour of death.

(2.) When they talk of reducing [149] what they ſeem to admit, to a ſingle demand, I am altogether at a loſs to know their method of doing ſo. If I were acquainted with their method of reducing, I could try it upon my own view of this doctrine; but as I do not, my ſentiment muſt needs re⯑main as it is. What their's will look like after it is reduced, I cannot tell; but it ſeems that,

(3.) To be conſiſtent with them⯑ſelves, they muſt not only reduce a double demand to a ſingle one, but that ſingle one muſt be an alternative, in contradiſtinction to a double de⯑mand; that is, Obedience to the pre⯑cepts of the law, including the ſuffer⯑ing of it's penalty, muſt be reduced to either one or the other of theſe two: for, they ſay, The law has not a dou⯑ble demand, but an alternative, requir⯑ing either perfect obedience, or elſe the ſuf⯑fering of it's penalty.

[150] But whatever obſcurity may attend this ſentiment in other reſpects, one thing is plain, viz. It ſtands oppoſed to the belief of our Suretie's having acted in our name all through his ſtate of humiliation,—from the time he was made under the law to redeem, until he ſaid,—It is Finiſhed. I am not ſure, indeed, from whence they date the commencement of his ſubſtitutional work,—when he finiſhed the righteouſ⯑neſs which (according to them) is ap⯑propriated to his own perſonal quali⯑fication, and when he began the other righteouſneſs unto which our juſtifica⯑tion is directly aſcribed: but their argu⯑ment ſeems to confine the latter to his death; meaning thereby. I ſuppoſe, the whole of his voluntary ſufferings, from the time he was nailed to the croſs, until his reſurrection. Taking the ſentiment in this view, we are [151] now to conſider the main argument upon which it reſts, It is ſaid,

‘"The ſcriptures do not aſcribe our juſtification directly to what Chriſt did through the whole courſe of his life, but always to what he did in his death."’ To this we reply,

1. The inſpired writers do indeed, and that very frequently, aſcribe our juſtification and ſalvation to what Chriſt did in his death; and, conſi⯑dering his death as the completion of his ſubſtitutional undertaking, it would be ſtrange if they did not aſcribe our juſtification to it. But when the in⯑ſpired writers aſcribe our juſtification to the death of Chriſt, how does it appear that they intend to exclude, as ſubſtitutional, his foregoing obedience and ſufferings?

To aſcribe ſalvation in all it's parts to the death of Chriſt, and to believe, [152] at the ſame time, that Chriſt acted as our Surety all through his ſtate of hu⯑miliation, are not ſuch inconſiſtent things as to render it impoſſible for an accurate ſpeaker or writer to do both. Indeed I do not know an au⯑thor of any note, who held the doctrine I contend for, but what does, nevertheleſs, aſcribe our ſalvation to what Chriſt did in his death. I ſhall give a few inſtances out of many:

• OWEN: Mercy, Pardon and Grace, could find no other way to iſſue forth from the heart of the Father, but by the heart's blood of the Son.
• WITSIUS: A right to all the bleſ⯑ſings of the covenant of grace was purchaſed at once to all the elect by Chriſt's death.
• MC. LAURIN: We muſt believe that Salvation is the purchaſe of Chriſts death.
• HERVEY: The death of Chriſt pro⯑cured [153] the pardon and acceptance of believers.
• SANDEMAN: Aſk a Chriſtian, What is his faith, the ſpring of all his hope? He anſwers you in a word, The Blood of Chriſt.
• BOOTH: O remember! that grace has erected her throne. This forbids deſpair. For her wonderful throne is erected, not in the ruins of juſtice, not on the diſhonour of the law; but, on the Blood of the Lamb.

Now it is well known that theſe Authors had no intention to confine the Suretiſhip of Chriſt to his death It is well known that they conſidered Chriſt as the ſubſtitute of ſinners all through his ſtate of humiliation; yet they aſcribe ſalvation in all it's parts to his death, in language-as ſtrong as that uſed by the Apoſtles.—The intelligent reader will readily perceive how far I intend this argument ſhould go. I have no thoughts of ſupporting any [154] doctrine by human authority; and therefore I do not quote theſe Authors to that end. It is ſuffici⯑ent if they are allowed to be men who knew how to expreſs their own thoughts with propriety of ſpeech, and that they have actually done ſo upon this occaſion. And why ſhould not this be admitted? They conſidered the death of Chriſt as the completion of his vicarious work, and in this view they aſcribe ſalvation to it. Is this to expreſs their own thoughts improperly? I ſuppoſe no one will ſay ſo. What does this prove? It proves that to aſcribe ſalvation to the death of Chriſt, does not amount to a denial of his having acted as our ſubſtitute all through his ſtate of hu⯑miliation; and conſequently, when the Apoſtles aſcribed ſalvation to his death, it does not prove that they in⯑tended [155] to exclude, as ſubſtitutional, his foregoing obedience and ſufferings.—I may here remind our oppoſers of what certain of their own poets have ſaid, and which they themſelves re⯑peatedly ſing, viz.

The reaſoner who ſhould attempt to prove from this verſe, that the poet who made, or that the perſons who ſing it, conſider nothing in the ſuf⯑ferings of Chriſt, as ſubſtitutional, but his dying groan, and laſt expiring breath, would ſerve the poet, and thoſe who adopt his words, as ſome men do the apoſtles.

2. It is paſt diſpute that the ſcrip⯑tures do, in other caſes,—caſes too [156] which are cloſely connected with that in hand, aſcribe effects to the death of Chriſt, which belong alſo to the whole of his humiliation, obedience, and ſufferings. For inſtance: Chriſt is repreſented as ſaying, ‘"Therefore doth my Father love me, becauſe I lay down my life."^a’ Does this warrant us to ſay, that laying down his life was the only thing for which his Father loved him? No verily; not even though we ſhould ſoften the matter by adding the words, ‘"immediately and directly."’ For, all that Chriſt did upon the earth, were immediate and direct cauſes of the Father's love.^b—Again: Paul ſays, ‘"Jeſus was crowned with glory and honour, for the ſuffering of death."^c’ Does this warrant us to ſay, that his death [157] was the only direct cauſe for which he was crowned? Was he not highly exalted for the whole of his humiliati⯑on, obedience, and ſufferings?^d—for loving righteouſneſs, and hating ini⯑quity?^e—for all that he did to glorify his Father upon the earth?^fCertainly he was: yet the ſcriptures aſcribe it to his death. Therefore, when the ſcriptures aſcribe ſalvation to the death of Chriſt, why ſhould we not underſtand them as including his fore⯑going obedience and ſufferings? To underſtand the ſcriptures thus, is only to take them for their own interpreter, and to explain what they ſay of the death of Chriſt, in one place, by what we are ſure they intend, in another.

3. When the ſcriptures aſcribe ſal⯑vation to the death of Chriſt, it can⯑not [158] be with a view to exclude, as ſubſtitutional, his foregoing obedience and ſufferings, becauſe it is impoſſible to find an adequate cauſe or end for this obedience, or for theſe ſufferings, (eſpecially ſome of them) without admitting that they were ſubſtitu⯑tional. For inſtance: What adequate cauſe or end ſhall we find for his dreadful ſufferings in the garden, and from thence to Calvary, if we deny that they were ſubſtitutional? Was it merely for the ſake of ſetting us an example, and qualifying himſelf in holineſs, that he began to be ſore amazed, and very heavy? that his ſoul was exceeding ſorrowful, even unto death? that he was in an agony, and ſweat great drops of blood falling to the ground? that he was taken from hence, bound, ſmitten, ſpit up⯑on, blindſolded, mocked; ſtripped [159] and ſcourged?—If the Objector ſhould admit that theſe inſtances of ſuffering were ſubſtitutional, he muſt then abandon his argument, and be reduced to the neceſſity of begging the queſtion: for theſe ſufferings were no more undergone on the tree, than were any other ſufferings of our Redeemer's life. And it muſt be noticed, that the Apoſtles not only aſcribe our ſalvation to his laſt ſuffer⯑ings and death, but alſo expreſſly to what he endured while hanging on the Tree.^g—But if the Objector ſhould go ſo far as to deny that the ſufferings of Chriſt in the garden, and from thence until he was led forth to be crucified, were ſubſtitutional, he ought to provide a good reaſon for ſo doing; which, I am perſuaded, is abſolutely impoſſible. I conclude, therefore, that [160] when the ſcriptures aſcribe our juſti⯑fication to the death of Chriſt, it is not with any intention to exclude, as ſubſtitutional, his foregoing obedience and ſufferings.

But the Objector has not only ſaid that the ſcriptures always aſcribe our juſtification to the death of Chriſt, but alſo that they never aſcribe it, directly, to his foregoing obedience and ſuffer⯑ings. We have therefore now to conſider what authority he has for this part of his argument. In doing this, I ſhall (1) lay before the reader ſome paſſages of ſcripture which ap⯑pear to aſcribe our ſalvation to the ſufferings of Chriſt in general; and (2) make ſome further obſervations upon the Righteouſneſs of our divine Surety.

Firſt: I ſhall lay before the reader ſome paſſages of ſcripture which ap⯑pear [161] to aſcribe our juſtification and ſalvation to the ſufferings of Chriſt in general.

Poverty, Perſecutions and Temptations, are remarkable inſtances of the ſuffer⯑ings of Chriſt, and the ſcriptures aſ⯑cribe our ſalvation to each of them.

Poverty. ‘"Ye know the Grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, that though he was rich, yet for your ſakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich,"^h’ Now Chriſt became poor, when he was born of a woman, brought forth in a ſtable, and laid in a manger; he continued poor all through his life upon this earth; and at length died in the moſt dreadful kind of poverty. When any period of this ſtate of poverty is contraſted with his [162] original ſtate, and with what he had a right to enjoy, as the Son of the Higheſt, from the firſt moment of his birth, it ought not to be eſteemed a ſmall matter. We ſhould alſo re⯑member that a ſtate of life, ſuch as our divine Surety led in this world, was part of the original curſe pro⯑nounced upon ſinful man.—‘"Curſed is the ground for thy ſake; in ſorrow ſhalt thou eat of it ALL THE DAYS OF THY LIFE. Thorns alſo and thiſtles ſhall it bring forth unto thee; and thou ſhalt eat the herb of the field. In the ſweat of thy face ſhalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it waſt thou taken: for duſt thou art, and unto duſt ſhalt thou re⯑turn."ⁱ’

Perſecution. ‘"Let not them that [163] wait on thee, O Lord God of hoſts, be aſhamed, for my ſake: let not thoſe that ſeek thee be confounded, for my ſake, O God of Iſrael: BECAUSE for thy ſake I have born reproach: ſhame hath covered my face.^k’—Upon this text we have to obſerve, (1) Chriſt is the ſpeaker. (2) He is praying for his people, who deſerve eternal ſhame and confuſion of face, becauſe they have ſinned againſt God. (3) The reaſon why this ſhame and confuſion is not to come upon his people, to whom it belonged, is, becauſe their Surety bore reproach, ſhame covered his face. Now although this took place in its moſt eminent degree upon the Croſs, it is plain from the context that Chriſt is here ſpeaking of all that ſhame and reproach which he endured upon the earth.—It is paſt diſpute [164] with thoſe who admit the authority of the New Teſtament, that the ſuffer⯑ings mentioned in this Pſalm, upon the ground of which our Advocate intercedes, are the ſufferings of Chriſt in general. Compare verſe 4. with John 15. 25. And verſe 9. with John 2. 17.

Temptations. ‘"In all things it be⯑hoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful High Prieſt, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the ſins of the people: for in that he himſelf hath SUFFERED, being TEMPTED; he is able to ſuccour them that are tempted."^l’ It is readily granted that the ſuccour here mentioned, includes that conti⯑nual ſupport, relief and protection, which the tempted chriſtian receives [165] from Chriſt, who learned, by painful experience, how to feel for his people: but it is plain that this is not the only, nor yet the chief thing which the Apoſtle teaches. The particulars which relate to the caſe in hand, are (1) Paul ranks the temptations which Chriſt endured, amongſt his ſufferings: (2) Theſe ſufferings are amongſt the all things in which it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren; to the end he might make reconciliation for the ſins of the people.—Now Chriſt was tempted, not only in his death, but in all points like as we are.^m By what authority, then, do we exclude from his atonement, all thoſe temptations which he endured before his death; and particularly thoſe of which we read when he was led into the wilder⯑neſs, away from the habitations of [166] men, to be tempted of the chief of the infernal ſpirits? In this horrid ſituation he continued during forty days and nights, without food.—How different this from the delightful abode of ſin⯑leſs Adam! How different from the proper habitation of Adam's Lord! This, indeed, is a fit ſituation for guilt and deſpair; but how came the Holy One of God in ſuch a place!—in ſuch company!

‘"Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our ſorrows." ⁿ’—This chap⯑ter gives a comprehenſive view of the ſufferings of Chriſt, from firſt to laſt,—from his growing up as a tender plant, to his being cut off out of the land of the living. It ſpeaks (1) of the mean and deſpiſed appearence of the Meſ⯑ſiah, while growing up as a root out of a dry ground:^o (2) of the general [167] hatred and contempt with which he ſhould be treated:^p* (3) of the ſor⯑rows and griefs which were to be his conſtant companions:^p* (4) of his being wounded, bruiſed, and ſcourg⯑ed:^q (5) of his being brought as a lamb to the ſlaughter—taken from priſon and Judgment—and cut off, &c.^r Now the prophet was ſure that all theſe griefs, and all theſe ſorrows, were ours. He knew that theſe afflic⯑tions could not come upon him with⯑out an adequate cauſe; and although the jews in general thought that Je⯑ſus of Nazareth deſerved them all; although they eſteemed him as one ſtricken, ſmitten of God for his own ſins, and afflicted; yet the prophet knew that he was no leſs a perſon than Immanuel,^s the mighty God;^t and that his condition in this world [168] was infinitely below, and contrary to, his own true character; and conſe⯑quently, that every kind and degree of ſufferings which he endured, muſt be ours. The Meſſiah was preſented to the thoughts of this prophet, as growing up in the meaneſt condition, a man of ſorrows and acquainted with grief; but, ſays he, Surely theſe are our ſorrows, our griefs:^u he ſaw him wounded and bruiſed; but when, or whereſoever this was, Iſaiah was con⯑fident it muſt be for our iniquities: ^v he ſaw him ſcourged; but he knew that theſe ſtripes were to be our healing:^w he ſaw him, at length, as a lamb brought to the ſlaughter, and as a cri⯑minal led from priſon and judgment to the fatal, the accurſed tree; but he knew that in this, as in every other inſtance, it was for the tranſgreſſions of God's people that he was ſtricken.^x— [169] I think the man muſt be rather per⯑verſe who will inſiſt upon it that this chapter ſpeaks only of the ſufferings of Chriſt in his death; or that all the ſuf⯑ferings mentioned are not referred to our ſins as the cauſe, and to our ſalva⯑tion as the end.

‘"Our High Prieſt, in the days of his fleſh, offered up prayers and ſup⯑plications, with ſtrong crying and tears, unto him that was able to ſave him from death, and was heard, in that he ſeared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he ſuffered; and being made perfect, he became the Author of eternal ſalvation unto all them that obey him."^y’—This chapter, from the firſt verſe to the ninth, conſiſts of two parts, (1) a deſcription of the office and duties of the high prieſt under the law:^z (2) the application of this to [170] the Perſon and Prieſthood of Chriſt.^a I do not intend to enter fully into the diſcuſſion of this remarkable portion of ſcripture; my limits only admit, and my deſign only requires, that I point out ſuch circumſtances as go to prove that the ſufferings of Chriſt, in general, are included in his expiatory ſacrifice; and that our ſalvation is aſcribed to his death on the croſs, conſidered as the perfecting, and not as the only in⯑ſtance of his expiatory ſufferings.

1. The Apoſtle is evidently ſpeak⯑ing of Chriſt under the character of a PRIEST; by which he leads us to con⯑ſider all the ſufferings he mentions in this place, as belonging to the atone⯑ment made by Chriſt for the ſins of the people.^b

2. The Apoſtle mentions the time in which our High Prieſt endured theſe [171] ſufferings, viz. the days of his fleſh. ^c Now, the DAYS of his fleſh, are more than the HOURS of his crucifixion:—the days of his fleſh, are the days of his humiliation, wherein he appear⯑ed in the form of ſinful fleſh;^d a man of ſorrows and acquainted with grief.

3. The ſufferings of which the Apoſtle ſpeaks in this place, and which he repreſents as belonging to Chriſt's prieſtly office, are of ſuch a nature that, we have reaſon to believe, he certainly did endure them, all through the days of his fleſh—He of⯑fered up prayers and ſupplications with crying—with ſtrong crying,—with ſtrong crying and tears. ^e Now com⯑pare this with the hiſtory of Chriſt's life, given by the Evangeliſts. There we read of his ſending the multitude away, diſmiſſing his diſciples alſo, [172] and then retiring, not to repoſe after the labours of the day, but to a deſert mountain to pray, and continuing there until about the fourth watch of the night.^f—At another time we read of his riſing up in the morning, a great while before day, and departing into a ſolitary place to pray.^g And again we are told of his going out into a mountain to pray, and continuing all night in prayer to God.^h Now, from theſe inſtances, we ſhould conclude that it was common for him thus to ſpend his nights. Indeed the Evan⯑geliſt in one place, telling us of his retiring at night to the mount of Olives, ſays expreſſly, ‘"As he was wont."^a’—The laſt night which the Saviour of ſinners ſpent in prayer to God, he permitted three of his diſciples to be with him; and we know the awful [173] account they give of what they ſaw and heard:—this was in the garden of Gethſemane. I do not poſitively affirm that all his nightly prayers were attended with equal ſorrows; but this I know, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks in a general way, when he tells us of the ſtate of mind in which our High Prieſt offered up his prayers and ſupplications. When he tells us they were offered up with ſtrong crying and tears, he does not appear to be ſpeak⯑ing of what was done on ſome one particular occaſion; but he ſeems to be ſpeaking, in general, of what he did in the days of his fleſh. Moreover, theſe prayers and ſupplications which our High Prieſt offered up, with ſtrong crying and tears, were a ſub⯑ject of Prophecy; and they are ſpoken of as being offered up, day and night, inceſſantly. Thus the Redeemer weeps: [174] ‘"O my God, I cry unto thee in the day time, but thou heareſt not; and in the night-ſeaſon, and am not ſilent. ⁱ’ Up⯑on theſe memorable words, I would make the following remarks: (1) We are ſure that Jeſus is the ſpeaker. (2) This bitter complaint cannot re⯑fer meerly to the ſcene in Gethſe⯑mane, becauſe that ſcene took place at night; and the complaint is, ‘"O my God, I cry in the day-time."’ Nei⯑ther can it refer only to what Jeſus ſuf⯑fered on the Croſs, becauſe he was taken down from the Croſs before ſun⯑ſet; and the complaint is, ‘"I cry in the day-time, and in the night-ſeaſon."’ (4) This complaint cannot well be confined to any one particular day and night, becauſe the words are more properly expreſſive of daily, continu⯑ed ſorrow:—‘O my God, I cry unto thee [175] in the day time, but thou heareſt not, and in the night ſeaſon, and am not ſilent."’ This way of ſpeaking calls to our mind what the Evangeliſts tell us of his continuing whole nights in prayer, on mountains and in ſolitary places; and of this being his uſual cuſtom. (5) It appears from this ſecond verſe of the twenty-ſecond Pſalm, that our Re⯑deemer had occaſion, more than once, to uſe the words of the firſt verſe, viz. My God, my God, why haſt thou forſaken me, &c. We have juſt now mentioned ſome conſiderations which go to prove that the complaint uttered in the ſecond verſe, cannot be confined to the awful ſcene in Gethſemane; nor yet to that on the Croſs; and if the ſecond verſe cannot be thus confined, no more can the firſt, as may appear from hence: The two verſes ſeem to be cloſely connected together, and to [176] form one complaint:—‘"My God, my God, why haſt thou forſaken me? why art thou ſo far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou heareſt not, and in the night ſeaſon, and am not ſilent."’—Does not the ſuffering Redeemer connect, in this inſtance, his unheard cries, with his being forſaken of God? And when he himſelf complains of crying thus unto God, day and night, continually; ſhall we ſay, He never had occaſion thus to complain, except during the ſix hours in which he hung upon the Croſs? Let it be far from chriſtians to contradict their Lord in any thing; and eſpecially when his ſufferings are in queſtion. When he intimates, in any particular inſtance, that he ſuffered for our ſins; the leaſt we can do is to acknowledge that he did ſo.

[177] 4. And being made perfect, (con⯑tinues the Apoſtle) he became the Author of eternal ſalvation.—And be⯑ing made perfect: this is juſt the form of expreſſion which we might have ex⯑pected, if, as we maintain, the Apoſ⯑tle had been ſpeaking of our Great High Prieſt, as gradually advancing, all through the days of his fleſh, in the great work of Atonement. Conſider⯑ing all the ſufferings of his life in this light, it was natural to add,—and be⯑ing made perfect.—Our Great High Prieſt was made perfect by his laſt ſufferings on the Croſs, where, accord⯑ing to his own words, he Finiſhed his work. Being thus made perfect, he became the Author of eternal ſalvation to all them that obey him. By this one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are ſanctified. There is no need of repeating this ſacrifice, [178] like thoſe which were offered under the law: (for then muſt he often have ſuffered ſince the foundation of the world;) but now once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away ſin by the ſacrifice of himſelf. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment, ſo Chriſt was once offered to bear the ſins of many; and unto them that look for him ſhall he appear, the ſecond time, without ſin, unto ſalvation.—I ſhall conclude what I have to ſay upon the ſufferings of Chriſt, in the words of WITSIUS: not with any view to ſtrengthen the argument by the authority of his Name; but becauſe he expreſſes my own views more clearly, perhaps, than I could have done myſelf.

‘"I remember to have learned," ſays he, "in the communion of the re⯑formed church, to the following effect: [179] 1ſt. That the death, wherewith God threatned man for ſin, comprizes in its whole extent all that miſery, which, by the juſteſt deſpleaſure of God, has followed upon ſin, and to which the ſinner man is obnoxious all his life, the principal part of which conſiſts in the want of the favour of God, and in the keeneſt ſenſe of the divine curſe, to be chiefly inflicted, when it ſhall ſo pleaſe God. 2dly, That Chriſt, by the interpoſition of his engagements for the elect, took upon himſelf all that curſe, which man was liable to, on account of ſin; hence it was, that, in order to the payment of the debt he engaged for, he led a life, in the aſ⯑ſumed human nature, ſubject to many viciſſitudes of miſery, juſt like the life of a human ſinner. 3dly, That, as God uſes much forbearance with reſ⯑pect to ſinners, and moderates the [180] bitterneſs of life with ſome ſweetneſs of patience, till the day of vengeance, and of the retribution of his righteous judgment, when the whole weight of the curſe ſhall light upon the con⯑demned ſinner; ſo alſo Chriſt, when in the form of ſinful fleſh, had not al⯑ways the ſame ſenſe of the painful ef⯑fects of the ſins that were laid upon him, but ſometimes rejoiced in an eminent mixture of favour; till the hour and power of darkneſs came, when, being called to the bar, he had every thing dreadful to undergo. 4thly, That as the death, which con⯑ſiſts in the ſeparation of the ſoul and body, is inflicted on the ſinner man, as the fad effect of the wrath of God; ſo in like manner Chriſt underwent the ſame death, that, in this reſpect alſo, making ſatisfaction to divine juſtice, he might remove all the curſe [181] of that death from the elect. 5thly, In fine, that as all thoſe miſeries, taken together, are what ſin deſerves; ſo Chriſt, who, by his engagement, took upon himſelf all the debt of the elect, did, by all theſe miſeries, to which he was ſubject all his life, ſatisfy divine juſtice; ſo that, taken all to⯑gether, they conſtitute the ranſom, which was due for our ſins.—All the ſufferings which Chriſt endured both in ſoul and body, through the whole courſe of his life, conſtitute his one and perfect ſatisfaction; though it be certain that thoſe were the moſt greiv⯑ous ſufferings with which he encoun⯑tred on the laſt night and day; and that what he bore in his body, were far exceeded by thoſe that oppreſſed his ſoul: juſt as the whole of Chriſt's moſt holy obedience is imputed to us for righteouſneſs, tho' he gave an [182] eminent demonſtration of it, when he was obedient in death."’—We come now,

Secondly, to make ſome further ob⯑ſervations upon the Righteouſneſs of our Divine Surety. I do not intend to en⯑ter fully into the conſideration of this glorious Subject: if I had ability ſuit⯑ed to ſuch a taſk, my limits would not admit of it. All that I intend is, to propoſe one argument more, taken from what the Scriptures ſay of the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, in reply to the Objection now before us.

The Objector will not admit that Chriſt obeyed and ſuffered, all through his life upon earth, as the Surety or Subſtitute of ſinners. He cannot find, he ſays, that the Scriptures aſcribe our juſtification directly to what Chriſt did in his life, but always to what he did in his death.—In reply to this we [183] have ſhewn (1) that when the Scrip⯑tures aſcribe our juſtification to the death of Chriſt, it is not with any in⯑tention to exclude, as ſubſtitutional, his foregoing obedience and ſufferings: (2) That the Scriptures do, in many places, aſcribe our juſtification and ſal⯑vation to the ſufferings of Chriſt in general; that is, to all the ſufferings he endured in the days of his humili⯑ation. To theſe conſiderations we have now to add, (what we have before proved) that our juſtification is aſcribed, and that "directly," to the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. This alone, one might imagine, is ſuffici⯑ent to decide this queſtion. But the Objector has found out a new way to evade the force of this argument. Hitherto, the queſtion has been—Is the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt (includ⯑ing his ſufferings) the immediate and [184] direct cauſe of our juſtification? This queſtion being decided in the affirma⯑tive, the diſpute was ended. The reaſon was, there exiſted no diſpute about what was meant by the Righte⯑ouſneſs of Chriſt. It was admitted upon all hands, that the Righteouſ⯑neſs of Chriſt, is his conformity to the Rule of Righteouſneſs; or in other words, the whole of his obedience to the Moral Law. For men had not as yet learned to diſtinguiſh between his obedience to the precepts of the moral law in his life, and his obedi⯑ence to the precepts of the moral law in his death, and to aſſign different kinds of influence to this obedience in the juſtification of the ungodly. But by the help of theſe diſtinctions, the Objector can admit, in words, that our juſtification is aſcribed directly to the Rightcouſneſs of Chriſt and yet [185] deny that it is directly^* aſcribed to the holineſs of his heart and life, in conformity to the moral law.^† So that it is not enough for us to prove that the ſcriptures aſcribe our juſtifi⯑cation directly to the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt; we muſt alſo prove that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is the whole of his conformity to that Rule of Righteouſneſs under which he was made:—which, one would think, is ſo ſelf evident, that it does not re⯑quire, and that it hardly admits of proof. It is almoſt like attempting to prove, that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is—the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. And perhaps ſome Readers may [186] blame me for ſaying any more upon a ſubject which is already ſo plain. Such as are thus minded, may here cloſe the book. To others, we ſhall propoſe the following remarks:—

1. The Righteouſneſs of which we ſpeak, is the Righteouſneſs of CHRIST. It is not the Righteouſneſs of the Eternal WORD, conſidered only as God, and as the Governor of the World; but it is that Righteouſneſs which this Perſon wrought in our na⯑ture, after he was made of a woman, and while he was under the Law. It is that Righteouſneſs of his which con⯑ſiſts in a perfect conformity to every jot and title of the Law. If it be aſked,—Is every action of his life from his birth to his death, included in this Righteouſneſs? I anſwer directly, YES. Upon which I fancy I hear ſome exclaim,—What! did he con⯑form [187] to the Ceremonial Law as our Subſtitute? Did he work miracles as our Subſtitute?—Yes, in ſo far as his confor⯑mity to the MORAL Law was concerned in theſe things. When he attended to the ceremonial law, he did ſo in obedi⯑ence to the command of God; which is not a ceremonial, but moral duty.^a And while he wrought miracles, he was going about doing good;^b which is alſo a moral duty.—But the moral law never bound us to obſerve the ce⯑remonial law: it never bound us to work miracles!—True; but it bound us to obey God, and to do good to man; and it is only in this ſenſe that we conſider the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt as concerned in Ceremonies and Mi⯑racles.—Indeed theſe things are very inconſiſtently objected to us, by the perſons we now ſpeak to. They alſo [188] profeſs to believe that Chriſt obeyed the moral law as our ſubſtitute. And how do they ſay he did this?—By dying to redeem loſt ſinners.—But the moral law never commanded us to perform ſuch a work as this! This was the greateſt miracle of all! Yet if any one was to object this to them, they would, and very juſtly, conſider it as an impertinent cavil. At leaſt they would know how to anſwer it; and one anſwer will equally ſuit us both. Neither party need be afraid if the only thing that can be objected to us is, that Chriſt obeyed the law for us in a different, and far more ex⯑cellent manner, than could be ex⯑pected from us:—this is our Glory. The Righteouſneſs of our Divine Surety does not exceed that which was demanded of the Elect, more than his Perſon exceeds their perſons. [189] But who ever objected to the Sureti⯑ſhip of Chriſt, meerly upon account of the excellency of his Perſon? Yea, I have heard one man, and only one, go thus far. ‘"I cannot admit the doctrine of imputed righteouſneſs," he ſaid, "for this reaſon;—The works of an Infinite Perſon, cannot be im⯑puted to one that is finite."’—But this ſeems to proceed upon a miſtaken no⯑tion of the nature of that imputation of which we ſpeak. It is indeed im⯑poſſible that any finite perſon ſhould perform the works which are pecu⯑liar to one who is infinite. And as the judgment of God is always ac⯑cording to truth, it is equally impoſſi⯑ble that he ſhould ſo impute the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt unto us, as to judge that this Righteouſneſs is our own perſonal work. This therefore is not what the ſcriptures teach, neither [190] is it what any chriſtian pleads for.—But it was not impoſſible for the Eter⯑nal Word, who is an infinite Perſon, to take on him a finite nature; to unite himſelf to his elect, and be⯑come their ſurety: it was not impoſſi⯑ble for him, in their nature, and as their Surety to obey every jot and tit⯑tle of the moral law, and ſuffer its penalty; nor is it impoſſible for God to impute this unto the perſons for whom it was done; that is, it is not impoſſible for God to place it to their account, and, upon this ground, to juſ⯑tify them from all things, from which they could not be juſtified by their own perſonal performances. This is not impoſſible, but divinely true.—The Righteouſneſs of our Incarnate God, is ‘"unto and upon all them that believe;"’ but neither he who wrought, nor he who imputes this [191] Righteouſneis, nor they unto whom it is imputed, ever miſtake it for the workmanſhip of a finite perſon. It is ours becauſe it was wrought for us, and is imputed unto us; not becauſe it is our own perſonal performance. There is indeed ſuch a cloſe union between Chriſt and his elect, that, becauſe he died, roſe, and reigns, and becauſe his Righteouſneſs is divine; they alſo are repreſented as dead, riſen, reigning, and as made the Righteouſneſs of God; but they are all this IN HIM, who is their Head and Repreſentative. To obey and ſuf⯑fer in the ſecond Adam, is one thing; and to do ſo in our own Perſons, is another.—Conſidering therefore the nature and grounds of this imputation, the infinity of the Perſon of our Surety is ſo far from making the imputation of his Righteouſneſs impoſſible, that [192] the reverſe is true: for had he been a meer creature, he could have yeild⯑ed no obedience to the law of God beyond what was neceſsary for himſelf: much leſs could he make reconcilia⯑tion for the innumerable ſins of the whole redeemed company, and work a Righteouſneſs which ſhould be ade⯑quate to the demands of the law up⯑on them all. It was neceſſary, in⯑deed, that he ſhould be man; for otherwiſe he could neither obey the precepts nor ſuffer the penalty of the law given to man; but it was his DI⯑VINITY that gave ſufficient worth and efficacy to the whole.—There is, then, a likeneſs, and there is alſo a difference, between the Perſon of our Surety, and our perſons; and there is alſo a likeneſs and a difference be⯑tween what the law demanded of us, and what he performed as our Surety. [193] As the children were partakers of fleſh and blood, he alſo himſelf took part of the ſame: as we were under the law, he was made under it: as the law bound us to continue in all things that are written therein, he came to fulfil every jot and tittle of the law, and he always did thoſe things that were pleaſing in his Father's fight: and as we were expoſed to the righteous curſe of a broken law, ſo the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, and he ſuffered the juſt for the unjuſt. Thus far there is a likeneſs. But mark the difference: we were mere creatures, He was the Great Creator: the obedience which the law demanded of us, was only the o⯑bedience of mere men: but His is the Righteouſneſs of God: becauſe we could never ſatisfy divine juſtice for our ſins, we were doomed to end⯑leſs [194] miſery; but he being fully able to do this, his ſufferings had an end.

2. I think it has been proved that Chriſt ſuffered for the ſins of his peo⯑ple, not only in his death, but alſo through the whole courſe of his life; conſequently he muſt have ſtood as our Surety all that time: and if he did ſo in ſuffering the penalty of the law, why not in obeying its precepts?

3. I think we have alſo proved, that the Incarnate God had no occa⯑ſion to obey the moral law for him⯑ſelf; at leaſt not in the manner in which he did obey it all through his ſtate of humiliation; conſequently it was for us he did ſo, and not for him⯑ſelf.

4. Although the love which Chriſt manifeſted in his death, is undoubt⯑edly included in his Righteouſneſs, and is the moſt eminent inſtance of it; [195] yet we cannot think that this was all he intended, when he ſaid he came to fulfil every jot and tittle of the law. This expreſſion evidently includes, not only the ‘"weightier matters of the law,"’ ſuch as perfect love to God and man; but alſo all ‘"the leaſt of thoſe commandments,"’ wherein that love ſhould be expreſſed. And we find that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt does in fact anſwer to the moſt minute, as well as the moſt important duties of the law. It is univerſal, and in every reſpect perfect. Neither the greateſt nor the leaſt precept was neglected by him. He laid down his life for his brethren, in obedience to the high command of his Father, and he was ſubject to Joſeph and Mary,^* in con⯑formity to the fifth precept of the law. And it ſhould be obſerved that he did [196] all this becauſe it was eaſier for heaven and earth to paſs away, than for one tittle of the law to fail.

5. Chriſt's obedience to the law was not only univerſal, but conſtant. Nor was this unneceſſary; for although this law could have had no dominion over him, if he had not been made under it to redeem; yet, after he was made under it, he was bound to obey it in all points, and to continue his obedience unto the end. There⯑fore all that Chriſt did in obedience to this law, is eſſential to his Righteouſ⯑neſs.

6. I think it muſt be granted that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, taken in the moſt proper and complete ſenſe of the word, includes the whole of his obedience, from his infancy to his death; and why ſhould we underſtand it as intending any thing ſhort of this, [197] when our juſtification is aſcribed di⯑rectly to it. But,—

7. We call upon the Objector to produce one ſingle text of ſcripture, wherein the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt muſt neceſſarily be underſtood as not including the whole of his conformity to the moral law, or eternal rule of Righteouſneſs.

I ſhall conclude this Eſſay in the words of DR. J. OWEN.