1. His divine righteousness belongs to his divine nature, as he is Ὁ ὠν. He that existeth, over all, God, blessed for ever: the supreme, the eternal: “Equal with the Father, as touching his godhead, tho’ inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood.” Now this is his eternal, essential, immutable holiness; his infinite justice, mercy and truth: in all which he and the Father are one.
But I do not apprehend that the divine righteousness of Christ, is immediately concerned in the present question. I believe few, if any, do now contend, for the imputation of this righteousness to us. Whoever believes the doctrine of imputation, understand it chiefly, if not solely of his human righteousness.
2. The human righteousness of Christ, belongs to him in his human nature; as he is the Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. This is either internal or external. His internal righteousness is the image of God, stampt on every power and faculty of his soul. It is a copy of his divine righteousness, so far as it can be imparted to a human spirit. It is a transcript of the divine purity, the divine justice, mercy and truth. It includes love, reverence, resignation to his Father; humility, meekness, gentleness; love to lost mankind, and every other holy and heavenly temper: and all these in the highest degree, without any defect, or mixture of unholiness.
3. It was the least part of his external righteousness, that he did nothing amiss: that he knew no outward sin of any kind, neither was guile found in his mouth: that he never spoke one improper word, nor did one improper action. Thus far it is only a negative righteousness, tho’ such an one as never did, nor ever can belong to any one that is born of a woman, save himself alone. But even his outward righteousness was positive too. He did all things well. In every word of his tongue, in every work of his hands, he did precisely the will of him that sent him. In the whole course of his life, he did the will of God on earth, as the angels do it in heaven. All he acted and spoke was exactly right in every circumstance. The whole and every part of his obedience was complete. He fulfilled all righteousness.
4. But his obedience implied more than all this: it implied not only doing, but suffering: suffering the whole will of God, from the time he came into the world, till he bore our sins in his own body upon the tree: yea, till having made a full atonement for them, he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. This is usually termed the passive righteousness of Christ, the former, his active righteousness. But as the active and passive righteousness of Christ were never in fact separated from each other, so we never need separate them at all, in speaking or even thinking. And it is with regard to boththese conjointly, that Jesus is called The Lord our righteousness.
II. But when is it, that any of us may truly say, The Lord our righteousness? In other words, when is it that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and in what sense is it imputed?
1. Look thro’ all the world, and all the men therein are either believers or unbelievers. The first thing then which admits of no dispute among reasonable men is this. To all believers the righteousness of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not.
“But when is it imputed?” When they believe. In that very hour the righteousness of Christ is theirs. It is imputed to every one that believes, as soon as he believes: faith and the righteousness of Christ are inseparable. For if he believes according to scripture, he believes in the righteousness of Christ. There is no true faith, that is, justifying faith, which hath not the righteousness of Christ for its object.
2. It is true, believers may not all speak alike; they may not all use the same language. It is not to be expected that they should: we cannot reasonably require it of them. A thousand circumstances may cause them to vary from each other, in the manner of expressing themselves. But a difference of expression does notnecessarily imply a difference of sentiment. Different persons may use different expressions, and yet mean the same thing. Nothing is more common than this, although we seldom make sufficient allowance for it. Nay, it is not easy for the same persons, when they speak of the same thing at a considerable distance of time, to use exactly the same expressions, even though they retain the same sentiments. How then can we be rigorous, in requiring others, to use just the same expressions with us?
3. We may go a step farther yet. Men may differ from us, in their opinions as well as their expressions, and nevertheless be partakers with us, of the same precious faith. ’Tis possible they may not have a distinct apprehension, of the very blessing which they enjoy. Their ideas may not be so clear, and yet their experience may be as sound as ours. There is a wide difference between the natural faculties of men, their understandings, in particular. And that difference is exceedingly increased, by the manner of their education. Indeed this alone may occasion an inconceivable difference, in their opinions of various kinds. And why not, upon this head, as well as on any other? But still, though their opinions as well as expressions, may be confused and inaccurate, their hearts may cleave to God through the Son of his love, and be truly interested in his righteousness.