And I. What is the righteousness of Christ? It is twofold, either his divine or his human righteousness.
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 both these 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 not necessarily 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?