guish between the active and passive righteousness of Christ, as if his death atoned for our sins, and his obedience to the law constituted a meritorious righteousness, to be made over to us in a way of imputation0: and this may perhaps be warranted by what is said by the Apostle, " Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin (a sin-offering) for us, that we (who neither had, nor could have, any righteousness of our own) might be made the righteousness of God in himd." But whatever ground there may appear to be in Scripture for this distinction, the two can never be separated from each other : the whole of Christ's life and sufferings constituted his one obedience unto death, by which salvation, in its full extent, was purchased for use: and he who partakes of salvation, receives it, not in part only, but in the full extent to which it has been obtained for him. It is obvious that a man whose iniquities stood in need of pardon, could not purchase heaven by any merits of his own. He could neither possess, nor procure by any works of his own, a righteousness wherein to stand before God. Yet such a righteousness he must have : and if he ever possess such a righteousness, it must be, by having the righteousness of another imputed to him. When therefore the Apostle quotes the words of David, he puts upon them the true construction which they were designed to bear: for though David, in words, speaks only of a non- imputation of sin, he must of necessity be considered as speaking also of an imputation of righteousness without works, seeing that the one is of necessity involved in the other, and can never exist without it.
Now then take the words of David in this sense, and say whether that man who is clothed in the robe of the Redeemer's righteousness, and so covered, that God himself cannot behold a spot or blemish in him, be not "blessedf?" Surely it is impossible to entertain a doubt of this, or to withhold for a moment our assent to David's assertion, according to the con- struction put upon it by the Apostle Paul.]
3. According as they stood associated in David's mind —
[David says, " Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile" But these concluding words the Apostle entirely omits. What was his reason for this ? Did Paul conceive that any man who was not purged from "guile" could be happy ? or had he less jealousy on the subject of holiness than David ? Why then did he stop short, and quote the words of David in such an imperfect way? Did he act thus by accident only, or by design ? Surely this matter needs explanation.
c Rom. v. 19. i 2 Cor. v. 21. e Phil. ii. 8. f Eph. v. 27.