A Vindication, Instance 6
Inſtance 6. If Chriſt be but a meer creature, then the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which is imputed to believers, is not the righteouſneſſe of God, but the righteouſneſſe of a meer creature: but this is againſt the tenure of the Scripture, Phil. 3. 9.
To this he thus anſwers.
I ſuppoſe from ſome terms in your Inſtance, and From the text you alledge, that by righteouſneſse you mean that righteouſneſse whereby believers ſtand in the ſight of God free and cleare from all ſin, in reference to the curſe of the Law; thus he is the righteouſneſse of God, through the faith of Jeſus Christ, (that is, that in Jeſus Chriſt which is the object of faith) unto all, and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3. 22. God is the principall Author, Chriſt the instrumentall Agent.
Rep. It is evident I can meane no other righteouſneſſe then that which he mentions, whereby believers ſtand cleare from all ſin in reference to the ſtain and pollution of ſin, as well as in reference to the curſe of the Law.
Now what is it that he anſwers to this? He produceth a text out of Rom. 3. 22. by the mention of which he would divert the eyes of the Reader from the conſideration of Philip. 3. 9. (which was the Text that I produced for the confirmation of my Inſtance, or Argument) and would carry them to the conſideration of another Text which ſpeaks a truth, concerning which there is no controverſie betwixt him and me: He tells me of a righteouſneſſe of God by the Faith of Jeſus Chriſt, and of Gods being the principall Author of this righteouſneſſe, which I grant, though not in his ſenſe, for he means it of the Father alone, but I underſtand it of Father, Son, and Spirit, this God is the efficient à quo, the efficient from whom righteouſneſſe is, for it is he that doth account perſons that believe righteous, and doth acquit them from ſin for the ſake of Chriſt, Rom. 8. 33. 34. Epheſ. 4. 32.
But what is this to the purpoſe? is this any Anſwer to my Argument, or to the Scripture I produced? I ſpake of a righteouſneſſe imputed to believers, which is the materiall cauſe of a believers juſtification, or of his righteouſneſſe in the ſight of God; and the imputation of this righteouſneſſe is the formall cauſe of Juſtification, and this righteouſneſſe that is imputed, is called the righteouſneſſe of God, Philip. 3. 9. but he tells me of a righteouſneſſe of God, which is from God as the Author or principall Efficient, which is only true in this ſenſe, as God is he that appointed, decreed and inſtituted the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt for the Juſtification of Beleevers, and doth alſo pronounce them juſt upon that account. But the Apoſtle Philip. 3. 9. doth not call the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt the righteouſneſſe of God in that ſenſe, the words are theſe, That I may be found in him, not having on mine own righteouſneſſe, which is of the Law, but that which is through Faith of Christ, the righteouſneſſe which is of God through Faith. The Apoſtle in this place ſpeaks of a righteouſneſſe which is by the Faith of Chriſt materially, as it is oppoſite to that righteouſneſſe which he calls his own righteouſneſſe; and the one, viz. his own righteouſneſſe, he calls the righteouſneſſe which is ex Lege, of the Law: now this muſt be underſtood materially, not efficiently; God did account perſons juſt while the Covenant of works was afoot, in reference to righteouſneſſe, which materially did conſiſt in our obedience of the Law, the obedience of the Law was the matter of it, therefore it is called the righteouſneſſe which is of the Law. The other, viz. that righteouſneſſe which is through the Faith of Chriſt that is, which is conveyed to us through Faith viz. Chriſt) he calls the righteouſneſſe which is of God, not efficiently but materially, for it is foreign, ex Deo, not à Deo, of God, not from God. God now accounts perſons juſt (this Covenant of Grace being on foot) in reference to righteouſneſſe, not ours of the Law, but that of God, viz. that of the perſon who is God, the active and paſſive obedience of Chriſt who is God, which Faith in Chriſt poſſeſſeth us of, and makes ours inſtead of that which was ours, viz. that of the Law; for the Apoſtle ſpeaks of righteouſneſſe which he would not be found in, and of righteouſneſſe which he would be found in; the former is Lis own of the Law, the latter is of God by Faith; that is, of Chriſt, who is God, through faith in Chriſt. The Apoſtle ſpeaks not here of an Act of Grace in God, that imputes the righteouſneſſe of an other unto Beleevers, as theirs, and ſo accepts of it, but he ſpeaks of that which is imputed, and is become a covering in which he would be found; and this he calls the righteouſneſſe, not of the Law, but of God, viz. the obedience of that perſon who is Godman, viz. Chriſt.
Suitable to this is that which we read in 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be ſin for us, that we might be made the righteouſneſſe of God in him. Here Chriſt is ſpoken of as a ſinner, but it is in the abſtract, to ſhew what a great ſinner he was, and the cauſes hereof are mentioned; 1. God himſelf, viz. the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, this God made Chriſt (conſidered as Mediator and ſurety of the Elect) a ſinner, that is, he accounted him ſo: here is the Efficient à quo, from whom this was, this was God. 2. Here is the materiall cauſe, which is our ſins put on him, and made his, for he had none of his own, it was for us. 3. Here is alſo the formall cauſe, which is in the imputation of our ſins to him; it was for us that he was made, that is, by laying of our iniquities upon him inſtead of us, Iſay 53. 6. 4. Here is the finall cauſe that we might be made the righteouſneſſe of God in him, in which there is, 1. The efficient cauſe, that we might be made (that is) by God, accounted, reckoned by God. 2. There is the materiall cauſe, which is the righteouſneſſe of God, viz. of Chriſt, who is called in this place God, which is put on us, for we have no righteouſneſſe of our own, as Chriſt had no ſinnes of his own. 3. There is the formall cauſe, which is Imputation; we are made, that is, by this righteouſneſs of God put on us; therefore it is ſaid, through him; that is, through the Imputation of this righteouſneſſe of his, which is called the righteouſneſſe of God, or els through him, may be through faith in him.
He alſo makes Chriſt from this text of Rom. 3. 22. to be but an inſtrumentall Agent, in this righteouſneſſe of a believer; I ſuppoſe he draws it from theſe words [by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt] for he will have this particle [by] to refer to the inſtrumentalneſſe of the thing to which it doth belong: And if it were granted him in this, it would but make faith inſtrumentall, and not Chriſt; for it refers to faith, and not to Chriſt; It is not ſaid, By Ieſus Christ, but by the faith of Ieſus Chriſt▪ and Chriſt is mentioned as the object of this faith, which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of as the inſtrument. There is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which is called the righteouſneſſe of God, which God looks upon, and hath reſpect to, and for the ſake of which God accounts perſons juſt and righteous: and this righteouſneſſe is therefore reputed the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification; and faith layes hold of this, and is the inſtrument to convey it to us, and to make it ours: So that this text ſerves not his purpoſe, nor doth it at all help him in that aſſertion of his, viz. of Christs instrumentalneſse in agencie in reference to this righteouſneſſe. In the meane time he hath wholly paſſed over in ſilence the text that I alledged to prove my Argument by, without ſpeaking one word in anſwer, according to the manner in which he hath dealt with me formerly.
But he undertakes to ſhew what that is in Chriſt which is imputed to us for righteouſneſſe.
It is (ſaith he) his obedience which was both active and paſſive: The opinion now adayes (ſaith he) is that the active obedience of Chriſt, whereby he did perfectly fulfill the Law, and his paſſive obedience, whereby he did perfectly ſuffer the curſe of the Law, are imputed to us for righteouſneſſe. Now he could not (ſaith he) obey the Law as he was God, nor could he ſuffer the curſe of the Law but as he was man; and ſo that righteouſneſse of Chriſt which was imputed to us was a creature-righteouſneſse.
Rep. It is granted that it is the obedience of Chriſt, both active and paſſive, that is imputed to us for righteouſneſſe: But why he expreſſeth himſelf in ſuch language [the opinion now-adayes is ſuch] as if it were but an opinion, and not the truth of God; as if it were others opinion, not his own opinion: as if it were now-adayes the opinion, not the opinion of former times; and as if onelyonly he made uſe of it againſt me, and to promote his own aſſertion of a meer creature-righteouſneſſe imputed to us, and not that he did believe it (for ſo may any one judge that reads his expreſſion) I cannot conceive why he ſhould ſpeak thus if he be ſound in that point.
What ever his meaning may be in ſuch words, yet ſure I am his inference which he makes therefrom (notwithſtanding the reaſon wherewith he ſeemeth to inforce it) …s not right. He could not obey the Law as God, he could not ſuffer the curſe of the Law but as he was man, therefore his obedience which is imputed for righteouſneſse, was as he was a creature. There is a non ſequitur in it, …f it be put into the form of an Argument it will appear. If Chriſt could neither obey nor ſuffer but as a creature, then the obedience of Chriſt which is imputed for righteouſneſſe, is the obedience of a meer creature, for in that ſenſe he takes it: but the former is true, therefore the later. The conſequence in the major Propoſition is unſound, the reaſon is, becauſe though obedience be imputed for righteouſneſſe, yet not ſimply and meerly becauſe it was obedience, and anſwered the Law, but becauſe it was the obedience of ſuch a perſon who was ſo great and glorious, as that he was not leſſe then God, but very God, yet as God he performed it not, but as he was man; but the Godhead inabled the Manhood thereto, and did put the value, and worth, and rate, and price, upon that ſervice of the Manhood.
Nor do I underſtand how Chriſt (if he had been a meer creature) could have performed a righteouſneſſe that could have been reckoned to another, in as much as it would have been all due, wholely due to God, as from himſelf being a creature, becauſe of that abſolute Soveraignty in God over every creature; Nor doe I know how a meer creature-obedience can be imputed for righteouſneſſe to many millions of creatures, when yet any one of thoſe creatures to whom it is imputed muſt have done as much, and muſt have ſuffered as much in reference to his own tranſgreſſion, as that doing and ſuffering of Chriſt which is imputed to him amounts to, if Chriſt be but a meer creature.
And whereas he ſaith, He could not have obeyed the Law as he was God; I ſay, he could not (being but one) have obeyed the Law for ſo many, if he had not been God. He alſo ſaith, He could not have ſuffered the curſe of the Law but as he was man. But I ſay and ſhall prove it (I hope) before I finiſh this work, that if the had been no more but man, he could not have ſuffered the curſe of the Law for ſo many men.
The concluſion is this, that though a creature obeyed the Law, and a creature ſuffered the curſe of it, yet the perſon that did both the one and other was not a meer creature, but more then a creature; therefore the righteouſneſſe of this perſon was more then a meere creature righteouſneſſe.
But he ſaith, He made haſte to the ſeventh Inſtance; and it appeares he made more haſte then good ſpeed, when he left the maine work behind him undone, when he did out-run the Scripture, wherein the ſtrength of the Inſtance and Argument lay; yet as haſty as he is, though I take a little more leiſure, I doubt not but to overtake him at laſt.