To this purpose is his discourse, part iii. cap. 5. De Servat. : " Jam vero manifestum est, Christum quia homo natus fuerat, et quid em, ut inquit Paulus, factus sub lege, legi divinas inquam, qua3 roterua et immutabilis est, non minus quam casteri homines obnoxiuni fuisse. Alioqui potuisset Christus geternam Dei legem negligere, sive etiam universam si voluisset infringere, qviod impium est vel cogitare. Immo ut supra alicubi explicatum fuit, nisi ipse Christus legi divinge servandae obnoxius fuisset, ut ex Pauli verbis colligitur, non potuis- set iis, qui ei legi servandas obnoxii sunt, opem ferre et eos ad im- mortalitatis firmam spem traducere. Non differebat igitur hac qui- dem ex parte Christus, quando homo natus erat, a ca?teris hominibus. Quocirca nee etiam pro aliis, magis quam quilibet alius homo, legem divinam conservando satisfacere potuit, C[uippe qui ipse earn servare omnino debuit." I have transcribed his words, that it may appear
THE IMPUTATION OF CHRIST S OBEDIENCE. 255
with whose weapons some young disputers among ourselves do con- tend against the truth.
The substance of his plea is, — that our Lord Jesus Christ was for himself, or on his own account, obliged unto all that obedience which he performed. And this he endeavours to prove with this reason, — " Because if it were otherwise, then he might, if he would, have neglected the whole law of God, and have broken it at his pleasure." For he forgot to consider, that if he were not obliged unto it upon his o^vn account, but was so on ours, whose cause he had undertaken, the obligation on him unto most perfect obedience was equal to what it would have been had he been originally obliged on his own ac- count. However, hence he infers " That what he did could not be for us, because it was so for himself ; no more than what any other man is bound to do in a way of duty for himself can be esteemed to have been done also for another." For he will allow of none of those con- siderations of the person of Christ which make what he did and suf- fered of another nature and efficacy than what can be done or suf- fered by any other man. All that he adds in the process of his dis- course is, — " That whatever Christ did that was not required by the law in general, was upon the especial command of God, and so done for himself; whence it cannot be imputed unto us." And hereby he excludes the church from any benefit by the mediation of Christ, ])ut only what consists in his doctrine, example, and the exercise of his power in heaven for our good ; which was the thing that he aimed at. But we shall consider those also which make use of his arguments, though not as yet openly unto all his ends.
To clear the truth herein, the things ensuing must be observed, — 1. The obedience we treat of was the obedience of Christ the me- diator: but the obedience of Christ, as "the mediator of the cove- nant," was the obedience of his person; for " God redeemed his church with his own blood," Acts xx. 28. It was performed in tlie human nature; but the person of Christ was he that performed it. As in the person of a man, some of his acts, as to the immediate principle of operation, are acts of the body, and some are so of the soul ; yet, in their performance and accomplishment, are they the acts of the person: so the acts of Christ in his mediation, as to their hspyrifiara, or immediate operation, were the actings of his distinct natures, — some of the divine and some of the human, immediately; but as unto their d'^ronXsff/Mara, and the perfecting efficacy of them, they were the acts of his whole person, — his acts who was that person, and whose power of operation was a property of his person. Where- fore, the obedience of Christ, which we plead to have been for us, was tlie obedience of the Son of God ; but the Son of God was never ab- solutely made ucro y6,'j,ov, — " under the law," — nor could be formally
256 ox JUSTIFICATION.
obliged thereby. He was, indeed, as tlie apostle witnesseth, made so in his human nature, wherein he performed this obedience : " Made of a woman, made under the law," Gal. iv. 4. He was so far forth made under the law, as he was inade of a woman ; for in his person he abode " Lord of the sabbath," Mark ii. 28; and therefore of the whole law. But the obedience itself was the obedience of that per- son who never was, nor ever could absolutely be, made under the law in his whole person; for the divine nature cannot be subjected unto an outward work of its own, siich "as tlie' law is, nor can it have an authoritative, commanding power over it, as it must have if it were made t-Tro v6/jlov, — " under the law." Thus the apostle argues that " Levi paid tithes in Abraham," because he was then in his loins, when Abraham himself paid tithes unto Melchizedek, Heb. vii. And thence he proves that he was inferior imto the Lord Christ, of whom Melchizedek was a type. But may it not thereon be replied, that then no less the Lord Christ was in the loins of Abraham than Levi? " For verily," as the same apostle speaks, "he took on him the seed of Abraham." It is true, therefore, that he was so in re- spect of his human nature; but as he was typed and represented by Melchizedek in his whole person, " without father, w^ithout mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life," so he was not absolutely in Abraham's loins, and was exempted from being tithed in him. Wherefore, the obedience whereof we treat, being not the obedience of the human nature abstractedly, however jDer- formed in and by the human nature; but the obedience of the person of the Son of God, however the human nature was subject to the law (in what sense, and unto Avhat ends, shall be declared afterward) ; it was not for himself, nor could be for himself; because his whole person was not obliged thereunto. It is therefore a fond thing, to compare the obedience of Christ with that of any other man, whose whole person is under the law. For although that may not be for himself and others (which yet we shall show that in some cases it may), yet this may, yea, must be for others, and not for himself. This, then, we must strictly hold unto. If the obedience that Christ yielded unto the law were for himself, whereas it was the act of his person, Jiis tuhole jjerson, and the divine nature therein, were " made under the law;" which cannot be. For although it is acknowledged that, in the ordination of God, his exinanition was to precede his glorious, majestical exaltation, as the Scripture witnesseth, Phil. ii. 9 ; Luke xxiv. 26; Rom. xiv. 9; yet absolutely his glory was an imme- diate consequent of the hypostatical union, Heb. i. 6; Matt. ii. 11.