A89732:1111
A discussion of that great point in divinity, the sufferings of Christ; and the…
A discussion of that great point in divinity, the sufferings of Christ; and the question about his righteousness active, passive : and the imputation thereof. Being an answer to a dialogue entitled The meritorious price of redemption, justification, &c. / By John Norton teacher of the church at Ipswich in New-England. Who was appointed to draw up this answer by the general court.A discussion of that great point in divinity, the sufferings of Christ; and the question about his righteousnesse active, passive : and the imputation thereof. Being an answer to a dialogue intituled The meritorious price of redemption, justification, &c. / By John Norton teacher of the church at Ipswich in New-England. Who was appointed to draw up this answer by the generall court.
London: printed by A.M. for Geo. Calvert, 1653
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Answ. The Dialogue here takes off it self from further acting the part of an opponent against the imputation of Christs Legal obedience both active and passive unto justification: and now proceeds to act the part of a Respondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alleged to prove that sinners are justified by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death. This it doth not as adhering to us wherein M. Forbes dissents (for it agreeth with him wherein he disagreeth) but as opposing him, wherein he consents with us in the doctrine of imputation.
Answ. The Dialogue here takes off it self from further acting the part of an opponent against the imputation of Christs Legall obedience both active and passive unto justification: and now proceeds to act the part of a Respondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alledged to prove that sinners are justified by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death. This it doth not as adhering to us wherein M. Forbes dissents (for it agreeth with him wherein he disagreeth) but as opposing him, wherein he consents with us in the doctrine of imputation.
That the answer therefore may be as full in the Vindication as the Dialogue pretends to be in the refutation of the Doctrine of the Orthodox, we shall examine the Dialogues examination, and [impertinences omitted] consider all that, and only that which herein concerns the Question.
Dialogu. Nothing (saith M. Forbes) is made of God to be a sinners righteousness but Jesus Christ alone and his righteousness, and this he proves by 1 Cor. 1.30. Jer. 23.26. with other places. The Apostle saith that Christ was made of God unto us righteousness, but how? not as the doctrine of imputation speaketh, but thus, God made him to be our righteousness in a Mediatorial way, by ordaining him to be the only meritorious procuring