A89732:1127
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.
Imputation which is the formal cause of justification, is a transient act, and is the effect of the Father taken essentially. Our Question is not concerning the formal but the material cause of justification.
Imputation which is the formall cause of justification, is a transient act, and is the effect of the Father taken essentially. Our Question is not concerning the formall but the materiall cause of justification.
Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his shifts to declare that Christs passive Obedience is the matter of a sinners righteousness, by a distinction between Christ as he was our Lamb for Sacrifice in his humane nature, and as he was our Priest in his divine nature; for else he did ⟨p. 251⟩foresee, that he should run into an exceeding gross absurdity, if he had made any action of Christs God-head or Priestly nature to have been a sinners righteousness by imputation: Therefore to avoid that absurdity he doth place a sinners righteousness in his passive obedience only. His distinction between Christ as he was a Lamb for sacrifice in his humane nature, and as he is our Priest in his Divine nature is very ill applied, because he makes Christs passive obedience to be meritorious and satisfactory, excluding him as he is our Priest.
Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his shifts to declare that Christs passive Obedience is the matter of a sinners righteousnesse, by a distinction between Christ as he was our Lamb for Sacrifice in his humane nature, and as he was our Priest in his divine nature; for else he did ⟨p. 251⟩foresee, that he should run into an exceeding grosse absurdity, if he had made any action of Christs God-head or Priestly nature to have been a sinners righteousnesse by imputation: Therefore to avoid that absurdity he doth place a sinners righteousnesse in his passive obedience only. His distinction between Christ as he was a Lamb for sacrifice in his humane nature, and as he is our Priest in his Divine nature is very ill applied, because he makes Christs passive obedience to be meritorious and satisfactory, excluding him as he is our Priest.