A89732:1148
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. What is to be understood by death, see in the vindication of Gen. 2.17. The Dialogue not enduring the imputation either of our disobedience unto Christ, or of Christs obedience unto us, to avoid the Apostles argument taken from the imputation of Adams disobedience to mankind, Rom. 5. denieth that we are guilty of Adams sin, acknowledging only that we receive from Adam a corrupt nature or a spiritual death in sin, viz. that which we call original sin.
Answ. What is to be understood by death, see in the vindication of Gen. 2.17. The Dialogue not enduring the imputation either of our disobedience unto Christ, or of Christs obedience unto us, to avoid the Apostles argument taken from the imputation of Adams disobedience to mankinde, Rom. 5. denieth that we are guilty of Adams sin, acknowledging only that we receive from Adam a corrupt nature or a spirituall death in sin, viz. that which we call originall sin.
Whilst you acknowledge corruption of nature to be the punishment of Adams sinful eating, and yet deny that we sinned in eating the forbidden fruit, you make a contradiction, for there can be no punishment without sin, and by consequence also you put injustice upon God, who notwithstanding by his absolute will he might, yet having limited himself he doth not afflict without sin.
Whilest you acknowledge corruption of nature to be the punishment of Adams sinfull eating, and yet deny that we sinned in eating the forbidden fruit, you make a contradiction, for there can be no punishment without sin, and by consequence also you put injustice upon God, who notwithstanding by his absolute will he might, yet having limited himself he doth not afflict without sin.