A89732:851
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.
If it were unjust for God to justify otherwise then legally, then it were unjust for God to justify in the way of the Dialogue, viz. by atonement or acceptilation without all legal obedience, it is more against legal justification to justify without legal obedience, personal, or otherwise; then to justify by the legal obedience ⟨p. 186⟩of another:1 the Dialogue by this reason fights as much or rather more against it self then against us; the fallacy lieth in asserting that in an unlimited sense which holds only in a limited sense: God cannot justify man fallen legally, ergò he cannot justify man fallen Evangelically, by the righteousness of another; is not only a meer non-consequence in reason, but also a Pestilence in religion.
If it were unjust for God to justifie otherwise then legally, then it were unjust for God to justifie in the way of the Dialogue, viz. by atonement or acceptilation without all legall obedience, it is more against legall justification to justifie without legall obedience, personal, or otherwise; then to justifie by the legall obedience ⟨p. 186⟩of another:1 the Dialogue by this reason fights as much or rather more against it self then against us; the fallacy lieth in asserting that in an unlimited sense which holds only in a limited sense: God cannot justifie man fallen legally, ergò he cannot justifie man fallen Evangelically, by the righteousnesse of another; is not only a meer non-consequence in reason, but also a Pestilence in religion.
- 1Sophisma à limitato ad non limitatum.
Dialogu. It's evident that God never propounded the Law of works to the fallen sons of Adam, with any intent at all that ever any of the fallen sons of Adam should seek for justification and atonement in Gods sight by Legal obedience, but his intent was directly contrary, for when he propounded the Legal promise of life eternal to the fallen sons of Adam, he did propound it upon condition of their own personal obedience, to allure them thereby to search into their own natural unrighteousness, by this perfect rule of Legal righteousness, so by this Law of life God intended chiefly to make the soul of the fallen sons of Adam to be sensible of their own spiritual death in corruption and sin, thereby to provoke our souls to seek for life some other way, viz. by the mediation of the Mediator promised; So it follows by good consequence that God did never intend to justify any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person, nor yet by our Saviours obedience imputed as the formal cause of a sinners justification or righteousness.