A89732:962
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.
Whence the reason is plain, why notwithstanding both righteousness or justice, and the pardon of sins be by Divines frequently made ingredients into the definition of justification, yet righteousness and pardon of sins are not to be looked at as the same thing. Such definitions are not (nor is it by the Author thereof so intended) perfect definitions adequate to thing defined, but they are descriptions or imperfect definitions, so expressed as best seems to communicate the truth unto the capacity of the reader. Again, Justification is an accident, now Logicians teach us such definitions of accidents to be oftentimes helpful to the understanding that make use of other terms besides those which are essential. If pardon of sin were a part of a sinners righteousness, yet being but a part, it could not be the whole. Pardon of sin cannot complete righteousness, because righteousness ⟨p. 212⟩doth not only consist in being sinless, but also in being just; the heavens are sinless, yet they are not just; the Law is not satisfied with negative obedience. Not only he that doth do what the Law forbiddeth shall die, Gen. 2.17. but he that continueth not in the things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3.10. Being sinless acquits from obnoxiousness unto hell, but being just giveth a right unto heaven. There is an observable difference between being unjust,1 not-unjust, not-just, just. The sinner yet not a believer is unjust; the unreasonable creature is not-unjust. Adam in innocency was more then not-unjust, yet was not just. The Believer is just.
Whence the reason is plain, why notwithstanding both righteousnesse or justice, and the pardon of sins be by Divines frequently made ingredients into the definition of justification, yet righteousnesse and pardon of sins are not to be looked at as the same thing. Such definitions are not (nor is it by the Authour thereof so intended) perfect definitions adequate to thing defined, but they are descriptions or imperfect definitions, so expressed as best seems to communicate the truth unto the capacity of the reader. Again, Justification is an accident, now Logicians teach us such definitions of accidents to be oftentimes helpful to the understanding that make use of other terms besides those which are essentiall. If pardon of sin were a part of a sinners righteousnesse, yet being but a part, it could not be the whole. Pardon of sin cannot compleat righteousnesse, because righteousnesse