π₯π₯π₯
This excellency of the subject notwithstanding ought not to dull the edge of our most diligent search into it, but sharpen it rather, to endeavour so to define justification, that we may justify our definition. Which we cannot do, without distinguishing of a three-fold righteousness: first, a perfect righteousness, but not inherent; of which, 2 Cor. 5.21. secondly, inherent, but not perfect; of which, Luke 1.75. and Apoc. 22.11. thirdly, perfect and inherent, of which, Heb. 12.23. The first, is the righteousness by which we are justified; the second, by which we are sanctified; and the third, by which we are glorified.
The first consisteth as well of Christβs active as his passive obedience, and in the imputation thereof by faith consisteth the essence of our justification, which may be thus defined: an act of God, whereby he acquitteth every penitent and believing sinner, by not imputing to him his sins, and imputing to him the perfect satisfaction and righteousness of Christ.
Every part of this definition may be proved by clear testimonies of Scripture; and besides, it hath that β¦ certain mark or touch-stone of a true definition, that it meeteth with all doubts, and confronteth all errors broached against the nature of justification: first, the error of the Libertines, by that clause, every penitent: secondly, of the Antinomians, in the clause, not imputing their sin: thirdly, the Socinians, in the clause, perfect satisfaction: and lastly, the Arminians and Papists, in the last clause, imputing Christβs righteousness, no habit or act of ours, no, not the act of faith.
βDaniel Featley, Sacra nemesis, The Leviteβs scourge, or, Mercurius disciplined.