A89732:175
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.
Your labour to confirm Adams falling into death in sin the same day that he sinned, is altogether impertinent: the Question being, Whether •uch penal death for sin is not here intended, as it was possible for Christ to suffer?1 That penal death for sin is here intended, Calvin proveth (though you omit his proof) by the nature of opposites, thus: The death that he fell into was opposite to the good he fell from. But the good he fell from was all kind of blessedness. Therefore the death he fell into comprehended all kinds of misery. This is the scope of his argumentation, your mistake thereof, though it is easily pardoned; yet your other defect in the citation, the Reader that compareth Calvin and the Dialogue together can hardly excuse.
Your labour to confirm Adams falling into death in sin the same day that he sinned, is altogether impertinent: the Question being, Whether •uch poenall death for sin is not here intended, as it was possible for Christ to suffer?1 That poenall death for sin is here intended, Calvin proveth (though you omit his proof) by the nature of opposites, thus: The death that he fell into was opposite to the good he fell from. But the good he fell from was all kinde of blessednesse. Therefore the death he fell into comprehended all kindes of misery. This is the scope of his argumentation, your mistake thereof, though it is easily pardoned; yet your other defect in the citation, the Reader that compareth Calvin and the Dialogue together can hardly excuse.
- 1Mihi definitio petenda ex opposito videtur: tenendum inquā est ex quâ vitâ homo ceciderit; erat enim omni ex parte beatus. Calvin in loc.Mihi definitio petenda ex opposito videtur: tenendum inquā est ex quâ vitâ homo ceciderit; erat enim omni ex parte beatus. Calvin in loc.