A89732:289
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.
Part 1 › Chapter 6: The Vindication of Exod. 20.10. Lev. 1.4. & 4.29. Lev. 8.14. & 16.20, 21.
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.
The Question is not whether this rite of Imposition of hands with confession of sin doth represent Gods laying of the sins of the Elect upon Christ: but whether the sins of the elect were laid upon Christ by God?
The Question is not whether this rite of Imposition of hands with confession uf sin doth represent Gods laying of the sins of the Elect upon Christ: but whether the sins of the elect were laid upon Chtist by God?
2. In disputing for these rites to signify faith of dependence, you do not only not dispute against us, but in conclusion against your self, because the faith of the truth controverted, is included in the faith of dependence; nor do you in your whole discourse concerning it interpose a syllable to the contrary, to provide against the retorting of your Argument upon your self.
2. In disputing for these rites to signifie faith of dependance, you do not only not dispute against us, but in conclusion against your self, because the faith of the truth controverted, is included in the faith of dependance; nor do you in your whole discourse concerning it interpose a syllable to the contrary, to provide against the retorting of your Argument upon your self.
The conclusion then you argue for being for us, though we approve not your arguments, we think it best to pass them by, and ease the Reader of so much impertinence, only minding you that your assertion so often used, viz. that they imposed hands, and leaned upon the sacrifice with all their might, is groundless, whatsoever you refer us to in Ainsworth out of Maimony: neither the Hebrew text, nor any other reason countenancing of it.
The conclusion then you argue for being for us, though we approve not your arguments, we think it best to passe them by, and ease the Reader of so much impertinence, only minding you that your assertion so often used, viz. that they imposed hands, and leaned upon the sacrifice with all their might, is groundlesse, whatsoever you refer us to in Ainsworth out of Maimony: neither the Hebrew text, nor any other reason countenancing of it.