A89732:293
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.
We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ: the live-goat and the scape-goat were both types of Christ, that of him dying, this of him delivered from death: sin was laid upon the scape goat not after but before ⟨p. 52⟩its escape; and signifieth that notwithstanding his bearing of sin typified by both goats, yet after he had suffered, which was typified by the killed goat, he then should be delivered from those sufferings which were typified by the scapegoat: and thus by the doctrine of the Scapegoat Christ is risen again, ascended, and sits at the right hand of God the Father acquitted from all sin.
Dialogu. But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands with confession of sins of Gods imputation: but they understood it to be a typical sign of the faith of dependence upon Christs sacrifice of Atonement; and so much the prayer of the High-Priest imports. See Ainsworth Lev. 16.21.
Dialogu. But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands with confession of sins of Gods imputation: but they understood it to be a typicall sign of the faith of dependance upon Christs sacrifice of Atonement; and so much the prayer of the High-Priest imports. See Ainsworth Lev. 16.21.
Answ. M. Ainsworth on this very place saith, that this act showed how our sins should be imputed unto Christ; it is not likely therefore he so understood the Hebrew doctors, otherwise we might well think he would either have forborne a needless citation contrary in his judgement to the truth, or would have taken notice thereof. Neither is there any reason so to interpret their meaning from the words cited by him out of Maimony or yours out of him: the Atonement rightly understood is so far from opposing, that it presupposeth satisfaction to divine justice by the surety of the meritorious cause thereof.