A89732:453
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.
This distinction in name, but in truth a Sophism, is used as a crutch to support the halting doctrine of the non-imputation of sin unto Christ.
Christs death as a Mediator (saith the distinction) was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor: the Jews are said to put Christ to death, because they endeavoured to put him to death, but did not separate his soul from his body; in that sense they did not put him to death, so is the distinction expressly interpreted, pag. 100.
Christs death as a Mediatour (saith the distinction) was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor: the Jews are said to put Christ to death, because they endeavoured to put him to death, but did not separate his soul from his body; in that sense they did not put him to death, so is the distinction expresly interpreted, pag. 100.
If Christs death was a suffering then the formal cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body, so often mentioned by the Dialogue, otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter, yea, and in this case his own Executioner, which last the Dialogue it self expressly rejecteth. But the Dialogue resuming and insisting further upon this distinction elsewhere, let the fuller speaking thereunto be referred till then.
If Christs death was a suffering then the formall cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body, so often mentioned by the Dialogue, otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter, yea, and in this case his own Executioner, which last the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth. But the Dialogue resuming and insisting further upon this distinction elsewhere, let the fuller speaking thereunto be referred till then.