A89732:550
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 premised, the error of the description is manifest, which holds only concerning the pain of loss, as it is an accidental part of punishment, and belongs to the Reprobate, but not as it is of the essence of punishment, in which sense it is only true of Christ.
This premised, the errour of the description is manifest, which holds only concerning the pain of losse, as it is an accidentall part of punishment, and belongs to the Reprobate, but not as it is of the essence of punishment, in which sense it is only true of Christ.
The description of the pain of loss, viz. that it is the privation of Gods favour by an eternal Separation, is untrue, imperfect, and impertinent.
The description of the pain of losse, viz. that it is the privation of Gods favour by an eternall Separation, is untrue, imperfect, and impertinent.
First, It is untrue, because
1. It affirmeth a privation of Gods favour, where Gods favour never was, which is as if we should in Logic suppose a privation where never was an habit.