A89732:663
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.
But how doth this either prove the bearing of the curse really to be no part of the obedience of the Mediator, which the argumentation intends (though the obedience whereof the Text speaketh intends the contrary) or inform the Reader what the Dialogue means by its new Mediatorly obedience, which the order of disputation here called for.
The Dialogue denying the received doctrine concerning the Passive obedience of Christ as Mediator, yet acknowledging a Mediatorly obedience, but not giving any tolerable description of it in any one place, whence the ordinary Reader may know what it, is only here and there mentions the name thereof, and occasionally adding to that name, such a something as indeed renders it a dark nothing, which manner of handling it, is rather a snare then a guide to the less attentive Reader, before we proceed to examine the arguments for this new Mediatorly obedience, what the rules of disputation required of the Author, namely, that he should first have given us some such definition or description thereof, whence we might have understood what it is that he so much contends for: (for to be willing to dispute (say the Logicians) before we understand certainly what is the Question, is to be willing to lose our time; and that serious and affectionate counsel of Keckerman is here seasonable;1 Let us not (saith he) dispute of any thing in Divinity before the various signification of that whereof we dispute is diligently distinguished,) that I shall endeavour to supply, namely, to acquaint the Reader with what the Dialogue intends by its new Mediatorly obedience, according to what is to be collected out of it self, comparing one place with another, whereto I shall also subjoin a description of Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox, that so the Reader conferring both together, may the better judge both of the question and disputation: Truth loves the light, and error lurks in ambiguities.
The Dialogue denying the received doctrine concerning the Passive obedience of Christ as Mediator, yet acknowledging a Mediatorly obedience, but not giving any tolerable description of it in any one place, whence the ordinary Reader may know what it, is only here and there mentions the name thereof, and occasionally adding to that name, such a something as indeed renders it a dark nothing, which manner of handling it, is rather a snare then a guide to the lesse attentive Reader, before we proceed to examine the arguments for this new Mediatorly obedience, what the rules of disputation required of the Authour, namely, that he should first have given us some such definition or description thereof, whence we might have understood what it is that he so much contends for: (for to be willing to dispute (say the Logicians) before we undrstand certainly what is the Question, is to be willing to lose our time; and that serious and affectionate counsell of Keckerman is here seasonable;