A89732:710
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.
Answ. None that believeth the Scriptures doubts of Christs being in respect of his Divine nature, a Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, but that Christs Priestly nature was his Divine nature only, that is, that Christ was only a Priest according to his Divine nature, which the language of the Dialogue seemeth to hold forth, is a great error; the common principles of Religion tell us that the Priesthood is a part of the Mediatorly office. Christ as Mediator is God man, therefore as Priest he is Godman. Parts are of the same nature with the whole. Necessary it is, say the Catechisms, that the Mediator should be both God and Man: he must be man, else he could not be a meet sacrifice; he must be God or else his sacrifice could not have been effectual.
Answ. None that beleeveth the Scriptures doubts of Christs being in respect of his Divine nature, a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck, but that Christs Priestly nature was his Divine nature only, that is, that Christ was only a Priest according to his Divine nature, which the language of the Dialogue seemeth to hold forth, is a great errour; the common principles of Religion tell us that the Priesthood is a part of the Mediatorly office. Christ as Mediator is God man, therefore as Priest he is Godman. Parts are of the same nature with the whole. Necessary it is, say the Catechisms, that the Mediatour should be both God and Man: he must be man, else he could not be a meet sacrifice; he must be God or else his sacrifice could not have been effectuall.
Christ was both Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar. The humane nature only suffered (therefore most properly was the sacrifice) yet so, as in Personal union with the Godhead, the Divine nature was that which upheld the humane: The person consisting of both natures was the Priest.
Christ offered up himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death, which consideration might have prevented that objection in this place: though the union of the body with the soul was dissolved by death,