A89732:728
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.
That which the Dialogue is to prove, is, that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ whereby we are redeemed, is by way of price only, not by way of Suretyship and just satisfaction unto the Law: but that which it here saith, is, that the blood of Christ was shed with a large and liberal quantity, that his blood was shed for the atonement of mens souls, that the blood that was shed was the blood of him that was God, all which are true, but conclude not the question: he shed his blood, most true: but he did not only shed his blood, but so as the sense of the wrath of ⟨p. 155⟩God was mixed with it, he suffered both a natural and a supernatural death.
That which the Dialogue is to prove, is, that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ whereby we are redeemed, is by way of price only, not by way of Suretiship and just satisfaction unto the Law: but that which it here saith, is, that the bloud of Christ was shed with a large and liberal quantity, that his bloud was shed for the atonement of mens souls, that the bloud that was shed was the bloud of him that was God, all which are true, but conclude not the question: he shed his bloud, most true: but he did not only shed his bloud, but so as the sense of the wrath of ⟨p. 155⟩God was mixed with it, he suffered both a naturall and a supernatural death.
Separation of the soul from the body is either by the first and universal efficient, so the Divine nature, considered in it self, separated one from the other, or by an universal subordinate efficient acting by way of consent, so the Divine nature subsisting in Personal union acted together with the humane in the separation of his soul from his body; or else by the next formal cause, so the executioners separated his soul from his body.