A89732:735
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. It is an inviolable rule in disputation, that the conclusion should run in the formal terms of the question. The question therefore being whether the natural death of Christ without his suffering the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement (other inferior acts done by him as God-man included) the Conclusion should have proceeded thus: The natural death of Christ without his suffering of the wrath of God, was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement. The weakness and fallaciousness of which conclusion deduced from the annexed reason, viz. because it was the act of the Mediator in both natures, immediately discovereth it self unto him who seeth herein the Dialogues usual fallacy of putting that which is not a cause for a cause, since not only the eminency of the Person, but also the kind of obedience and acceptation of God are required as essential to Mediatorly obedience.
Answ. It is an inviolable rule in disputation, that the conclusion should run in the formall terms of the question. The question therefore being whether the natural death of Christ without his suffering the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement (other inferiour acts done by him as God-man included) the Conclusion should have proceeded thus: The natural death of Christ without his suffering of the wrath of God, was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement. The weaknesse and fallaciousnesse of which conclusion deduced from the annexed reason, viz. because it was the act of the Mediatour in both natures, immediatly discovereth it self unto him who seeth herein the Dialogues usuall fallacy of putting that which is not a cause for a cause, since not onely the eminency of the Person, but also the kinde of obedience and acceptation of God are required as essential to Mediatorly obedience.
But the Dialogues conclusion expressing it self in ambiguous terms capable both of the sense of the Orthodox and Heterodox, doth by this unseasonable and irregular equivocation betray the weakness of its cause and arguments both at once.
But the Dialogues conclusion expressing it self in ambiguous terms capable both vf the sense of the Orthodox and Heterodox, doth by this unseasonable and irregular equivocation betray the weaknesse of its cause and arguments both at once.