A89732:894
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.
All the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man, therefore all the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion, were the actions of Christ God-man Mediator. The major is not denied by the Dialogue, which though it asserts the Legal obedience of Christ to be done by him as man only, yet it affirms not (to my observation) that any act of God-man was not the act of God-man Mediator. Neither indeed can the major (with any good reason) be denied, even those who say Christ merited for himself (which yet is generally denied by the protestants) understand the word wherefore Phil. 2.9. not causally, but as a note of consequence, according ⟨p. 198⟩as it is used, Act. 20.26. Heb. 3.17. 1 Pet. 2.10. and reading those words Heb. 2.9. with a comma, or rather a colon, at death, and referring those words, suffering death unto the words fore-going [made little] not to the word following [crowned] acknowledge, that in those actions wherein he merited for himself, he also merited for us, which is sufficient to the Proposition asserted. Let an instance of any Legal act of Christ God-man incarnate, be produced, which was not an act of Christ God-man Mediator, as such, i.e, as Mediator.
All the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man, therefore all the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion, were the actions of Christ God-man Mediatour. The major is not denied by the Dialogue, which though it asserts the Legal obedience of Christ to be done by him as man only, yet it affirms not (to my observation) that any act of God-man was not the act of God-man Mediatour. Neither indeed can the maior (with any good reason) be denied, even those who say Christ merited for himself (which yet is generally denied by the protestants) understand the word wherefore Phil. 2.9