A89732:948
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.
Dialogu In brief the meaning of the Apostle lies thus, when God sent his Son to die as a Malefactor in the similitude of sinful flesh, Christ did at the same time condem• ⟨p. 209⟩sin, because he did at the same time die as a Mediator, and made his soul a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement for sin, and so he procured his Fathers Atonement to poor sinners, and by this means he condemned sin in the flesh, and made sinners sinless, that is to say, Righteous.
Dialogu In brief the meaning of the Apostle lies thus, when God sent his Son to die as a Malefactor in the similitude of sinful flesh, Christ did at the same time condem• ⟨p. 209⟩sin, because he did at the same time die as a Mediatour, and made his soul a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement for sin, and so he procured his Fathers Atonement to poor sinners, and by this means he condemned sinne in the flesh, and made sinners sinlesse, that is to say, Righteous.
But this distinction of the double death of Christ I have opened more at large in Gal. 3.13. and Luke 22.19. and in Psa. 22.15.
The strength then of this misinterpretation being built upon your distinction of the double death of Christ, namely, his dying as a Mediator, Answ. and as a Malefactor: that is to say a Malefactor in the Jews account, but not in Gods; The Reader again is desired to accept of the answer given to your distinction in the places mentioned, where if the distinction falls, all which is built thereupon will perish with it.