Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	aaron_n	eat_v	people_n	18	3	6.0522	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89732	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.	Norton, John, 1606-1663.	1653 (1653)	Wing N1312; Thomason E1441_1; ESTC R210326	182,582	293

essentiall part of our punishment due to us for our sin From your own words I inferre then Christ bare our punishment and our sins either in the account of the Jews or in the account of God Not in the account of the Jews they charged them as his proper crimes without any regard to the sins of the elect therefore he bare our punishment and our sins in the account of God In that then Christ suffered punishment Paraus in Heb. 10. and bare our sin in the account of God it followeth Christ bare guilt in the account of God because guilt and punishment are relates Punishment doth not only signifie a suffering but such a suffering that is suffering for offence in way of justice Had Christ suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment thus whilest you acknowledge Christ to have born punishment and born sin and that by just consequeoce at least in the account of God and yet deny the imputation of sinne you run your self into a contradiction He bare our sins in his body but not only in his body Body is here taken synechdochically both for body and soul a part of the humane nature for the whole he bare them upon the tree that is he bare the curse due to sin Gal 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree he bare the morall curse which was the truth signified by the Ceremoniall curse Deut. 21.23 the morall curse extendeth both to soul and body Dialogu I will shew you how Christ did bear our sins divers waies in several senses 1. When he bare away our diseases as I have expounded Isa 53 4. 2. As our Priest and sacrifice as I have expounded Isa 53.5 3. As a Porter bears a burden as I have expounded 1 Pet 2.24 4. When he did patiently bear our sinful imputations and false accusations and imputations of the malignant Iews Psa 40.12 Psa 69.5 In these words Christ doth not complain or grudge against his father for his imputing of our sins unto him as the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak Answ How the Dialogue hath not only not expounded nor only mis-interpreted but corrupted the three former texts viz. Isa 53.4 5. 1 Pet. 2.24 We have seen before 'T is very true that Christ bare our sins as our Priest and sacrifice and as a porter bears a burden yea as a surety but very false that he bare them only in your sense Scripture is in sense and not in sound only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Your calling of the Jews unjust criminations of Christ sometimes our sinful imputations sometimes the false accusations of the Jews sounds too harsh without a distinction 'T is true that Psal 40.12 and Psal 69.5 hold forth a type of Christ complaining under the injuries of the Jews from which their false imputations are not excluded though neither of them only nor chiefly To complain unto God is blamelesse and no grudging To cemplaln against God is a sin and sheweth grudging M. Ainsworth whom you oft make use of in his notes on Psal 69.5 is amongst those who acknowledge sin to be in Christ by imputation yet your conscience herein appealed unto where did you ever reade in him or any other orthodox Interpreter that Christ complained against God as say you the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak CHAP. V. The Vindication of Isa 53.6 Isa 53.6 All we like sheep have gone astray we have turned every one to his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all Dialogu THe Lord laid not the sin of the Elect upon Christ by imputation The true manner how the Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ was the very same manner as the Lord laid the sinnes of Israel upon the Priest and sacrifice and no other Answ If he laid them no otherwise on the Antitype then upon the type then sin was laid typically only and not in truth upon Christ consequently the type and the antitype are confounded and those types are so many untruths yea we are yet in our sins But whatsoever your words are we presume your meaning is The types instanced in did not typically hold forth any imputation of sin unto Christ the antitype How then did the Lord lay the sins of Israel upon the Priest and upon the sacrifice Dialogu The Priest bare the iniquity of the holy things by his Priestly appearing before Iehovah with his priestly apparrell especially with the golden plate Exo. 28.38 he bare the iniquity of the Congregatton by eating the peoples sin-offering in the holy place to make atonement Lev. 10.17 The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice Isa 53.12 where dying bearing sin intercession are Synonima's He bare the sins of men namely by his Mediatoriall sacrifice God laid all our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice of atonement In this sense Paul explaineth the Levitical bearing of sin Heb. 9.26 28. Answ It is not requisite to the nature of a type in all respects to answer the Antitype Similitudo non currit quatuor pedibus Paraeus Log. 122. Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas but to testifie and according to the pleasure of the Authour to exemplifie the thing typified Logick refers types to similitudes and you know the Proverb Similitudes run not on four feet there is alwaies some dislikenesse between the parts of the comparison Ionah was a type of Christ lying dead in the grave yet Ionah though he lay in the Whales belly did not lye dead there Put case you produce a type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing Aaron the High-Priest wearing the golden plate upon his forehead having engraven therupon HOLINESSE TO THE LORD typified rhe perfect holinesse in Christ by reason of the Divine nature whereby he was able effectually to bear and bear away sin What is here against Imputation nay it is implied in the Priesthood of Aaron The Priests Lev. 10.17 by eating the peoples sin-offering declared by that act together with the fore-mentioned appearing in their stead confessing of their sin and offering sacrifice for them that by divine institution they took upon them typically to make atonement for their sin Hereby it is more plainly figured that Christ should bear away our sin by bearing it in our stead This Text maketh against you It is very true God laid our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice Isa 53.12 therefore say we by imputation for Christs sacrifice is his voluntary and obedient yeelding himself unto death according to the Covenant of God in a way of satisfaction to divine justice for sin and meritorious expiation of sin

himself layeth both his hands upon the live goat and confesseth over him the iniquity of the children of Israel Lev. 16.21 which confession of sin though it be only expressed in the case of the Scape-goat yet it is judged to have accompanied imposition of hands upon the sin-offering From the collation of the texts with Lev. 5.56 as also because there is like reason in all Calvin in Lev. 1.1 Junius in Lev. 1. Ainsworth Lev. 1.4 Willet in Lev. 1. qu. 9. 4.10 16.23 Annot. in Le. 16.21 Ita per fidem oportet nos peccata nostra imponere Christo h.e. certò sta●uere quòd illa ei impofita sint â Deo ut ea expiaret Orthodox and judicious Expositors seem rather to understand that the rite of imposition of hands did typifie the profession of their faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for sin imputed to him and that the present sacrifice or beast slain was a type thereof then that it did typifie the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation there is difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ and an act testifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of sin unto Christ You should have produced your Expositors for they do not generally so speak the man saith M. Ainsworth that brought the offering was to lay or impose his hands thereby testifying his faith in Christ the true sacrifice to be slain for sin But it being granted that Expositors did so understand it how doth the Dialogue disprove their exposition A private mans imposition cannot represent Gods act the imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot for the Elders actions represent the Churches astions neither can the imposition of the Priests and High-Priests they were types of Christs Priestly nature and not of the father Answ If these Reasons were good for what they are alledged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the minde of Expositors at least generally upon the place There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders Priests and High-Priests The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exo. 21.2 or at the year of Jubilee Lev. 25.40 figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free redemption by Jesus Christ Cyrus as every King or Emperour which receiveth his office from the people was Persia's representative yet in letting the Jews go without price and reward he typified our free salvation which is the act of God the Father the putting of Gods name upon the children of Israel by Aaron and his sons Num. 6.27 was saith Ainsworth a sign that the name and blessing of God was imposed upon them It 's improper to say the Priests were types of Christs Priestly nature they were types of his Priestly office or if you please of the Priestly part of his office whereof the person consisting both of divine and humane nature was the subject Dialogu Imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sin offering signified the owners faith of dependance Then it signified the owners faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for our sin imputed to him for besides that this notion of faith in particular is included in the faith of dependance as the part is in the whole he that asserteth the faith of dependance asserteth therewithall the object thereof for faith and its object are Relates a part of which object and that directly intended in these texts is this truth to wit That Christ did bear and take away the guilt and punishment due to the elect for sin In your reasoning against the doctrine of Imputation from the Text alledged omitting any other you commit these two errours 1. You put upon us an interpretation which is not ours nor hath our doctrine need of it our conclusion sufficiently proceeding from these Texts according to the Exposition given The Question is not whether this rite of Imposition of hands with confession uf sin doth represent Gods laying of the sins of the Elect upon Christ but whether the sins of the elect were laid upon Chtist by God 2. In disputing for these rites to signifie faith of dependance you do not only not dispute against us but in conclusion against your self because the faith of the truth controverted is included in the faith of dependance nor do you in your whole discourse concerning it interpose a syllable to the contrary to provide against the retorting of your Argument upon your self The conclusion then you argue for being for us though we approve not your arguments we think it best to passe them by and ease the Reader of so much impertinence only minding you that your assertion so often used viz. that they imposed hands and leaned upon the sacrifice with all their might is groundlesse whatsoever you refer us to in Ainsworth out of Maimony neither the Hebrew text nor any other reason countenancing of it Dialogu If you make the act of laying on of hands on the sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by imputation then the same act of laying on of hands with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sin to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his resurrection and ascention as when he made his oblation here upon earth and thus by this doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ the live-goat and the scape-goat were both types of Christ that of him dying this of him delivered from death sin was laid upon the scape goat not after but before its escape and signifieth that notwithstanding his bearing of sin typified by both goats yet after he had suffered which was typified by the killed goat he then should be delivered from those sufferings which were typified by the scapegoat and thus by the doctrine of the Scapegoat Christ is risen again ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father acquitted from all sin Dialogu But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands with confession of sins of Gods imputation but they understood it to be a typicall sign of the faith of dependance upon Christs sacrifice of Atonement and so much the prayer of the High-Priest imports See Ainsworth Lev. 16.21 Answ M. Ainsworth on this very place saith that this act shewed how our sins should be imputed unto Christ it is not likely therefore he so understood the Hebrew doctors otherwise we might well think he would either have forborn a needlesse citation contrary in his judgement to the truth or would have taken notice thereof Neither is there any reason so to interpret their meaning