A89732:169
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 is of the essence or substance of the punishment of sin, is primarily in the curse, and therefore primarily to be understood; but death for sin, not death in sin is of the essence of the punishment of sin, as we saw in the first Distinction, Chapter the first.
Instead of proving your assertion, viz. That it was impossible for Christ to suffer any of the cursed death, intended Gen. 2.17. your arguing only proves another thing, viz. that the death here primarily intended was spiritual death, i. e. death in sin, which Christ could not suffer, and so you lose your Question.
Instead of proving your assertion, viz. That it was impossible for Christ to suffer any of the cursed death, intended Gen. 2.17. your arguing only proves another thing, viz. that the death here primarily intended was spirituall death, i. e. death in sinne, which Christ could not suffer, and so you lose your Question.
Though it be granted that death in sin be here understood primarily; yet if death for sin be understood secondarily, then this argument concludes not against Christs suffering any death intended, but only against his suffering the death primarily intended in the text.
Though it be granted that death in sin be here understood primarily; yet if death for sinne be understood secondarily, then this argument concludes not against Christs suffering any death intended, but only against his suffering the death primarily intended in the text.