A89732:567
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. Whether eternal death be called the second death to contra-distinguish it from the death of the body, or death in sin, or both, as the first death; As it is not material to the point in hand, so neither need we labour about it, though the Text Mat. 10.28. seemeth rather to oppose it to the death of the body by its separation from the soul, as also the coherence, Rev. 2.13. & 20.6, 14. And if the first death is taken for death in sin; and the full measure of sin, as the ⟨p. 115⟩Dialogue speaketh, be included in the second death, the opposition lieth rather between a bodily death and eternal death, then between the first and second death, for so far the first and second death are as two degrees of the same death, not two kinds of death; whereas bodily death and eternal death are two kinds of death. Yea forasmuch as eternal death followeth bodily death, and bodily death followeth death in sin, there would then be three deaths, viz. death in sin, death of the body, and death of the body and soul in hell, and so it should be called the third, not the second death.
Answ. Whether eternall death be called the second death to contra-distinguish it from the death of the body, or death in sin, or both, as the first death; As it is not materiall to the point in hand, so neither need we labour about it, though the Text Mat. 10.28. seemeth rather to oppose it to the death of the body by its separation from the soul, as also the coherence, Rev. 2.13. & 20.6, 14. And if the first death is taken for death in sin; and the full measure of sin, as the ⟨p. 115⟩Dialogue speaketh, be included in the second death, the opposition lieth rather between a bodily death and eternall death, then between the first and second death, for so far the first and second death are as two degrees of the same death, not two kindes of death; whereas bodily death and eternall death are two kindes of death. Yea forasmuch as eternall death followeth bodily death, and bodily death followeth death in sin, there would then be three deaths, viz. death in sin, death of the body, and death of the body and soul in hell, and so it should be called the third, not the second death.