Literature Owen's The Death of Death Prefatory Note by the Editor Literature Owen's The Death of Death Prefatory Note by the EditorPREFATORY NOTE.
IN the testimonies from the ancient fathers, which Owen appends to the following treatise, he quotes Augustine and Prosper as authorities in support of his own view of a definite and effectual atonement. Though these fathers, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians of their day, held this view, the point did not emerge into commanding prominence in the controversy with which their names are chiefly and honourably associated. It was by no means a subject of special controversy, or the key of their position in the field on which their polemical laurels were won. It was otherwise in the dispute which prevailed between Hincmar and Gottschalc, exactly four centuries later. The discussion on the extent of the atonement then assumed a distinct and positive shape. The decisions of the different councils which sat in judgment upon their conflicting principles will be found in the appendix to this treatise. The same controversy was renewed in Holland between the Gomarists and the Arminians, when the Synod of Dort, in one of its articles, condemned the Remonstrant doctrine of a universal atonement. Cameron, the accomplished professor of divinity at Saumur, originated the last important discussion on this point before Owen wrote his treatise on it. The views of Cameron were adopted and urged with great ability by two of his scholars, Amyraut and Testard; and in the year 1634 a controversy arose, which agitated the French Church for many years. Amyraut had the support of Daillé and Blondell. He was ably opposed by Rivet, Spanheim, and Des Marets.
In the last two instances in which discussion on the extent of the atonement revived in the Reformed Churches, there was an essential distinction, very commonly overlooked, between the special points upon which the controversies respectively turned. The object of the article on the death of Christ, emitted by the Synod of Dort, was to counteract the tenet that Christ by the atonement only acquired for the Father a plenary right and freedom to institute a new procedure with all men, by which, on condition of their own obedience, they might be saved. The divines of Saumur would not have accepted this tenet as a correct representation of their sentiments. Admitting that, by the purpose of God, and through the death of Christ, the elect are infallibly secured in the enjoyment of salvation, they contended for an antecedent decree, by which God is free to give salvation to all men through Christ, on the condition that they believe on him. Hence their system was termed hypothetic universalism The vital difference between it and the strict Arminian theory lies in the absolute security asserted in the former for the spiritual recovery of the elect. They agree, however, in attributing some kind of universality to the atonement, and in maintaining that, on a certain condition, within the reach of fulfilment by all men, — obedience generally, according to the Arminians, and faith, according to the divines of Saumur, — all men have access to the benefits of Christ’s death. To impart consistency to the theory of Amyraut, faith must, in some sense, be competent to all men; and he held, accordingly, the doctrine of universal grace: in which respect his theory differs essentially from the doctrine of universal atonement, as embraced by eminent Calvinistic divines, who held the necessity of the special operation of grace in order to the exercise of faith. The readers of Owen will understand, from this cursory explanation, why he dwells with peculiar keenness and reiteration of statement upon a refutation of the conditional system, or the system of universal grace, according to the name it bore in subsequent discussions. It was plausible; it had many learned men for its advocates; it had obtained currency in the foreign churches; and it seems to have been embraced by More, or Moore, to whose work on "The Universality of God’s Free Grace," our author replies at great length.
Thomas Moore is described by Edwards, in his "Gangraena," part ii. p. 86, as "a great sectary, that did much hurt in Lincolnshire, Norfolk, and Cam butidgeshire; who was famous also in Boston, Lynn, and even in Holland, and was followed from place to place by many." His work, in a quarto volume, was published in 1643; and in the same year a reply to it appeared from the pen of Thomas Whitefield, "Minister of the Gospel at Great Yarmouth." Mr Orme remarks, "He takes care to inform us on the title-page that ‘Thomas Moore was late a weaver at Wills, near Wisbitch.’" And he adds, in regard to Moore’s production, "Without approving of the argument of the work, I have no hesitation in saying that it is creditable to the talents of the weaver, and not discreditable to his piety." The weaver, it should be added, was the author of some other works: "Discovery of Seducers that Creep into Houses," "On Baptism," "A Discourse about the Precious Blood and Sacrifice of Christ," etc.
In 1650, Mr Horne, minister at Lynn in Norfolk, a man, according to Palmer (Nonconf. Mem, iii pp. 6, 7), "of exemplary and primitive piety," and author of several works, published a reply to Owen’s work, under the title, "The Open Door for Man’s Approach to God; or, a vindication of the record of God concerning the extent of the death of Christ, in answer to a treatise on that subject by Mr John Owen." Horne had considerable reputation for skill in the oriental languages, and "some of his remarks and interpretations of Scripture," in the judgment of Mr Orme, "were not unworthy of Owen’s attention." Owen, however, in his epistle prefixed to his "Vindiciae Evangelicae," expresses his opinion that the work of Horne did not deserve a reply.
Two years after the following work had been published, its author had to defend some of the views he had maintained in it against a more formidable and celebrated adversary. Richard Baxter, in an appendix to his "Aphorisms on Justification," took exception to some of the views of Owen on redemption. Owen answered him in a treatise which may be regarded as an appendix to his "Death of Death." In the discussions between them, so much of scholastic subtilty appears on both sides that little interest is likely to be felt in that department of the general question on which they were at variance.
It may be necessary to state precisely what opinion Owen really held on the subject of the extent of the atonement. All opinions on this point may, in general terms, be reduced to four. There are a few who hold that Christ died so as ultimately to secure the salvation of all men. There are others who maintain the view condemned by the Synod of Dort, that by the death of Christ God is enabled to save all or any, on condition of their obedience. There is a third party, who, while they believe that Christ died so as infallibly to secure the salvation of the elect, hold that inasmuch as Christ, in his obedience and sufferings, did what all men were under obligation to do, and suffered what all men deserved to suffer, his atonement has a general as well as a special aspect and reference, in virtue of which the offer of the gospel may be freely tendered to them. Lastly, there are those, and Owen amongst the number, who advocate a limited or definite atonement, such an atonement as implies a necessary connection between the death of Christ and the salvation of those for whom he died, while the actual bearing of the atonement on the lost is left among the things unrevealed, save only that their guilt and punishment are enhanced by the rejection of that mercy offered in the gospel. Hagenbach, in his "History of Doctrines," vol. ii. p. 255, strangely asserts, that "as regards the extent of the atonement, all denominations, with the exception of the Calvinists, hold that salvation was offered to all." It would be difficult to specify any Calvinists worthy of the name who hold that salvation should not be offered to all; and it seems needful to state that Owen at least, a very Calvinist of Calvinists, held no such view. On the contrary, among Calvinists that adhere to the doctrine of a definite atonement, it has been matter of debate, not whether the gospel should be universally offered, but on what basis, — the simple command and warrant of the Word, or the intrinsic and infinite sufficiency of the atonement, — the universal offer of the gospel proceeds. Perhaps this point was never formally before the mind of our author, but he intimates that the "innate sufficiency of the death of Christ is the foundation of its promiscuous proposal to the elect and reprobate."
Among the editions of this valuable work, that printed in Edinburgh, 1755, under the superintendence of the Rev. Adam Gib, deserves honourable mention. It is printed with some care; considerable attention is paid to the numeration; and a valuable analysis of the whole work is prefixed to it. We have not felt at liberty to adopt the numeration in all respects, as rather more of freedom is used with tile original than is consistent with the principles on which this edition of Owen’s works has been issued. We acknowledge our obligations to it in the preparation of the subjoined analysis, which is mostly taken from it.
ANALYSIS.
BOOK I. declares the eternal counsel and distinct actual concurrence of the holy Trinity unto the work of redemption in the blood of Christ; with the covenanted intendment and accomplished end of God therein.
CHAPTER I. treats in general of the end of the death of Christ, as it is in the Scripture proposed: — I. What his Father and himself intended in it. II. What was effectually fulfilled and accomplished by it : — l. Reconciliation; 2. Justification; 3 Sanctification; 4. Adoption; 5. Glorification. III. A general view of the opposite doctrine.
CHAPTER II. Of the nature of an end in general, and some distinctions about it: — I. The general distinction of end and means. II. Their mutual relation: — 1. In a moral sense; 2. In a natural sense. III A twofold end noticed, viz. — l. Of the work; 2. Of the worker. IV. The end of every free agent is either that which he effects, or that for the sake of which it is effected. V. The means of two sorts, viz.: — 1. Such as have a goodness in themselves; 2. Such as have no goodness, but as conducing to the end. VI. An application of these distinctions to the business in hand.
CHAPTER III. considers, — I. The FATHER as the chief author of the work of our redemption; II. The acts ascribed to the person of the Father: — 1. The Father sending his Son into the world for the work of redemption: — (1.) By an authoritative imposition of the office of mediator upon him: — [l.] The purposed imposition of his counsel; [2.] The actual inauguration of Christ as mediator. (2.) By furnishing him with a fulness of all gifts and graces: — [l.] Christ had a natural all-sufficient perfection of his deity; [2.] He had a communicated fulness. (3.) By entering into covenant with him about his work: — [l.] With a promise of assistance; [2.] With a promise of success. 2. The Father laying upon him the punishment of sin.
CHAPTER IV. Of those things which, in the work of redemption, are peculiarly ascribed to the person of the Son: — I. His incarnation; II. His oblation; III His intercession.
CHAPTER V. The peculiar actings of the HOLY SPIRIT in this business: — I. As to the incarnation of Christ; II. As to the oblation or passion of Christ; III. As to the resurrection of Christ.
CHAPTER VI. The means used by the fore-recounted agents in this work: — I. The means used is that whole dispensation from whence Christ is called a Mediator: — 1. His oblation; 2. His intercession. II. His oblation not a mean good in itself, but only as conducing to its end, and inseparable from his intercession; as, — l. Both intended for the same end; 2. Both of the same extent, as respecting the same objects; 3. His oblation the foundation of his intercession.
CHAPTER VII contains reasons to prove the oblation and intercession of Christ to be one entire mean respecting the accomplishment of the same proposed end, and to have the same personal object: — I. From their conjunction in Scripture; II. From their being both acts of the same priestly office; III. From the nature of his intercession; IV. From the identity of what he procured in his oblation with what results from his intercession; V. From their being conjoined by himself, John xvii; VI. From the sad consequence of separating them, as cutting off all consolation by his death.
CHAPTER VIII. Objections are answered, being a consideration of Thomas More’s reply to the former arguments for the inseparable conjunction of Christ’s oblation and intercession, viz.: — I. As to Christ being a double mediator, both general and special, alleged from 1 Tim. ii. 5, iv. 10; Heb. ix. 15. II. As to the tenor of Christ’s intercession, according to Isa. liii. 12; Luke xxiii. 34; John xvii. 21-23; Matt. v. 14-16; John i. 9. III As to Christ being a priest for all in respect of one end, and for some only in respect of all ends, alleged from Heb. ii. 9, ix. 14, 15, 26; John i. 29; 1 John ii. 2; Matt. xxvi. 28.
BOOK II. removes false and supposed ends of the death of Christ, with the distinctions invented to salve the manifold contradictions of the pretended universal atonement, rightly stating the controversy.
CHAPTER I. Some previous considerations to a more particular inquiry after the proper end and effect of the death of Christ: — I. The supreme end of Christ’s death in respect of God; II. The subordinate end of his death in respect of us.
CHAPTER II. removes some mistaken ends assigned to the death of Christ: — I. It was not his own good. II. It ‘was not his Father’s good, to secure for him a right to save sinners
CHAPTER III. More particularly of the immediate end of the death of Christ, with the several ways whereby it is designed. The immediate end of the death of Christ particularly asserted from the Scriptures, viz.: — I. From those scriptures which hold out the intention and counsel of God with our Saviour’s own mind in this work, Matt. xviii. 11, etc. II. From those scriptures which state the actual accomplishment or effect of his oblation, Heb. ix. 12, 14, 26, etc. III. From those scriptures that point out the persons for whom Christ died, viz., Matt. xxvi. 28; Isa. liii. 11, etc. The force of the word "many" in several of these texts, and the argument taken from them, in comparison with other texts, vindicated from the exceptions of Thomas More. Who are meant by Christ’s sheep, and who not, John x. 15; and his objections answered.
CHAPTER IV. Of the distinction between impetration and application: — I. The sense wherein this distinction is used by the adversaries, and their various expressions about it. II. The distinction itself handled: — 1. The true nature, meaning, and use thereof: — (1.) It has no place in the intention of Christ; (2.) The will of God in this business is not at all conditional; (3.) All the things obtained by Christ are not bestowed upon condition, and the condition on which some things are bestowed is absolutely purchased; (4.) Impetration and application have the same persons for their objects. 2. The meaning of those who seek to maintain universal redemption by that distinction; with a discovery of their various opinions on this head. III. The main question rightly stated.
CHAPTER V. Farther of application and impetration: — I. That these, though they may admit of a distinction, cannot admit of a separation, as to the objects thereof, is proved by sundry arguments. II. The defence made by the Arminians on this head (alleging that Christ purchased all good things for all, to be bestowed upon condition; which condition not being performed, these good things are not bestowed), overthrown by sundry arguments.
BOOK III. contains arguments against universal redemption from the word of God; with an assertion of the satisfaction and merit of Christ.
CHAPTER I. Arguments against the universality of redemption. The first two from the nature of the new covenant, and the dispensation thereof: — Arg. I. From the nature of the covenant of grace, as being made in Christ, not with all, but only some. Arg. II. From the dispensation of the covenant of grace, as not extended to all, but only some.
CHAPTER II. Three other arguments: — Arg. III. From the absolute nature of Christ’s purchase for all the objects thereof. Arg. IV. From the distinction of men into two sorts by God’s eternal purpose. Arg. V. From the Scripture nowhere saying that Christ died for all men.
CHAPTER III. Two other arguments, from the person which Christ sustained in this business: — Arg. VI. From Christ having died as a sponsor. Arg. VII. From Christ being a mediator.
CHAPTER IV. Of sanctification, and of the cause of faith, and the procurement thereof by the death of Christ: — Arg. VIII. From the efficacy of Christ’s death for sanctification. Arg. IX. From the procurement of faith by the death of Christ. Arg. X. From the antitype of the people of Israel.
CHAPTER V. Continuance of arguments from the nature and description of the thing in hand; and; first, of redemption: — I. Arg. XI. From redemption by the death of Christ.
CHAPTER VI. Of the nature of reconciliation, and the argument taken from thence: — II. Arg. XII. From reconciliation by the death of Christ.
CHAPTER VII. Of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, with arguments from thence: — III. Arg. XIII. From satisfaction by the death of Christ: — 1. What satisfaction is: — (1.) Christ made satisfaction, and how; against Grotius. (2.) Acts exercised by God in this business: — [1.] Of severe justice, as a creditor; against Grotius. [2.] Of supreme sovereignty and dominion. Consequences of these acts as to those for whom Christ satisfied. 2. Inconsistency of all this ‘with universal redemption.
CHAPTER VIII. A digression, containing the substance of an occasional conference concerning the satisfaction of Christ: — I. Its consistency with God’s eternal love to his elect. II. Necessity of it for executing the purposes of that love.
CHAPTER IX. Being a second part of the former digression, containing arguments to prove the satisfaction of Christ: — Arg. I. From Christ bearing sin, and the punishment thereof. Arg. II. From his paying a ransom for sinners. Arg. III. From his making atonement and reconciliation. Arg. IV. From the nature of his priestly office as exercised on earth. Arg. V. From the necessity thereof unto faith and consolation. Arg. VI. From 2 Cor. v. 21, and Isa. liii. 5.
CHAPTER X. Of the merit of Christ, with arguments from thence: — IV. Arg. XIV. From the merit ascribed to the death of Christ. V. Arg. XV. From the phrases "dying for us," "bearing our sins," being our "surety," etc.
CHAPTER XI. The last general argument: — VI. Arg. XVI. From some particular places of Scripture, viz.: — 1. Gen. iii. 15; 2. Matt. vii. 23, etc.
BOOK IV. — All considerable objections are answered as yet brought to light, either by the Arminians or others, in the behalf of universal redemption, with a large unfolding of all the texts of Scripture by any produced and wrested to that purpose.
CHAPTER I. Things to be considered previously to the solution of objections: — I. The infinite value of the blood of Christ. II The administration of the new covenant under the gospel. III The distinction between man’s duty and God’s purpose. IV. The error of the Jews about the extent of redemptlon. V. The nature and signification of general terms used: — 1. The word "world" of various significations. 2. The word "all" of various extent. VI Persons and things often spoken of according to their appearance. VII Difference between the judgment of charity and verity. VIII The infallible connection of faith and salvation. IX. The mixture of elect and reprobates in the world. X. The different acts and degrees of faith.
CHAPTER II. An entrance to the answer unto particular objections. Answer to objections from Scripture, viz.: — I. From the word "world" in several scriptures: — 1. John iii. 16 largely opened and vindicated.
CHAPTER III. An unfolding of the remaining texts of Scripture produced for the confirmation of the first general objection or argument for universal redemption. 2. 1 John ii. 1, 2, largely opened and vindicated. 3. John vi. 51 explained. 4. A vindication of other texts produced by Thomas More, vii.: — (1.) 2 Cor. v. 19. (2.) John i. 9.(3.) John i. 29. (4.) John iii. 17. (5.) John iv. 42; 1 John iv. 14; John vi. 51.
CHAPTER IV. Answer to the second general objection or argument for the universality of redemption. II From the word "all" in several scriptures, viz.: — 1. I Tim. ii. 4, 6. 2. 2 Pet. iii. 9. 3. Heb. ii. 9. 4. 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. 5. 1 Cor. xv. 22. 6. Rom. v. 18.
CHAPTER V. The last objection or argument from Scripture answered. III. From texts which seem to hold out a perishing of some for whom Christ died, viz.: — 1. Rom. xiv. 15. 2. 1 Cor. viii. 11. 3. 2 Pet. ii 1. 4. Heb. x. 29.
CHAPTER VI. An answer to the twentieth chapter of the book entitled "The Universality of God’s Free Grace," etc., being a collection of all the arguments used by the author (Thomas More) throughout the whole book, to prove the universality of redemption: — Answers to Arg. I. From the absolute literal sense of Scripture. Arg. II. From an alleged unlimitedness of Scripture phrases. Arg. III. From Christ’s exaltation to be Lord and Judge of all, Rom. xiv. 9, 11, 12. Arg. IV. From the proposal of Christ’s death to all by the gospel. Arg. V. From the confession to be made of Christ by all. Arg. VI. From Scripture assertions and consequences. Answers to the proofs of this sixth argument: — 1. From 1 John iv. 14; John i. 4, 7; 1 Tim. ii. 4. 2. From some texts before vindicated. 3. From Ps. xix. 4; Rom. x. 18; Acts xiv. 17, etc. 4. From John xvi. 7-11, etc. 5. From Ezek. xviii 23, 32, xxxiii. II, etc. 6. From Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15; Isa. xlv. 22, etc. 7. From Acts ii. 38, 39, etc. 8. From 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, 43-47; Rom. iii. 22-25, etc. 9. From Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; 2 Cor. v. 19, etc. 10. From Matt. v. 44, 48; 1 Tim. ii. 1-4, etc. 11. From 1 Tim. ii. 3, 8, etc. 12. From 1 Cor. vi. 10, 11, etc. 13. From Tit. ii. 11, 13, iii. 4, 5, etc. 14. From John iii. 19, etc, 15. From Scripture expostulations with men. 16. From Jude 4, 12,13, etc. 17. From Rom. xiv. 9-12, etc. 18. From Jude 3-5.
CHAPTER VII. Other objections from reason are removed: — Answers to Objection I. From men being bound to believe that Christ died for them. Obj. II. Alleging that the doctrine of particular redemption fills the minds of sinners with doubts and scruples whether they ought to believe or not; the objection retorted. Obj. III. That this doctrine disparages the freedom of grace; the objection retorted. Obj. IV. That this doctrine disparages the merit of Christ; the objection retorted. Obj. V. That this doctrine mars gospel consolation; in answer whereto it is proved that, — 1. The doctrine of universal redemption affords no ground of consolation; 2. That it quite overthrows the true ground of consolation; 3. That the doctrine of particular redemption is not liable to any just exception as to this matter; 4. That this doctrine is the true, solid foundation of all durable consolation. — Ed.
Back to The Death of Death in the Death of Christ's Table of Contents
Information What's New Our Beliefs Sermons Literature U.R. Churches Classis Michigan Links Search Feedback Home