A90278:202
Of the death of Christ, the price he paid, and the purchase he made.…
Of the death of Christ, the price he paid, and the purchase he made. Or, the satisfaction, and merit of the death of Christ cleared, the universality of redemption thereby oppugned: and the doctrine concerning these things formerly delivered in a treatise against universal redemption vindicated from the exceptions, and objections of Mr Baxter. / By J. Owen, minister of the gospel.Of the death of Christ, the price he paid, and the purchase he made. Or, the satisfaction, and merit of the death of Christ cleered, the universality of redemption thereby oppugned: and the doctrine concerning these things formerly delivered in a treatise against universal redemption vindicated from the exceptions, and objections of Mr Baxter. / By J. Owen, minister of the gospel.
London: printed by Peter Cole, 1650
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.
1 All this proves not at all the things intended,1 neither doth any Concession here mentioned, in the least take off from the main Assertion I maintain, as is apparent any at first view. 2 Grotius is so far from saying more then I do, that he says not so much. 3 This Paralogism if the Law be Executed, then not Relaxed; and on the contrary, ariseth-merely from a non-Consideration of the nature of Contradictories: The Opposition fancied here is not [Greek or Hebrew], as is required of Contradictions: 4 The Observation, that Crown main business is other, discovereth the Bottom of M. B. his mistake. Even a supposal that I should oppose ⟨p. 29⟩Grotius in his main Intendment in the place Considered, which was not once in my thoughts. It was merely about the nature of the Penalty that Christ underwent, that I Discoursed. How the Relaxation of the Law, as to the Commutation of Persons may be Established, whether we affirm, Christ to have paid the Idem or Tantundem. And that Mr B. affirms the same with me, I can prove by twenty Instances. The Reader (if he please) may consult Pag. 18. & 25. 33, 34, 35. 42. 48. and in plain terms Pag. 81. In respect of punishment abstracting from Persons, the Law was not dispensed withal as to Christ? And what said I more?
1 All this proves not at all the things intended,1 neither doth any Concession here mentioned, in the least take off from the main Assertion I maintain, as is apparent any at first view. 2 Grotius is so far from saying more then I do, that he sayes not so much. 3 This Paralogisme if the Law be Executed, then not Relaxed; and on the contrary, ariseth-meerly from a non-Consideration of the nature of Contradictories: The Opposition fancied here is not 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, as is required of Contradictions: 4 The Observation, that Crown main business is other, discovereth the Bottom of M. B. his mistake. Even a supposal that I should oppose ⟨p. 29⟩Grotius in his main Intendment in the place Considered, which was not once in my thoughts. It was meerly about the nature of the Penalty that Christ underwent, that I Discoursed. How the Relaxation of the Law, as to the Commutation of Persons may be Established, whether we affirm, Christ to have paid the Idem or Tantundem. And that Mr B. affirms the same with me, I can prove by twenty Instances. The Reader (if he please) may consult Pag. 18. & 25. 33, 34, 35. 42. 48. and in plain terms Pag. 81. In respect of punishment abstracting from Persons, the Law was not dispensed withal as to Christ? And what said I more?