A90278:537
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.
2 Here is not a sufficient Annumeration of Causes; the Promises of God are to be added, and those either made to us, or to any other for our Good. But,
3 That the Decree of God gives to no man a Right to the thing concerning which the Decree is,1 is so far from being a sufficient proof of the Major, That it is in it self very questionable, if not unquestionably false. That the Decree gives not being and Existence to the things concerning which it is, is an old Rule. That no Right should from it arise, unto that thing by virtue thereof, is not yet so clear. Right is but Jus. Jus est quod justum est. If it be just or Right, that any one should have such a thing, he is said to have a Right thereunto.2 Now, supposing the Decree of God,3 that a man shall, by such means, have such a thing, is it not Just, equitable and Condecent unto Righteousness that he should have it? But yet further,
3 That the Decree of God gives to no man a Right to the thing concerning which the Decree is,1 is so far from being a sufficient proof of the Major, That it is in it self very questionable, if not unquestionably false. That the Decree gives not being and Existence to the things concerning which it is, is an old Rule. That no Right should from it arise, unto that thing by vertue thereof, is not yet so cleer. Right is but Jus. Jus est quod justum est. If it be just or Right, that any one should have such a thing, he is said to have a Right thereunto.2 Now, supposing the Decree of God,3 that a man shall, by such means, have such a thing, is it not Just, equitable and Condecent unto Righteousness that he should have it? But yet further,