A90293:209
Theomachia autexousiastikē
Theomachia autexousiastikē: or, A display of Arminianism. Being a discovery of the old Pelagian idol free-will, with the new goddess contingency, advancing themselves, into the throne of the God of heaven to the prejudice of his grace, providence, and supreme dominion over the children of men. Wherein the main errors of the Arminians are laid open, by which they are fallen off from the received doctrine of all the reformed churches, with their opposition in divers particulars to the doctrine established in the Church of England. Discovered out of their own writings and confessions, and confuted by the Word of God. / By John Owen, Master of Arts of Queens College in Oxon.Theomachia autexousiastikē: or, A display of Arminianisme. Being a discovery of the old Pelagian idol free-will, with the new goddesse contingency, advancing themselves, into the throne of the God of heaven to the prejudice of his grace, providence, and supreme dominion over the children of men. Wherein the maine errors of the Arminians are laid open, by which they are fallen off from the received doctrine of all the reformed churches, with their opposition in divers particulars to the doctrine established in the Church of England. Discovered out of their owne writings and confessions, and confuted by the Word of God. / By Iohn Owen, Master of Arts of Queens Colledge in Oxon.
London: printed by I.L. for Phil. Stephens, 1643
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.
Whether mever any one were damned, for Original sin, and adjudged to everlasting torments; is deservedly doubted of: yea we doubt not to affirm, that never any was so damned, saith Corvinus: and that this is not his sole opinion, he declares, by telling you no less of his Master Arminius: nIt is most true, saith he, that Arminius teacheth, that it is perversely said, that original sin makes a man guilty of death. Of any death it should seem, temporal eternal or that annihilation they dream of: and he said true enough,o Arminius doth affirm it, adding this reason, because it is only the punishment of Adams actual sin: now what kind of punishment they make this to be I showed you before. But truly I wonder, seeing they are every where so peremptory, that the same thing cannot be a sin, and a punishment; why they do so often nick-name this infirmity of nature, and call it a sin, which they suppose to be as far different from it, as fire from water: is it because they are unwilling, by new naming it, to contradict St. Paul in express terms, never proposing it, under any other denomination? or if they can get a sophistical elusion for him, is it least by so doing, Christians should the more plainly discern their heresy? or what ever other cause it be, in this I am sure they contradict themselves, notwithstanding in this they agree full well,p That God rejecteth none, for original sin only, as Episcopius speaks: and here if you tell them that the question is not de facto, what God doth; but de jure, what such sin deservers, they tell us plainlyq That God will not destinate any infants to eternal punishment for original sin, without ⟨p. 79⟩their own proper actual sins, neither can he do so, by right, or in justice: so that the children of Turks, Pagans, and the like Infidels, strangers from the covenant of grace departing in their infancy, are far happier then any Christian men, who must under-go a hard warfare, against sin, and Satan, in danger to fall finally away at the last hour; and through many difficulties, entering the kingdom of heaven, when they without further trouble are presently assumed thither, for their innocency. Yea although they are neither elected of God; for as they affirm, he chooseth none but for their faith which they have not: