A90293:235
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.
The first part of this Controversy, may be handled, under ⟨p. 92⟩these two questions. First, whether God giving his Son, and Christ making his soul a ransom for sin, intended thereby to redeem all and every one, from their sins, that all and every one alike, from the beginning of the world, to the last day, should all equally be partakers of the fruits of his death and passion; which purpose of theirs is in the most frustrate. Secondly, whether God had not a certain infallible intention, of gathering unto himself a chosen people, of collecting a Church of first borne, of saving his little flock, of bringing some certainly to happiness, by the death of his only Son, which in the event he doth accomplish:
The first part of this Controversie, may be handled, under ⟨p. 92⟩these two questions. First, whether God giving his Sonne, and Christ making his soule a ransome for sinne, intended thereby to redeeme all and every one, from their sins, that all and every one alike, from the beginning of the world, to the last day, should all equally be partakers of the fruits of his death and passion; which purpose of theirs is in the most frustrate. Secondly, whether God had not a certaine infallible intention, of gathering unto himselfe a chosen people, of collecting a Church of first borne, of saving his little flocke, of bringing some certainly to happinesse, by the death of his onely Sonne, which in the event he doth accomplish:
The second part also may be reduced to these two heads: first, whether Christ did not make full satisfaction, for all their sins for whom he died, and merited glory, or everlasting happiness, to be bestowed on them, upon the performance of those conditions, God should require? Secondly, (which is the proper Controversy I shall chiefly insist upon,) whether Christ did not procure for his own people, a power to become the Sons of God, merit and deserve at the hands of God for them, grace, faith, righteousness, and sanctification, whereby they may be enabled infallibly, to perform the conditions of the new Covenant, upon the which, they shall be admitted to glory.