A90293:236
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 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.
The second part also may be reduced to these two heads: first, whether Christ did not make full satisfaction, for all their sinnes for whom he died, and merited glory, or everlasting happinesse, to be bestowed on them, upon the performance of those conditions, God should require? Secondly, (which is the proper Controversie I shall chiefly insist upon,) whether Christ did not procure for his own people, a power to become the Sonnes of God, merit and deserve at the hands of God for them, grace, faith, righteousnesse, and sanctification, whereby they may be enabled infallibly, to performe the conditions of the new Covenant, upon the which, they shall be admitted to glory.
To the first Question, of the first part of the Controversy, the Arminians answer affirmatively, to wit, that Christ died for all alike, the benefit of his Passion, belongs equally to all the posterity of Adam: and to the second negatively, that God had no such intention of bringing many chosen sons unto salvation, by the death of Christ; but determined of grace and glory, no more precisely to one, then to another, to John, then Judas, Abraham, then Pharaoh: both which as the learned Moulin observed, aseem to be invented to make Christianity ridiculous, and expose our Religion, to the derision, of all knowing men: for who can possibly conceive that one by the appointment of God should die for another; and yet that other, by the same justice be allotted unto death himself, when ones death only was due: that Christ hath made a full satisfaction for their sins, who shall everlastingly feel the weight of them, themselves; that he should