Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]Stoughton, John
History
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]
Stoughton, John
Great Britain -- Church history
Owen enters fully into the nature of the death of Christ, and insists
upon its having been a price or ransom, a sacrifice and a satisfaction.
He contends that it was a punishment for sin properly so called; and
that the covenant between the Father and the Son was the ground and
foundation of the penal sufferings from which redemption flows. Nor
does he confine himself to the citation and enforcement of Scripture
texts in support of these opinions. He supplies a dissertation on
Divine justice--in which, from the consent of mankind, as appears
in the testimony of the heathen, and the power of conscience, from
the prevalence of sacrifices, and from the works of providence,--he
concludes that Divine justice is a vindicating justice, and that the
non-punishment of sin would be contrary to the glory of that justice.
He examines and answers the objections of Socinus, and the main drift
of the whole treatise is to establish the indispensable necessity of
the satisfaction of Christ for the salvation of sinners.
In his _Salus Electorum Sanguis Jesu_, a work published so early
as 1648, Owen connects the Atonement with the Divine decrees. He points
out what he conceives to be the false and supposed ends of the death
of Christ, and unfolds his reasons for a belief in the doctrine of
particular redemption.[527] He admits that the sacrifice of Christ was
of infinite worth and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming
of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that
purpose; but the main drift of the Essay is to prove that it did not
please the Lord so to employ it.[528] Whatever may be thought of the
logical consequences of Owen’s positions in reference to election and
particular redemption, it would be extreme injustice--and the same
remark may be applied to Goodwin and others--to charge him or them with
any connivance at Antinomianism, an error which they regarded with the
utmost abhorrence, and opposed with not a whit less of zeal than burns
intensely in their writings, when they are subjecting Arminianism to a
process of destructive criticism.
CHAPTER XIX.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account