Thirdly, Our conversion is a " new creation," a " resurrection," a " new birth." Now, he that createth a man doth not persuade him to create himself, neither can he if he should, nor hath he any power to resist him that will create him, — that is, as we now take it, trans- late him from something that he is to what he is not. What argu- ments do you think Avcre sufficient to persuade a dead man to rise?
OF OUE CONVERSION TO GOD. 137
or what great aid can he contribute to his own resurrection? Nei- ther doth a man beget himself; a new real form was never yet intro- duced into any matter by subtle arguments. These are the terms the Scripture is pleased to use concerning our conversion: — " If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature," 2 Cor. v. 1 7. The " new man after God is created in righteousness and true holiness/' Eph. iv. 24. It is our new birth : " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," John iii. 3. " Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth," James i. 18. And so we become "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever," 1 Pet. i. 23. It is our vivification and resurrection: "The Son quickeneth whom he will," John v. 21, even those " dead," who " hear his voice and live," verse 25. "When we were dead in sins," we are " quickened together with Christ by grace," Eph. ii. 5; for "being buried with him by baptism, we are also risen with him through the faith of the operation of God," Col. ii. 12. And " blessed and holy is he that hath part in that first re- surrection; on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."
SALUS ELECTOEUM, SANGUIS JESU ;
THE DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST:
A TREATISE OF THE REDEMPTION AND RECONCILIATION THAT IS IN THE BLOOD OE CHRIST;
WITH
THE MERIT THEREOF, AND THE SATISFACTION WROUGHT THEREBY:
■SVHEREIS
TUE PEOPER END OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS ASSERTED ; THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS AND FRUlTo THEREOF ASSIGNED, WITH THEIR EXTENT IN RESPECT OF ITS OBJECT ;
AND THE
AVUOLB CONTROVERSY ABOUT UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION FULLY DISCUSSED. IN FOUR PARTS.
I. DECLARING THE ETERNAL COUNSEL AND DISTINCT ACTUAL CONCURRENCE OF THE HOLT TRINITY UNTO THE WORK OF REDEMPTION IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ; WITH THE COVENANTED INTENDMENT AND ACCOMPLISHED END OF Gi'D THEREIN. II. REMOVING FALSE AND SUPPOSED ENDS OP THE DEATH OF CHRIST, WITH THE DISTINCTIONS INVENTED TO SOLVE THE MANIFOLD CONTRADICTIONS OF THE PRETENDED UMVEKSAL ATONEMENT ; RIGHTLY STAT- ING THE CONTROVERSY.
HI CONTAININ^J ARGUMENTS AGAI.VST UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION FBOM TUB WORD OF GOD ; WITH AN ASSER- TION OF THE SATISFACTION AND MERIT OF CHRIST.
IV. AN^WERING ALL CO.S'SIDERABLE OBJECTIONS AS YET BEOUGHP TO LIGHT, EITHER BY THE ARMINIANS OR OTHERS (THEIR LATE FOLLOWERS AS TO THIS POINT), I.V THE BEHALF OF UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION; WITH A LARGE UNFOLDING OF ALL THE TEXTS OP SCKIPIURE BY ANY PRODUCED AND WRESTED TO THAT PURPOSE.
The Sou of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give hi3 life a ransom for
many, — Matt. x.\. 28. lu wliom we liave redemption ttirough his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his
grace.— Eph. i. 7.
Imprimatur, Jan. 22, 1647. John Ckanfokd.
PREFATORY NOTE.
In the testimonies from the ancient fathers, which Owen ajipends to the foHowinj^ treatise, lie quotes Auj!;tistine and Prosper as authorities in support of his own view of a definite and effectual atonement. Though these fathers, in opposition (o the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians of their day, held this view, the point did not emerge into commanding prominence in the controversy with wliich their names are chiefly and honourably associated. It was by no means a subject of si)ecial conti'oversy, or the key of their position in the field on which their polemical Linrels were won. It was otherwise in the dispute which prevailed between Iliucmar and Gottsclialc, exactly four centuries later. The discussion on the ex- tent of the atonement then assumed a distinct and positive shape. The decisions of the different councils which sat in judgment upon their conflicting principles will be found in the appendix to this treatise. The same controversy was renewed in Holland between the Gomarists and the Arminians, when the Synod of Dort, in one of its articles, condemned the Remonstrant doctiine of a universal atone- ment. Cameron, the accomplished professor of divinity at Saumur, originated the last important discussion on this point before Owen wrote his treatise on it. The views of Cameron were adopted and urged with great ability by two of his scholars, Amyraut and Testard; aiid in the year 1634 a controversy arose, which agitated the French Church for many years. Amyraut had the support of Uaille aiid Blonde!!. He was ably opposed by Rivet, Siianheim, and Des Alarets.
In the last two instances in which discussion on the extent of the atonement revived in the Reformed Churches, there was an essential distinction, very com- monly overlooked, between the special points upon which the controversies re- spectively turned. The object of the article on the death of Christ, emitted by the Synod of Dort, was to counteract the tenet tiiat Clirist by the atonement only acquired for the Father a plenary right and freedom to institute a new procedure with all men, by which, on condition of their own obedience, they might be saved. The divines of Saumur would not have accepted this tenet as a correct rej)resen- tation of their sentiments. Admitting that, by the purpose of God, and tin-ough the death of Christ, the elect are infallibly secured in the enjoyment of salvation, they contended for an antecedent decree, by which God is free to give salvation to all men through Christ, on the condlthn that they believe on him. Hence their system was termed hypothetic unircrsalism. The vital difference between it and the strict Arminian theory lies in the absolute security asserted in the former lor the si^iritual recovery of the elect. They agree, however, in attributing some kind of universality to the atonement, and in nuiintaining that, on a certain con- dition, within the reach of fulfilment by all men, — obedience generally, according to the Arminians, and faith, according to the diviues of Sauniur,^all )nen have access to the ' -efits of Christ's death. To impart consistency to the theory of Amyraut, ^' ast, in some sense, be comj)etent to all men; and he held, accord-