ingly, tl" e oi vuhersal (jrace : in which respect his theory difl'ers essentially
from J of universal atonement, as embraced by eminent Calvinistic
r"' the necessity of the s^pecial ojteration of grace in order to the
"he readers of Owen will understand, from this cursory ex- ])i^ wells with j)eculiar Iceeiniess and reiteration of statement
upon a.^ the conditional system, or the system of ««trt7«(i/ (/racf, ac-
cording to the naiii«- it bore in subsequent discussions. It was plausible ; it had many learned men for its advocates; it had obtained currency in the foreign chuiches; and it seems to iiave been embraced by Jlore, or ^Moore, to whose work on " The Universality of (iod's Free Grace," our author replies at great length.
Thomas Moore is described by Edwards, in his " Gaugriena," part ii. j). 86, as "a great sectary, that did much hurt in lancolnshire, Norfolk, and Cambridge- shire; who was famous also in Boston, Lynn, and even in Holland, and was fol- lowed from place to place by many." His work, in a quarto volume, was \n\h- lished in 1643 ; and in the same year a reply to it appeared from the pen of
PREFATORY NOTE. 14-1
Thomas Whitefield, " Minister of t)ie Gospel at Great Yarmouth." Mr Orme remarks, " He takes care to inform us on the title-page that ' Thomas IMoore was late a weaver at Wills, near Wisbitch.' " And he adds, in regard to JNIoore's production, " Without approving of the argument of the work, I have no hesi- tation in saying that it is creditable to the talents of the weaver, and not dis- creditable to his piety." The weaver, it should be added, Avas the author of some other works: " Discovery of Seducers that Creep into Houses," " On Baptism," "A Discourse about the Precious Blood and Sacrifice of Christ," etc.
In 1650, Mr Home, minister at Lynn in Norfolk, a man, according to Palmer (Nonconf. ]\Iem., iii. pp. 6, 7), " of exemplary and primitive piety," and author of sevei'al works, published a reply to Owen's work, under the title, " The Open Door for Man's Apj^roach to God ; or, a vindication of the record of God con- cerning the extent of the death of Christ, in answer to a treatise on that sub- ject by Mr John Owen." Home had considerable reputation for skill in the oriental languages, and "some of his remarks and interpretations of Scripture," in the judgment of Mr Orme, " were not unworthy of Owen's attention." Owen, however, in his epistle prefixed to his " Vindicice Evangelicae," expresses his opi- nion that the work of Home did not deserve a reply.
Two years after the following work had been published, its author had to de- fend some of the views he had maintained in it against a more formidable and celebrated adversary. Richard Baxter,in an appendix to his "Aphorisms on Justi- fication," took exception to some of the views of Owen on redemption. Owen answered him in a treatise which may be regarded as an appendix to his " Death of Death." In tlie discussions between them, so much of scholastic subtilty appears on both sides that little interest is likely to be felt in that department of the general question on which they were at variance.
It ma}' be necessary to state precisely what opinion Owen really held on the subject of the extent of the atonement. All opinions on this point may, in general terms, be reduced to four. There are a few who hold that Clirist died so as ultimately to secure the salvation of all men. There are others who main- tain the view condennied by the Synod of Dort, that by the death of Christ God is enabled to save all or any, on condition of their obedience. There is a third party, who, while they believe that Christ died so as infallibly to secure the salva- tion of the elect, hold that inasmuch as Christ, in his obedience and sufferings, did what all men were under obligation to do, and suffered what all men deserved to sutler, his atonement has a general as well as a special aspect and reference, in virtue of which the offer of the gospel may be freely tendered to them. Lastly, there are those, and Owen amongst the number, who advocate a limited or de- finite atonement, such an atonement as implies a necessary connection between the death of Clirist and the salvation of those for whom he died, while the actual bearing of the atonement on the lost is left among the things unrevealed, save only that their guilt and punishment are enhanced by the rejection of that mercy offered in the gospel. Hagenbach, in his "History of Doctrines," vol. ii. p. 255, strangely asserts, that " as regards the extent of the atonement, all denominations, with the exception of the Calvinists, hold that salvation was offered to all." It would be difficult to specify any Calvinists worthy of the name who hold that sal- vation should not be offered to all; and it seems needful to state that Owen at least, a very Cal\ inist of Calvinists, held no such view. On the contrary, among Calvinists that adhere to the doctrine of a definite atonement, it has been matter of debate, not whether the gospel should be universally offered, but on what basis, — the simple command and warrant of the Word, or the intrinsic and in- finite sufficiency of the atonement, — the universal offer of the gospel jjroceeds. Perhaps this point was never formally before the mind of our author, but he in- timates that the "innate sufficiency of the death of Christ is the foundation of its promiscuous proposal to the elect and reprobate."