Owen: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ

OWEN: THE DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST John Owen

Date: 1647. Public domain. Source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath

Title: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ Creator(s): Owen, John (1616-1683) Print Basis: The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1967. CCEL Subjects: All; Theology; Classic; LC Call no: BT775.09 LC Subjects:

Doctrinal theology

Salvation

Salus electorum, sanguis Jesu;

or,

the death of death in the death of Christ:

a treatise of the redemption and reconciliation that is in the blood of Christ;

with

the merit thereof, and the satisfaction wrought thereby:

wherein

the proper end of the death of Christ is asserted; the immediate effects and fruits thereof assigned, with their extent in respect of its object;

and the

whole controversy about universal redemption fully discussed.

In four parts.

1. Declaring the eternal counsel and distinct actual concurrence of the holy Trinity unto the work of redemption in the blood of Christ; with the covenanted intendment and accomplished end of God therein.

2. Removing false and supposed ends of the death of Christ, with the distinctions invented to solve the manifold contradictions of the pretended universal atonement; rightly stating the controversy.

3. Containing arguments against universal redemption from the word of God; with an assertion of the satisfaction and merit of Christ.

4. Answering all considerable objections as yet brought to light, either by the Arminians or others (their late followers as to this point), in the behalf of universal redemption; with a large unfolding of all the texts of scripture by any produced and wrested to that purpose.

The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. -- Matt. xx. 28.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. -- Eph. i. 7.

Imprimatur, John Cranford.

Jan. 22, 1647.

Prefatory note.

In the testimonies from the ancient fathers, which Owen appends to the following treatise, he quotes Augustine and Prosper as authorities in support of his own view of a definite and effectual atonement. Though these fathers, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians of their day, held this view, the point did not emerge into commanding prominence in the controversy with which their names are chiefly and honourably associated. It was by no means a subject of special controversy, or…