An argument for effectual atonement?

Here is a recent essay on the ways in which that punishment Christ bore on the cross was the same as that deserved by sinners, and the ways in which it differed.

In what ways was the punishment borne by Christ on the cross identical with the punishment deserved by sinners? In what ways did it differ?


INTRODUCTION

John Owen’s The Death of Death makes a comprehensive argument for effectual atonement.[1] There have been attempts since its publication to refute “Owen’s proof that [effectual atonement] is part of the uniform biblical presentation of redemption, clearly taught in plain text after plain text. [But] nobody has done that yet.”[2] One such attempt[3] was made by Richard Baxter but in such a way as one might not immediately expect. Baxter critiqued Owen’s work in an appendix of his Aphorisms of Justification by tackling a seemingly less central claim in The Death of Death that “the payment made by Christ for us (by the payment of the debt of sin understand, by analogy, the undergoing of the punishment due unto it) was solutio ejusdem, or of the same thing directly which was in the obligation.”[4] As we proceed we will discuss the contours of this debate, considering the relevant biblical material, the systematic arguments made by both parties, and the exact positions of both Baxter, Grotius and Owen regarding this issue.[5] This discussion will lead us to discover the ways (if any) in which the punishment borne by Christ on the cross was identical with the punishment deserved by sinners and the ways (if any) in which it differed.




WHY BAXTER TACKLED THIS ARGUMENT

What we need to remember here is that Owen’s chief argument in The Death of Death is for effectual atonement, while Baxter’s Amyraldianism means he holds to a universal view of the atonement. At its deepest level then Baxter is trying to refute Owen’s doctrine of effectual atonement. [6]

If Owen can maintain that Christ suffered “the same thing directly which was in the obligation”[7] made to sinners then a key argument for effectual atonement would be upheld. For if Christ has paid everything in the obligation then not one ounce of God’s wrath remains on sinful humans, and of course if Christ made this atonement for all it follows that not one ounce of God’s wrath remains on any sinful humans, which the bible plainly denies.[8] But if Christ has died only for the elect, then not one ounce of God’s wrath remains on them only, and there is still every need for the Biblical picture of hell for those who don’t believe.

Whereas, if Baxter can dismantle Owen’s position and can prove that Christ paid: “not the very same that is in the obligation.”[9] Then he can also maintain a position of universal redemption, for God’s wrath has not been fully exhausted and there is still room for hell.
THE BIBLICAL MATERIAL

We turn now to Baxter’s and Grotius’[10] use of scripture to defend the argument that Christ paid “not the very same that is in the obligation,”[11] when he was on the cross. We begin in Genesis 2:17.[12] The argument runs that in the obligation here we read “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”[13] In other words not only is the punishment here death but a death which falls on the one who sins.[14] So when Owen says that according to its nature Christ paid an identical obligation with the one deserved by sinners, he is wrong because: “if the same in the obligation be paid [which Owen maintains] … then every sinner must die himself; for that is. … the very thing threatened … the law threatened not Christ but us.”[15]

In The Death of Christ[16] Owen works through the Biblical material which he claims support his position. Firstly, Owen cites Romans 8:32a declaring that it expressly reveals “the translation of punishment in respect of the subjects suffering it … [but does not speak] one word of the change of the kind of punishment.”[17] One leading evangelical scholar points out Romans 8:32a: “is picked up from the LXX Isa. 53, where it is used three times to describe the ‘handing over’ of the suffering servant.”[18] This suffering servant would be handed over exactly in our place, or “pierced for our transgressions”[19] as Isaiah 53 maintains, and not pierced for anything less.

Secondly Owen cites Galatians 3:13, noting that we all were under the curse of the law but that it was this very curse which “was undergone by the Lord Christ,”[20] and again not anything less or different. It may be argued in response that this is not true for all humanity but only for those “who rely on works of the law” as only they “are under a curse.”[21] However, Galatians 3:10 also affirms that everyone is cursed who “does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them,” a symptom which is universal.[22] So all are under a curse, and that very curse is what Christ has borne. This means that one writer can faithfully translate Galatians 3:13 as “God made Christ a cursed one for our sake,”[23] exactly what we were.[24]

Thirdly, Owen points out that in Romans 8:3 we see “where God condemneth sin, there he condemns it in that very punishment which is due unto it in the sinner.”[25] This is strongly supported by the context,[26] the removal of condemnation from the sinner being because that condemnation was exacted in Jesus’ flesh.[27] This is further supported in that it was the sin of the believer which was condemned in Jesus’ flesh so must have been the same condemnation, it would be unjust for God to punish the same sin in a different way.[28]

Fourthly Owen argues that because Christ died[29] he bore the same punishment deserved by sinners, for “the whole penalty for sin is death, Gen. ii. 17.”[30]

Fifthly, Owen proposes that when our sins were laid on Jesus[31] and when he was made sin for us,[32] in that act “lay the very punishment of our sin.”[33] Such an argument from these verses alone seems hard to come by, but the context of Isaiah 53 links, like Owen does, the imputation of our sin onto Christ, Christ suffering the punishment due to that sin.[34] Owen’s arguments are convincing.

Finally Owen refers us to the copious references in the New Testament which express Christ’s agonies in his passion, and Owen asks us to “see if they do not plainly hold out the utmost that ever was threatened to sin.”[35] Here Baxter would have no problems in responding, of course Christ’s death had to be as horrific a torture as the Bible describes, for Christ was establishing the new covenant and Baxter had learnt that “a testament [covenant] is established by blood.”[36]

THE SYSTEMATIC MATERIAL

Like any good work from the Puritans this debate was highly systematic and both sides repeatedly drew from “simple truths of logic.”[37] We will firstly critique the arguments from Baxter and Grotius which are claimed to be formulated by reading “simple truths of logic”[38] from clear scriptural propositions, [39] by considering Owen’s responses.

1. We have seen how Baxter and Grotius maintain their position from Genesis 2:17, they do so to the extent that Baxter “maintain[s solutio ejusdem] to be the offender’s own undergoing the penalty of the law.”[40] Such a position Owen tackles by making a distinction between “the constitution of the penalty itself to be undergone,”[41] and the “terminating of this penalty upon the person offending.”[42] On the latter of these Owen had already written two years previously that “God is … the only Lawgiver, who alone had power so far to relax his own law as to have the name of a surety put into the obligation.”[43] Because it is God’s “own law” he “had power so far to relax” it. And such a relaxation of the law in the area of the one suffering still ensures “the penalty itself in reference to its constitution [is] established.”[44]

2. The next argument which Baxter cites from Grotius to support his position is concerning the grace of God. We know from the Scriptures that God is gracious,[45] and Grotius believes that if this God has demanded an identical punishment be borne by Christ which is deserved by sinners we “leaveth no room for pardon.”[46] On this logic Baxter often talks about the cross as needing “God’s gracious acceptance”[47] a grace we see as he “accept[s] a refusable payment.”[48]

Owen has two points to make here; firstly he argues that his position does not nullify the grace of God because it was gracious of God to send his only Son for us in the first place. God translated: “the punishment from the principle debtor to the surety, which of his own free grace he himself had given and bestowed on the debtor.”[49] The second point Owen wants to make here is that God putting forward any payment in the sinners stead is gracious:

“Neither idem [an identical payment] nor tantundem [a different payment] is here satisfactory, but by virtue of divine constitution … this gracious acceptance is not an accepting of that which is less in value than what is in the obligation, but a free constitution appointing another thing to the end, which before was not appointed.”[50]

So even for God to accept Christ bearing an identical punishment as that deserved by sinners would be a “gracious acceptance … [and] a free constitution”[51]

3. The next argument from Baxter is that the punishment borne by Christ on the cross was not identical with that deserved by sinners because: “Christ suffered not the loss of God’s love, nor his image and graces, nor eternity of torment.”[52] Unfortunately for us Owen immediately replies by pointing out that: “Christ’s suffering not the loss of God’s love, etc. … have been answered near a thousand times already … so I shall not farther trouble any therewith.”[53] However at other points in The Death of Christ[54] Owen does take up one of the charges made by Baxter, namely that Christ did not suffer the “eternity of torment”[55] (which the Bible teaches is deserved by sinners[56]), so did not suffer an identical punishment as the one deserved by sinners.

Firstly, Owen agrees that Christ did not suffer punishment forever, because eternal death’s “attendancies, as duration and the like … [Christ] could not undergo.”[57] But Owen maintains that this does not jeopardise his position that “the payment made by Christ for us … [was] the same thing directly which was in the obligation,”[58] as he argues that “eternal death may be considered two ways, either as such in potentia, and in its own nature, or as actually, so our Saviour underwent it … in the first sense.”[59] Holding this distinction, Owen can claim that Jesus Christ really did suffer “the pains of hell,”[60] even though he did not “actually” suffer eternal death which is deserved by sinners. And if one is still thinking that there is a huge gulf between Christ’s six hours on the cross and the sinner’s suffering forever in hell, Owen also points out that although Christ only suffers eternal death in potentia, according to its nature, his “dignity of person … [makes it] equipotent to the”[61] “actual” eternal death.

Owen’s systematic argument, which we will critique with Baxter’s response, is that Christ’s death truly and fully delivered the elect from the curse, and so on the cross Christ must have suffered an identical punishment with that deserved by sinners: “by death [Christ] did deliver us from death, and that actually … He did actually, or ipso facto, deliver us from the curse, by being made a curse for us … even the whole obligation, was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross.”[62] Owen later adds that if Christ did not deliver us by his death absolutely “we shall have no benefit by his death but upon the performance of a condition, which himself by that death of his did not absolutely procure.”[63] A position Owen asserts is not biblical for “faith, which is this condition, is itself procured by the death of Christ for them for whom he died.”[64]

Baxter later replies that Owen is here falling into the Hyper-Calvinist error which claims pre-faith justification for the elect. But Owen has already noted that “all for whom [Christ died] … have all the fruits of his death in actual right, though not in actual possession.”[65] And anyone who would claim that the believer does not have the fruits of Christ’s death in actual right before they believe, has to maintain “a mystery of Vorstian theology; God changing his eternal purposes! … [Such] a mutable god is of the dunghill.”[66] Owen’s refutations of Baxter, and his own argument’s, are conclusive.

DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES[67]

I have mentioned that Baxter and Grotius do not think Jesus bore the same punishment as that which was deserved by sinners but bore one which was graciously accepted by God the creditor. However, Baxter is at pains to show in Aphorisms of Justification that this in no way means he thinks Christ paid any less than what was owed by sinners: “[God’s gracious acceptance] is … his accepting a refusable payment, which though equal in value yet he may choose to accept according to the tenor of the obligation.”[68] The main sense in which Baxter does not think the payment is the same is found in that it does not procure “its end ipso facto, delivering the debtor without the intervention of a new concession or contract of the creditor.”[69] It seems that by “new concession or contract of the creditor” Baxter is referring to God graciously “accepting a refusable payment.”[70] However this view of the cross not delivering the debtor ipso facto, as we have seen, stands against Scripture.[71]

Baxter then moves on to propose that Owen does not in fact think Christ paid exactly what was in the obligation of the law! He thinks Owen does not believe what he defends so vigorously, namely that God required “the debt at [Christ’s] hand to the utmost farthing.”[72] Baxter expresses this when he states the following correct proposition: “[Owen] confesses that the sureties name was not in the obligation; and that God relaxed the law to put it in,”[73] and then makes this inference from it: “Now the main business that Grotius … drives at, is but to prove this relaxation of the Law, and the non-execution of it on the offenders threatened,”[74] so Baxter claims Owen is actually arguing the same point he and Grotius are arguing, he says Owen “giveth up the cause at last, and saith as Grotius.”[75]

Owen replies by taking Baxter’s key phrase here, on which this particular argument rests, and stating: “This paralogism, ‘If the law be executed, then not relaxed,’ … ariseth merely from a non-consideration of the nature of contradictories.”[76] In other words this argument of illogical reasoning arises from Baxter’s non-realisation that a law can be fully executed even when it is relaxed in one sense. This Owen has maintained throughout by stating the law was only relaxed in terms of “the terminating of [the] penalty upon the person offending.”[77] Hence it follows that Owen does not end by agreeing with Baxter and his picture of Grotius, who claim Christ paid “not the very same that is in the obligation”[78] because the obligation in the law was not relaxed in terms of “the penalty itself to be undergone.”[79]

A final nail in the coffin against Baxter’s arguments comes when we turn to consider the real boundaries of Grotius’ position. Grotius apparently holds that Christ’s payment made to God on the cross was not the same payment as that owed by sinners, but was graciously accepted by God the creditor. However, this is a misreading of Grotius who when he does deny:

“that the performance by Jesus was the same as the punishment deserved by sinners … he explains the difference purely in terms of the fact that Jesus was not the one intended for punishment but was the one who endured it. In other words, he defines the difference solely by reference to the person punished, not to the measure of punishment itself.”[80]

This puts Grotius squarely on the side with Owen who, as we saw in the very last point, made this exact distinction.

One final way in which Baxter tries to blur the boundaries between his position and Owen’s comes in response to Owen’s description of the cross as a: “compensation.”[81] Baxter comments “[Owen] saith, it was a full valuable compensation, (therefore not the same.)”[82] As Baxter starts playing with Owen’s words like this we begin to understand why Owen would go on to make comments in his reply like: much of Baxter’s arguments “do lie rather against words than things, expressions than opinions, ways of delivering things than doctrines themselves.”[83]

CONCLUSION

So Owen successfully maintains that the punishment borne by Christ on the cross was identical with the punishment deserved by sinners, in what he calls “weight and pressure”[84] although not “in all accidents of duration and the like.”[85] From this position Owen can describe the cross as Christ “undergoing that same punishment which, by reason of the obligation that was upon [sinners], they themselves were bound to undergo.”[86] Whereas Baxter unsuccessfully maintains Christ bore a different punishment on the cross with that deserved by sinners in that it did not procure its end “ipso facto, delivering the debtor.”[87] Baxter cites Grotius in support of him but we have seen how this is not acceptable, Grotius “merely … emphasize[s] the Pauline theme of public demonstration ... [and does not] replace a retributive account of punishment.”[88] Such a retributive account of punishment which Owen and Grotius held has been seen to be biblical and thus stands as a valid argument in support of effectual atonement: “If the full debt of all be paid to the utmost extent of the obligation, how comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their debts?”[89] Well Christ must only have made satisfaction for those who are not shut up in prison to eternity, the elect.



[1] Effectual atonement is the ‘L’ in Calvinism’s TULIP, and is the belief that “Christ died with the intention of procuring salvation only for the elect: those whom God had determined from eternity past to save.” Steve Jeffrey, et. al. Pierced for our Transgressions (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2007), 269.
[2] J.I. Packer, A Quest For Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1990), 136.
[3] Which, to be fair to Baxter, must have been assumed by him to refute Owen’s work else Baxter would not have maintained his Amyraldian position throughout his life.
[4] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (vol. 10 of The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Goold; 1850-53; repr., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 268.
[5] The reason we approach the material in this order will become obvious when we get to the section titled “Defining the Boundaries” on page 8 as there is an unexpected twist in one of the fore-mentioned theologians positions.
[6] I claim this is the reason for Baxter tackling this aspect of Owens The Death of Death for this aspect is exactly what Owen uses to challenge the Amyraldian position in his treatise: “First, If the full debt of all be paid to the utmost extent of the obligation, how comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their debts? Secondly, If the Lord, as a just creditor, ought to cancel all obligations and surcease all law suits against such as have all their debts paid, whence is it that his wrath smokes against some to all eternity? Let none tell me it is because they walk not worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that not walking worthy is part of the debt which is fully paid, for … the debt so paid is all our sins. Thirdly, Is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and requires satisfaction of them for whom, by his own acknowledgment, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient? Hath he an after-reckoning that he thought not of? For, what was before him he spared him not … Fourthly, How comes it that God never gives a discharge to innumerable souls, thought their debts be paid? Fifthly, Whence is it that any one soul lives and dies under the condemning power of the law, never released, if that be fully satisfied on his behalf, so as it had been all one as if he had done whatsoever it could require? Let them that can reconcile these things.” Owen, Death of Death, 273.
[7] Owen, Death of Death, 268, my italics.
[8] Matt. 7:13; Mark 9:47-48; 2 Thess. 1:7b-9; Rev. 14:11; 19:3; 21:8 etc.
[9] Richard Baxter, Aphorisms of Justification: With Their Explication (Printed by Abraham Brown; 1655; repr., PuRe, 2006), 301, my italics.
[10] Baxter continually cites Grotius to support his own position that Christ did not pay the say in the obligation as that which was deserved by sinners and that is why I join them together here.
[11] Richard Baxter, Aphorisms, 301, my italics.
[12] This is actually an argument made by Grotius which Baxter says Owen “overlooked.” John Owen, The Death of Christ (vol. 10 of The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Goold; 1850-53; repr., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 443.
[13] Genesis 2:17, my italics.
[14] The same argument is made from Deuteronomy 27:26a “Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.” Here it is not only the curse threatened but also the coming of the curse on the one “who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.”
[15] Baxter is here paraphrasing Grotius in Aphorisms, 303, my italics.
[16] Owen, Death of Christ, 448-449.
[17] Owen, Death of Christ, 448.
[18] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmanns, 1996), 540 n.19. It must be noted though that Moo does not hold an effectual atonement reading of Romans 8:32: “note…that the text does not say ‘only for all you believers.’” Nevertheless his reading does support Owen’s in that Moo would agree that it expressly reveals “the translation of punishment in respect of the subjects suffering it.”
[19] Isaiah 53:5.
[20] Owen, Death of Christ, 448.
[21] Galatians 3:10.
[22] Romans 3:20.
[23] Joachim Jeremias in John Stott, The Cross of Christ, (Leicester: IVP, 1986 repr.,2003), 345.
[24] Galatians 3:10.
[25] Owen, Death of Christ, 448, italics mine.
[26] “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Romans 8:1, my italics.
[27] Romans 8:3.
[28] Luke 12:47-48a tells us that God is just so he punishes different sins in different ways, if this is so it surely follows that in his justice he punishes the same sins in the same ways.
[29] Hebrews 2:9.
[30] Owen, Death of Christ, 448. We will discuss later the arguments he uses here for a difference in the suffering, but this difference does not in any way effect the nature of the eternal death which “our Saviour underwent.”
[31] Isaiah 53:6.
[32] 2 Corinthians 5:21.
[33] Owen, Death of Christ, 448.
[34] “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities … the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all … he shall bear their iniquities … he bore the sin of many.” Isaiah 53:5, 6, 11, 12, my italics.
[35] Owen, Death of Christ, 448. He goes on to say here that: “[Christ’s] cries out of the deep … do all make out that the bitterness of the death due to sin was fully upon his soul”
[36] Richard Sibbes in J.I.Packer, The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter (Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing, 2003), 185. In support of this we of course turn to Luke 22:20.
[37] Garry J. Williams, From Salvation History to Systematic Soteriology: A Lecture (Given at Oak Hill College, 2007 as part of CD4/5.3 Doctrine of Salvation), 11.
[38] Williams, Salvation History, 11.
[39] There are three arguments.
[40] Owen, Death of Christ, 440. Solutio ejusdem we saw was Owen’s term to explain his position that Christ suffered the same penalty in our place. See “Introduction” on page 1.
[41] Owen, Death of Christ, 443.
[42] Owen, Death of Christ, 443.
[43] Owen, Death of Death, 270.
[44] Owen, Death of Christ, 443.
[45] 2 Corinthians 12:9; Galatians 1:3; 1 Peter 5:10.
[46] Baxter, Aphorisms, 303.
[47] Baxter cited in Owen, Death of Christ, 437, 441 etc.
[48] Baxter, Aphorisms, 302.
[49] Owen, Death of Death, 270, my italics. On this point Owen also states: “the satisfaction of Christ, by the payment of the same thing that was required in the obligation, is no way prejudicial to that free, gracious condonation of sin so often mentioned. God’s gracious pardoning of sin compriseth the whole dispensation of grace towards us in Christ.” Owen, Death of Death, 268.
[50] Owen, Death of Christ, 441, author’s italics.
[51] Owen, Death of Christ, 441.
[52] Baxter, Aphorisms, 303.
[53] Owen, Death of Christ, 443. And they have been answered “near a thousand times already … by ‘no ordinary divines’ neither.”
[54] And in his work of two years previously Death of Death.
[55] Baxter, Aphorisms, 303, my italics.
[56] “Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” Mark 9:48, italics added. “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” 2 Thessalonians 2:9, italics added. “The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” Revelation 14:11, italics added.
[57] Owen, Death of Christ, 448. Referencing Psalm 16:8-11 and Acts 2:24-28 and elsewhere explicitly stating: “it was impossible that he should be detained by death.” Owen, The Death of Death, 270.
[58] John Owen, Death of Death, 268.
[59] Owen, The Death of Christ, 448, author’s italics. Owen here refers the reader to Psalm 22:1; 116:3; Luke 22:44. This last reference concerning Christ sweating being especially potent as sweat was a mark of the curse which God placed in man at the fall (Genesis 3:19) and which Owen has already argued Christ suffered the full force of from Galatians 3:13.
[60] Owen, Death of Christ, 448.
[61] Owen, Death of Christ, 448, my italics.
[62] Owen, Death of Death, 268, author’s italics.
[63] Owen, Death of Christ, 450.
[64] Owen, Death of Christ, 450, my italics. Biblically we would want to assert that Baxter is right: Romans 5:9-10; 8:3; Galatians 1:4; 3:13; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:20; 2:13-14; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 2:14-15; 9:26; 1 Peter 3:18. This list is taken from Garry J. Williams, Effectual Atonement: A Lecture (Given at Oak Hill College, 2007 as part of CD4/5.3 Doctrine of Salvation), 63.
[65] Owen, Death of Death, 268, italics mine.
[66] Owen, Death of Christ, 452.
[67] I have included this section later rather than earlier because we can only realise the importance of the following issues once we have consider the biblical and systematic arguments from both sides.
[68] Baxter, Aphorisms, 302, my italics.
[69] Baxter, Aphorisms, 302, author’s italics.
[70] Baxter, Aphorisms, 302.
[71] Romans 5:9-10; 8:3; Galatians 1:4; 3:13; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:20; 2:13-14; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 2:14-15; 9:26; 1 Peter 3:18. Williams, Effectual Atonement, 63.
[72] Owen, The Death of Death, 270, my italics.
[73] Baxter, Aphorisms, 306. But Baxter errs when he infers from this that the obligation in the law must not then have been fully executed, Baxter believes “’if the law be executed, then not relaxed,’ and on the contrary.” i.e. if the law be relaxed then not executed. Owen, The Death of Christ, 447.
[74] Baxter, Aphorisms, 306, author’s italics.
[75] Baxter, Aphorisms, 305.
[76] Owen, Death of Christ, 447.
[77] Owen, Death of Christ, 443.
[78] Baxter, Aphorisms, 301, my italics.
[79] Owen, Death of Christ, 443.
[80] Garry J. Williams, “Grotius, Hugo (1583-1645),” in The Dictionary of Historical Theology ed. T.A. Hart; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Paternoster Press, 2000), 236. It seems that Owen himself has a similar point to make as Williams here when he writes: “a supposal that I should oppose Grotius in his main intendment … was not once in my thoughts.” Owen, Death of Christ, 448.
[81] Owen, Death of Death, 270.
[82] Baxter, Aphorisms, 305.
[83] Owen, Death of Christ, 435. Owen also writes Baxter has: “cast some part of the doctrine of the satisfaction and redemption of Christ, as by me [Owen] delivered, into a crooked frame.” (436), also he has taken the controversy between Grotius and Owen and “so changed [it] by a new dress that I [Owen] might justly refuse to take any acquaintance with it.” (442) Moreover in one of Baxter’s expressions of an Owen argument: “the very strength of it as laid down is omitted.” (444) And Baxter’s criticism of Owen’s “lack” of answering Grotius is seen by Owen as: “A most unhappy issue as can possibly be imagined, made up of deceit, weakness, and self-contradiction!” (443)
[84] Owen, Death of Death, 269.
[85] Owen, Death of Death, 269.
[86] Owen, Death of Death, 269.
[87] Baxter, Aphorisms, 302.
[88] Williams, “Grotius,” 236.
[89] Owen, Death of Death, 273, my italics.