Owen, A Vindication... File 2
(... continued from File 1)
This one testimony ought to be enough unto this sort
of men, whilst they are at any consistency with their own
reputation: for it is evident that there is nothing
concerning personal election, effectual vocation,
justification by the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ, participation of him, union of believers unto and
with his person, derivation of grace from him, etc.,
which are so reproached by our present author, but they
are asserted by this great champion of the church of
England, who undoubtedly knew the doctrine which it
owned, and in his days approved, and that in such words
and expressions, as remote from the sentiments, or at
least as unsavoury to the palates, of these men, as any
they except against in others.
And what themselves so severely charge on us in
point of discipline, that nothing be spoken about it
until all is answered that is written by Mr Hooker in its
defence, may, I hope, not immodestly be so far returned,
as to desire them that in point of doctrine they will
grant us truce, until they have moved out of the way what
is written to the same purpose by Mr Hooker. Why do not
they speak to him to leave fooling, and to speak sense,
as they do to others? But let these things be as they
are; I have no especial concernment in them, nor shall
take any farther notice of them, but only as they
influence the exceptions which this author makes unto
some passages in that book of mine. And in what I shall
do herein, I shall take as little notice as may be of
those scurrilous and reproachful expressions, which
either his inclination or his circumstances induced him
to make use of. If he be pleased with such a course of
procedure, I can only assure him, that as to my
concernment, I am not displeased; and so he is left unto
his full liberty for the future.
The first thing he quarrels about, is my asserting
the necessity of acquaintance with the person of Christ;
which expression he frequently makes use of afterward in
a way of reproach. The use of the word "acquaintance," in
this matter, is warranted by our translation of the
Scripture, and that properly, where it is required of us
to acquaint ourselves with God. And that I intended
nothing thereby but the knowledge of Jesus Christ, is
evident beyond any pretence to the contrary to be
suggested by the most subtle or inventive malice. The
crime, therefore, wherewith I am here charged, is my
assertion that it is necessary that Christians should
know Jesus Christ; which I have afterward increased, by
affirming also that they ought to love him: for by Jesus
Christ all the world of Christians intend the person of
Christ; and the most of them, all of them, - the
Socinians only excepted, - by his person, "the Word made
flesh," or the Son of God incarnate, the mediator between
God and man. For because the name Christ is sometimes
used metonymically, to conclude thence that Jesus Christ
is not Jesus Christ, or that it is not the person of
Christ that is firstly and properly intended by that name
in the gospel, is a lewd and impious imagination; and we
may as well make Christ to be only a light within us, as
to be the doctrine of the gospel without us. This
knowledge of Jesus Christ I aver to be the only fountain
of all saving knowledge: which is farther reflected on by
this author; and he adds (no doubt out of respect unto
me), "that he will not envy the glory of this discovery
unto its author;" and therefore honestly confesseth that
he met with it in my book. But what does he intend?
Whither will prejudice and corrupt designs carry and
transport the minds of men? Is it possible that he should
be ignorant that it is the duty of all Christians to know
Jesus Christ, to be acquainted with the person of Christ,
and that this is the fountain of all saving knowledge,
until he met with it in my book about communion with God;
which I dare say he looked not into, but only to find
what he might except against? It is the Holy Ghost
himself that is the author of this discovery; and it is
the great fundamental principle of the gospel. Wherefore,
surely, this cannot be the man's intention; and therefore
we must look a little farther, to see what it is that he
aimeth at. After, then, the repetition of some words of
mine, he adds, as his sense upon them, p. 39, "So that it
seems the gospel of Christ makes a very imperfect and
obscure discovery of the nature, attributes, and the will
of God, and the methods of our recovery. We may
thoroughly understand whatever is revealed in the gospel,
and yet not have a clear and saving knowledge of these
things, until we get a more intimate acquaintance with
the person of Christ." And again, p. 40: "I shall show
you what additions these men make to the gospel of Christ
by an acquaintance with his person; and I confess I am
very much beholden to this author, for acknowledging
whence they fetch all their orthodox and gospel
mysteries, for I had almost pored my eyes out with
seeking for them in the gospel, but could never find
them; but I learn now, that indeed they are not to be
found there, unless we be first acquainted with the
person of Christ." So far as I can gather up the sense of
these loose expressions, it is, that I assert a knowledge
of the person of Jesus Christ which is not revealed in
the gospel, which is not taught us in the writings of
Moses, the prophets, or apostles, but must be had some
other way. He tells me afterward, p. 41, that I put in a
word fallaciously, which expresseth the contrary; as
though I intended another knowledge of Christ than what
is declared in the gospel. Now, he either thought that
this was not my design or intention, but would make use
of a pretence of it for his advantage unto an end aimed
at (which what it was I know well enough); or he thought,
indeed, that I did assert and maintain such a knowledge
of the person of Christ as was not received by Scripture
revelation. If it was the first, we have an instance of
that new morality which these new doctrines are
accompanied withal; if the latter, he discovers how meet
a person he is to treat of things of this nature.
Wherefore, to prevent such scandalous miscarriages, or
futilous imaginations for the future, I here tell him,
that if he can find in that book, or any other of my
writings, any expression, or word, or syllable,
intimating any knowledge of Christ, or any acquaintance
with the person of Christ, but what is revealed and
declared in the gospel, in the writings of Moses, the
prophets, and apostles, and as it is so revealed and
declared, and learned from thence, I will publicly burn
that book with my own hands, to give him and all the
world satisfaction. Nay, I say more: if an angel from
heaven pretend to give any other knowledge of the person
of Christ, but what is revealed in the gospel, let him be
accursed. And here I leave this author to consider with
himself, what was the true occasion why he should first
thus represent himself unto the world in print, by the
avowing of so unworthy and notorious a calumny.
Whereas, therefore, by an acquaintance with the
person of Christ, it is undeniably evident that I
intended nothing but that knowledge of Christ which it is
the duty of every Christian to labour after, - no other
but what is revealed, declared, and delivered in the
Scripture, as almost every page of my book does manifest
where I treat of these things; I do here again, with the
good leave of this author, assert, that this knowledge of
Christ is very necessary unto Christians, and the
fountain of all saving knowledge whatever. And as he may,
if he please, review the honesty and truth of that
passage, p. 38, "So that our acquaintance with Christ's
person, in this man's divinity, signifies such a
knowledge of what Christ is, has done, and suffered for
us, from whence we may learn those greater, deeper, and
more saving mysteries of the gospel, which Christ has not
expressly revealed to us;" so I will not so far suspect
the Christianity of them with whom we have to do, as to
think it necessary to confirm by texts of Scripture
either of these assertions; which whoever denies is an
open apostate from the gospel.
Having laid this foundation in an equal mixture of
that truth and sobriety wherewith sundry late writings of
this nature and to the same purpose have been stuffed, he
proceeds to declare what desperate consequences ensue
upon the necessity of that knowledge of Jesus Christ
which I have asserted, addressing himself thereunto, p.
40.
Many instances of such dealings will make me apt to
think that some men, whatever they pretend to the
contrary, have but little knowledge of Jesus Christ
indeed. But whatever this man thinks of him, an account
must one day be given before and unto him of such false
calumnies as his lines are stuffed withal. Those who will
believe him, that he has almost "pored out his eyes" in
reading the gospel, with a design to find out mysteries
that are not in it, are left by me to their liberty; only
I cannot but say, that his way of expressing the study of
the Scripture, is [not?] such as becometh a man of his
wisdom, gravity, and principles. He will, I hope, one day
be better acquainted with what belongs unto the due
investigation of sacred truth in the Scripture, than to
suppose it represented by such childish expressions. What
he has learned from me I know not; but that I have
anywhere taught that there are mysteries of religion that
are not to be found in the gospel, unless we are first
acquainted with the person of Christ, is a frontless and
impudent falsehood. I own no other, never taught other
knowledge of Christ, or acquaintance with his person, but
what is revealed and declared in the gospel; and
therefore, no mysteries of religion can be thence known
and received, before we are acquainted with the gospel
itself. Yet I will mind this author of that, whereof if
he be ignorant, he is unfit to be a teacher of others,
and which if he deny, he is unworthy the name of a
Christian, - namely, that by the knowledge of the person
of Christ, the great mystery of God manifest in the
flesh, as revealed and declared in the gospel, we are led
into a clear and full understanding of many other
mysteries of grace and truth; which are all centred in
his person, and without which we can have no true nor
sound understanding of them. I shall speak it yet again,
that this author, if it be possible, may understand it;
or, however, that he and his co-partners in design may
know that I neither am nor ever will be ashamed of it: -
that without the knowledge of the person of Christ, which
is our acquaintance with him (as we are commanded to
acquaint ourselves with God) as he is the eternal Son of
God incarnate, the mediator between God and man, with the
mystery of the love, grace, and truth of God therein, as
revealed and declared in the Scripture, there is no true,
useful, saving knowledge of any other mysteries or truths
of the gospel to be attained. This being the substance of
what is asserted in my discourse, I challenge this man,
or any to whose pleasure and favour his endeavours in
this kind are sacrificed, to assert and maintain the
contrary, if so be they are indeed armed with such a
confidence as to impugn the foundations of Christianity.
But to evince his intention, he transcribeth the
ensuing passages out of my discourse: - P. 41, "The sum
of all true wisdom and knowledge may be reduced to these
three heads: - 1. The knowledge of God; his nature and
properties. 2. The knowledge of ourselves with reference
to the will of God concerning us. 3. Skill to walk in
communion with God. In these three is summed up all true
wisdom and knowledge, and not any of them is to any
purpose to be obtained, or is manifested, but only in and
by the Lord Christ."
This whole passage I am far from disliking, upon
this representation of it, or any expression in it. Those
who are not pleased with this distribution of spiritual
wisdom, may make use of any such of their own wherewith
they are better satisfied. This of mine was sufficient
unto my purpose. Hereon this censure is passed by him: -
"Where by is fallaciously added to include the
revelations Christ has made; whereas his first
undertaking was, to show how impossible it is to
understand these things savingly and clearly,
notwithstanding all those revelations God has made of
himself and his will by Moses and the prophets, and by
Christ himself, without an acquaintance with his person."
The fallacy pretended is merely of his own coining; my
words are plain, and suited unto my own purpose, and to
declare my mind in what I intend; which he openly
corrupting, or not at all understanding, frames an end
never thought of by me, and then feigns fallacious means
of attaining it. The knowledge I mean is to be learned by
Christ; neither is any thing to be learned in him but
what is learned by him. I do say, indeed, now, whatever I
have said before, that it is impossible to understand any
sacred truth savingly and clearly, without the knowledge
of the person of Christ; and shall say so still, let this
man and his companions say what they will to the
contrary: but that in my so saying I exclude the
consideration of the revelations which Christ has made,
or that God has made of himself by Moses and the
prophets, and Christ himself, the principal whereof
concern his person, and whence alone we come to know him,
is an assertion becoming the modesty and ingenuity of
this author. But hereon he proceeds, and says, that as to
the first head he will take notice of those peculiar
discoveries of the nature of God of which the world was
ignorant before, and of which revelation is wholly
silent, but are now clearly and savingly learned from an
acquaintance with Christ's person. But what, in the
meantime, is become of modesty, truth, and honesty? Do
men reckon that there is no account to be given of such
falsifications? Is there any one word or little in my
discourse of any such knowledge of the nature or
properties of God as whereof revelation is wholly silent?
What does this man intend? Does he either not at all
understand what I say; or does he not care what he says
himself? What have I done to him? wherein have I injured
him? how have I provoked him, that he should sacrifice
his conscience and reputation unto such a revenge? Must
he yet hear it again? I never thought, I never owned, I
never wrote, that there was any acquaintance to be
obtained with any property of the nature of God by the
knowledge of the person of Christ, but what is taught and
revealed in the gospel; from whence alone all knowledge
of Christ, his person, and his doctrine, is to be
learned. And yet I will say again, if we learn not thence
to know the Lord Christ, - that is, his person, - we
shall never know any thing of God, ourselves, or our
duty, clearly and savingly (I use the words again,
notwithstanding the reflections on them, as more proper
in this matter than any used by our author in his
eloquent discourse), and as we ought to do. From hence he
proceeds unto weak and confused discourses about the
knowledge of God and his properties without any knowledge
of Christ; for he not only tells us "what reason we had
to believe such and such things of God, if Christ had
never appeared in the world," (take care, I pray, that we
be thought as little beholden to him as may be), "but
that God's readiness to pardon, and the like, are plainly
revealed in the Scripture, without any farther
acquaintance with the person of Christ," p. 43. What this
farther acquaintance with the person of Christ should
mean, I do not well understand: it may be, any more
acquaintance with respect unto some that is necessary; -
it may be, without any more ado as to an acquaintance
with him. And if this be his intention, - as it must be,
if there be sense in his words, - that God's readiness to
pardon sinners is revealed in the Scripture without
respect unto the person of Jesus Christ, it is a piece of
dull Socinianism; which, because I have sufficiently
confuted else where, I shall not here farther discover
the folly of. [As] for a knowledge of God's essential
properties by the light of nature, it was never denied by
me; yea, I have written and contended for it in another
way than can be impeached by such trifling declamations.
But yet, with his good leave, I do believe that there is
no saving knowledge of, or acquaintance with God or his
properties, to be attained, but in and through Jesus
Christ, as revealed unto us in the gospel. And this I can
confirm with testimonies of the Scripture, fathers,
schoolmen, and divines of all sorts, with reasons and
arguments, such as I know this author cannot answer. And
whatever great apprehensions he may have of his skill and
abilities to know God and his properties by the light of
nature, now that he neither knows nor is able to
distinguish what he learns from thence, and what he has
imbibed in his education from an emanation of divine
revelation; yet I believe there were as wise men as
himself amongst those ancient philosophers, concerning
whom and their inquiries into the nature of God our
apostle pronounces those censures, Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 1.
But on this goodly foundation he proceeds unto a
particular inference, p. 44, saying, "And is not this a
confident man, to tell us that the love of God to
sinners, and his pardoning mercy, could never have
entered into the heart of man but by Christ, when the
experience of the whole world confutes him? For, whatever
becomes of his new theories, both Jews and heathens, who
understood nothing at all of what Christ was to do in
order to our recovery, did believe God to be gracious and
merciful to sinners, and had reason to do so; because God
himself had assured the Jews that he was a gracious and
merciful God, pardoning iniquity, transgressions, and
sins. And those natural notions heathens had of God, and
all those discoveries God had made of himself in the
works of creation and providence, did assure them that
God is very good: and it is not possible to understand
what goodness is, without pardoning grace."
I beg his excuse: truth and good company will give a
modest man a little confidence sometimes; and against his
experience of the whole world, falsely pretended, I can
oppose the testimonies of the Scripture, and all the
ancient writers of the church, very few excepted. We can
know of God only what he has, one way or other, revealed
of himself, and nothing else; and I say again, that God
has not revealed his love unto sinners, and his pardoning
mercy, any other way but in and by Jesus Christ. For what
he adds as to the knowledge which the Jews had of these
things by God's revelation in the Scripture, when he can
prove that all those revelations, or any of them, had not
respect unto the promised seed, - the Son of God, - to be
exhibited in the flesh to destroy the works of the devil,
he will speak somewhat unto his purpose. In the meantime,
this insertion of the consideration of them who enjoyed
that revelation of Christ which God was pleased to build
his church upon under the Old Testament, is weak and
impertinent. Their apprehensions, I acknowledge,
concerning the person of Christ, and the speciality of
the work of his mediation, were dark and obscure; but so,
also, proportionally was their knowledge of all other
sacred truths, which yet with all diligence they inquired
into. That which I intended is expressed by the apostle,
1 Cor. 2: 9,10, "It is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the
things which God has prepared for them that love him. But
God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit." What a
confident man was this apostle, as to affirm that the
things of the grace and mercy of God did never enter into
the heart of man to conceive, nor would so have done, had
they not been revealed by the Spirit of God in the gospel
through Jesus Christ!
But this is only a transient charge. There ensues
that which is much more severe, p. 45; as, for instance,
"He tells us, 'that in Christ' (that is, in his death and
sufferings for our sins) 'God has manifested the
naturalness of this righteousness' (that is, vindictive
justice in punishing sin), 'that it was impossible that
it should be diverted from sinners without the
interposing of a propitiation; that is, that God is so
just and righteous, that he cannot pardon sin without
satisfaction to his justice.' Now, this indeed is such a
notion of justice as is perfectly new, which neither
Scripture nor nature acquaints us with; for all mankind
have accounted it an act of goodness, without the least
suspicion of injustice in it, to remit injuries and
offences without exacting any punishment, - that he is so
far from being just, that he is cruel and savage, who
will remit no offence till he has satisfied his revenge."
The reader who is in any measure or degree acquainted
with these things, knows full well what is intended by
that which I have asserted. It is no more but this, -
that such is the essential holiness and righteousness of
the nature of God, that, considering him as the supreme
governor and ruler of all mankind, it was inconsistent
with the holiness and rectitude of his rule, and the
glory of his government, to pass by sin absolutely, or to
pardon it without satisfaction, propitiation, or
atonement. This, I said, was made evident in the death
and sufferings of Christ, wherein God made all our
iniquities to meet upon him, and spared him not, that we
might obtain mercy and grace. This is here now called out
by our author as a very dangerous or foolish passage in
my discourse, which he thought he might highly advantage
his reputation by reflecting upon. But as the orator said
to his adversary, "Equidem vehementer laetor sum esse me,
in quem to cum cuperes, nullam contumeliam jacere
potueris, quae non ad maximam partem civium convenerit,"
- so it is here fallen out. If this man knows not that
this is the judgement of the generality of the most
learned divines of Europe upon the matter, of all who
have engaged with any success against the Socinians, one
or two only excepted, I can pity him, but not relieve him
in his unhappiness, unless he will be pleased to take
more pains in reading good books than as yet he appeareth
to have done. But for the thing itself, and his
reflections upon it, I shall observe yet some few things,
and so pass on; - as first, the opposition that he makes
unto my position is nothing but a crude assertion of one
of the meanest and most absurd sophisms which the
Socinians use in this cause, - namely, that everyone may
remit injuries and offences as he pleaseth, without
exacting any punishment: which, as it is true in most
cases of injuries and offences against private persons,
wherein no others are concerned but themselves, nor are
they obliged by any law of the community to pursue their
own right; so, with respect unto public rulers of the
community, and unto such injuries and offences as are
done against supreme rule, tending directly unto the
dissolution of the society centring in it, to suppose
that such rulers are not obliged to inflict those
punishments which justice and the preservation of the
community does require, is a fond and ridiculous
imagination, - destructive, if pursued, unto all human
society, and rendering government a useless thing in the
world. Therefore, what this author (who seems to
understand very little of these things) adds, "that
governors may spare or punish as they see reason for it;"
if the rule of that reason and judgement be not that
justice which respects the good and benefit of the
society or community, they do amiss, and sin, in sparing
and punishing: which I suppose he will not ascribe unto
the government of God. But I have fully debated these
things in sundry writings against the Socinians; so that
I will not again enlarge upon them without a more
important occasion. It is not improbable but he knows
where to find those discourses; and he may, when he
please, exercise his skill upon them. Again: I cannot but
remark upon the consequences that he chargeth this
position withal; and yet I cannot do it without begging
pardon for repeating such horrid and desperate
blasphemies. P. 46, "The account," saith he, "of this is
very plain; because the justice of God has glutted itself
with revenge on sin in the death of Christ, and so hence
forward we may be sure he will be very kind, as a
revengeful man is when his passion is over." P. 47, "The
sum of which is, that God is all love and patience when
he has taken his fill of revenge; as others use to say
that the devil is very good when he is pleased." P. 59,
"The justice and vengeance of God, having their acting
assigned them to the full, being glutted and satiated
with the blood of Christ, God may," etc. I desire the
reader to remember that the supposition whereon all these
inferences are built, is only that of the necessity of
the satisfaction of Christ with respect unto the holiness
and righteousness of God as the author of the law, and
the supreme governor of mankind. And is this language
becoming a son of the church of England? Might it not be
more justly expected from a Jew or a Mohammedan, - from
Servetus or Socinus, from whom it is borrowed, - than
from a son of this church, in a book published by license
and authority? But it is to no purpose to complain: those
who are pleased with these things, let them be so. But
what if, after all, these impious, blasphemous
consequences do follow as much upon this author's opinion
as upon mine, and that with a greater show of
probability? and what if, forgetting himself, within a
few leaves he says the very same thing that I do, and
casts himself under his own severest condemnation?
For the first: I presume he owns the satisfaction of
Christ, and I will suppose it until he directly denies
it; therefore, also, he owns and grants that God would
not pardon any sin, but upon a supposition of a previous
satisfaction made by Jesus Christ. Here, then, lies all
the difference between us; - that I say God could not,
with respect unto his holiness and justice, as the author
of the law and governor of the world, pardon sin
absolutely without satisfaction: he says, that although
he might have done so without the least diminution of his
glory, yet he would not, but would have his Son by his
death and suffering to make satisfaction for sin. I leave
it now, not only to every learned and impartial reader,
but to every man in his wits who understands common
sense, whether the blasphemous consequences, which I will
not again defile ink and paper with the expression of, do
not seem to follow more directly upon his opinion than
mine. For whereas I say not that God requireth any thing
unto the exercise of grace and mercy, but what he grants
that he does so also; - only I say he does it because
requisite unto his justice; he, because he chose it by a
free act of his will and wisdom, when he might have done
otherwise, without the least disadvantage unto his
righteousness or rule, or the least impeachment to the
glory of his holiness. The odious blasphemies mentioned
do apparently seem to make a nearer approach unto his
assertion than unto mine. I cannot proceed unto a farther
declaration of it, because I abhor the rehearsal of such
horrid profaneness. The truth is, they follow not in the
least (if there be any thing in them but odious satanical
exprobrations of the truth of the satisfaction of Christ)
on either opinion; though I say this author knows not
well how to discharge himself of them.
But what if he be all this while only roving in his
discourse about the things that he has no due
comprehension of, merely out of a transporting desire to
gratify himself and others, in traducing and making
exceptions against my writings? What if, when he comes a
little to himself, and expresseth the notions that have
been instilled into him, be saith expressly as much as I
do, or have done in any place of my writings? It is plain
he does so, p. 49, in these words: - "As for sin, the
gospel assures us that God is an irreconcilable enemy to
all wickedness, it being so contrary to his own most holy
nature, that if he have any love for himself, and any
esteem for his own perfections and works, he must hate
sin, which is so unlike himself, and which destroys the
beauty and perfection of his workmanship. For this end he
sent his Son into the world to destroy the works of the
devil," etc. Here is the substance of what at any time on
this subject I have pleaded for: - "God is an
irreconcilable enemy to all wickedness," that it "is
contrary to his holy nature, so that he must hate it; and
therefore sends his Son," etc. If sin be contrary to
God's holy nature, - if he must hate it, unless he will
not love himself, nor value his own perfections, and
therefore sent his Son to make satisfaction, we are
absolutely agreed in this matter, and our author has lost
"operam et oleum" in his attempt. But for the matter
itself, if he be able to come unto any consistency in his
thoughts, or to know what is his own mind therein, I do
hereby acquaint him that I have written one entire
discourse on that subject, and have lately reinforced the
same argument in my Exercitations on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, wherein my judgement on this point is declared
and maintained. Let him attempt an answer, if he please,
unto them, or do it if he can. What he farther
discourseth on this subject, pp. 46, 47, consisteth only
in odious representations and vile reflections on the
principal doctrines of the gospel, not to be mentioned
without offence and horror. But as to me, he proceeds to
except, after his scoffing manner, against another
passage, pp. 47, 48, - "But, however, sinners have great
reasons to rejoice in it, when they consider the nature
and end of God's patience and forbearance towards them, -
viz., That it is God's taking a course, in his infinite
wisdom and goodness, that we should not be destroyed
notwithstanding our sins; that as before, the least sin
could not escape without punishment, justice being so
natural to God that he cannot forgive without punishing;
so the justice of God being now satisfied by the death of
Christ, the greatest sins can do us no hurt, but we shall
escape with a 'notwithstanding our sins.' This, it seems,
we learn from an acquaintance with Christ's person,
though his gospel instructs us otherwise, that 'without
holiness no man shall see God."' But he is here again at
a loss, and understands not what he is about. That
whereof he was discoursing is the necessity of the
satisfaction of Christ, and that must be it which he
maketh his inference from, but the passage he insists on,
he lays down as expressive of the end of God's patience
and forbearance towards sinners, which here is of no
place nor consideration. But so it falls out, that he is
seldom at any agreement with himself in any parts of his
discourse; the reason whereof I do somewhat more than
guess at. However, for the passage which he cites out of
my discourse, I like it so well, as that I shall not
trouble myself to inquire whether it be there or no, or
on what occasion it is introduced. The words are, - "That
God has, in his justice, wisdom, and goodness, taken a
course that we should not be destroyed, notwithstanding
our sins" (that is, to save sinners); "for he that
believeth, although he be a sinner, shall be saved; and
he that believeth not shall be damned," as one has
assured us, whom I desire to believe and trust unto. If
this be not so, what will become of this man and myself,
with all our writings? for I know that we are both
simmers; and if God will not save us, or deliver us from
destruction, notwithstanding our sins, - that is, pardon
them through the bloodshedding of Jesus Christ, wherein
we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins, - it
had been better for us that we had never been born. And I
do yet again say, that God does not, that he will not,
pardon the least sin, without respect unto the
satisfaction of Christ, according as the apostle
declares, 2 Cor. 5: 18-21; and the expression which must
be set on the other side, on the supposition whereof the
greatest sin can do us no harm, is this man's addition,
which his usual respect unto truth has produced. But,
withal, I never said, I never wrote, that the only
supposition of the satisfaction of Christ is sufficient
of itself to free us from destruction by sin.
Owen, A Vindication...
(continued in File 3...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: owvin-02.txt
.