Owen, A Vindication... File 4
(... continued from File 3)
If the reader will be at the pains to look on the
discourse whence these passages are taken, I shall desire
no more of his favour but that he profess himself to be a
Christian, and then let him freely pronounce whether he
find any thing in it obnoxious to censure. Or, I desire
that any man, who has not forfeited all reason and
ingenuity unto faction and party, if he differ from me,
truly to state wherein, and oppose what I have said with
an answer unto the testimonies wherewith it is confirmed,
referred unto in the margin of my discourse. But the way
of this author's proceeding, if there be no plea to be
made for it from his ignorance and unacquaintedness not
only with the person of Christ, but with most of the
other things he undertakes to write about, is altogether
inexcusable. The way whereby I have expressed the consent
of the soul in the receiving of Jesus Christ, to be
justified, sanctified, saved by him, I still avow, as
suited unto the mind of the Holy Ghost, and the
experience of them that really believe. And whereas I
added, that before believing, the soul did seek for
salvation by the works of the law, as it is natural unto
all, and as the Holy Ghost affirms of some (whose words
alone I used, and expressly quoted that place from whence
I took them, - namely, Rom. 9: 31, this man adds, as an
exposition of that expression, "That is, by obeying the
laws of the gospel." But he knew that these were the
words of the apostle, or he did not; if he did not, nor
would take notice of them so to be, although directed to
the place from whence they are taken, it is evident how
meet he is to debate matters of this nature and
concernment, and how far he is yet from being in danger
to "pore out his eyes" in reading the Scripture, as he
pretends. If he did know them to be his words, why does
he put such a sense upon them as, in his own
apprehension, is derogatory to gospel obedience? Whatever
he thought of beforehand, it is likely he will now say
that it is my sense, and not the apostle's, which he
intends. But how will he prove that I intended any other
sense than that of the apostle? how should this appear?
Let him, if he can, produce any word in my whole
discourse intimating any other sense. Nay, it is evident
that I had no other intention but only to refer unto that
place of the apostle, and the proper sense of it; which
is to express the mind and acting of those who, being
ignorant of the righteousness of God, go about to
establish their own righteousness; as he farther explains
himself, Rom. 10: 3, 4. That I could not intend obedience
unto the laws of the gospel is so evident, that nothing
but abominable prejudice or ignorance could hinder any
man from discerning it. For that faith which I expressed
by the soul's consent to take Christ as a saviour and a
ruler, is the very first act of obedience unto the
gospel: so that therein or thereon to exclude obedience
unto the gospel, is to deny what I assert; which, under
the favour of this author, I understand myself better
than to do. And as to all other acts of obedience unto
the laws of the gospel, following and proceeding from
sincere believing, it is openly evident that I could not
understand them when I spake only of what was antecedent
unto them. And if this man knows not what transactions
are in the minds of many before they do come unto the
acceptance of Christ on his own terms, or believe in him
according to the tenor of the gospel, there is reason to
pity the people that are committed unto his care and
instruction, what regard soever ought to be had unto
himself. And his pitiful trifling in the exposition he
adds of this passage, "To be saved without doing any
thing, without obeying thee, and the law," does but
increase the guilt of his prevarications; for the words
immediately added in my discourse are, - "And although I
have walked according unto mine own mind, yet now I
wholly give up myself to be ruled by thy Spirit;" which,
unto the understanding of all men who understand any
thing in these matters, signify no less than an
engagement unto the universal relinquishment of sin, and
entire obedience unto Jesus Christ in all things. "But
this," saith he, "is a pretty compliment that the soul
makes to Christ after all." But why is this to be
esteemed only a "pretty compliment?" It is spoken at the
same time, and, as it were, with the same breath, there
being in the discourse no period between this passage and
that before; and why must it be esteemed quite of another
nature, so that herein the soul should only compliment,
and be real in what is before expressed? What if one
should say, it was real only in this latter expression
and engagement, that the former was only a "pretty
compliment?" May it not, with respect unto my sense and
intention (from any thing in my words, or that can be
gathered from them, or any circumstances of the place),
be spoken with as much regard unto truth and honesty?
What religion these men are of I know not. If it be such
as teacheth them these practices, and countenanceth them
in them, I openly declare that I am not of it, nor would
be so for all that this world can afford. I shall have
done, when I have desired him to take notice, that I not
only believe and maintain the necessity of obedience unto
all the laws, precepts, commands, and institutions of the
gospel, - of universal holiness, the mortification of all
sin, fruitfulness in good works, in all that intend or
design salvation by Jesus Christ; but also have proved
and confirmed my persuasion and assertions by better and
more cogent arguments than any which, by his writings, he
seems as yet to be acquainted withal. And unless he can
prove that I have spoken or written any thing to the
contrary, or he can disprove the arguments whereby I have
confirmed it, I do here declare him a person altogether
unfit to be dealt withal about things of this nature, his
ignorance or malice being invincible; nor shall I, on any
provocation, ever hereafter take notice of him until he
has mended his manners.
His third section, p. 76, consists of three parts: -
First, "That some" (wherein it is apparent that I am
chiefly, if not only, intended) "do found a religion upon
a pretended acquaintance with Christ's person, without
and besides the gospel;" whereunto he opposeth his
running title of "No acquaintance with Christ but by
revelation." Secondly, A supposition of a scheme of
religion drawn from the knowledge of Christ's person;
whereunto he opposeth another, which he judgeth better.
Thirdly, An essay to draw up the whole plot and design of
Christianity, with the method of the recovery of sinners
unto God. In the first of these, I suppose that I am, if
not solely, yet principally, intended; especially
considering what he affirms, pp. 98, 99, namely, that "I
plainly confess our religion is wholly owing unto
acquaintance with the person of Christ, and could never
have been clearly and savingly learned from the gospel,
had we not first grown acquainted with his person." Now,
herein there is an especial instance of that truth and
honesty wherewith my writings are entertained by this
sort of men. It is true, I have asserted that it is
necessary for Christians to know Jesus Christ, - to be
acquainted with his person that is (as I have fully and
largely declared it in the discourse excepted against),
the glory of his divine nature, the purity of his human,
the infinite condescension of his person in the
assumption of our nature, his love and grace, etc., as is
at large there declared: and now I add, that he by whom
this is denied is no Christian. Secondly, I have taught,
that by this knowledge of the person of Christ, or an
understanding of the great mystery of godliness, God
manifested in the flesh, which we ought to pray for and
labour after, we come more fully and clearly to
understand sundry other important mysteries of heavenly
truth; which without the knowledge of Christ we cannot
attain unto. And how impertinent this man's exceptions
are against this assertion, we have seen already. But,
thirdly, that this knowledge of Christ, or acquaintance
with him, is to be attained before we come to know the
gospel, or by any other means than the gospel, or is any
other but the declaration that is made thereof in and by
the gospel, was never thought, spoken, or written by me,
and is here falsely supposed by this author, as elsewhere
falsely charged on me. And I again challenge him to
produce any one letter or tittle out of any of my
writings to give countenance unto this frostless calumny.
And therefore, although I do not like his expression, p.
77, "Whoever would understand the religion of our
Saviour, must learn it from his doctrine, and not from
his person," for many reasons I could give; yet I believe
no less than he, that the efficacy of Christ's mediation
depending on God's appointment can be known only by
revelation, and that no man can draw any one conclusion
from the person of Christ which the gospel has not
expressly taught; because we can know no more of its
excellency, worth, and works, than what is there
revealed: whereby he may see how miserably ill-will,
malice, or ignorance has betrayed him into the futilous
pains of writing this section upon a contrary supposition
falsely imputed unto me. And as for his drawing schemes
of religion, I must tell him, and let him disprove it if
he be able, I own no religion, no article of faith, but
what is taught expressly in the Scripture, mostly
confirmed by the ancient general councils of the
primitive church, and the writings of the most learned
fathers, against all sorts of heretics, especially the
Gnostics, Photinians, and Pelagians, consonant to the
articles of the church of England, and the doctrine of
all the reformed churches of Europe. And if in the
exposition of any place of Scripture I dissent from any
that, for the substance of it, own the religion I do, I
do it not without cogent reasons from the Scripture
itself; and where, in any opinions which learned men have
(and, it may be, always had) different apprehensions
about, which has not been thought to prejudice the unity
of faith amongst them, I hope I do endeavour to manage
that dissent with that modesty and sobriety which
becometh me. And as for the schemes, plots, or designs of
religion or Christianity, given us by this author and
owned by him (it being taken pretendedly from the person
of Christ, when it is hoped that he may have a better to
give us from the gospel, seeing he has told us we must
learn our religion from his doctrine and not from his
person); besides that it is liable unto innumerable
exceptions in particular, which may easily be given in
against it by such as have nothing else to do, whereas it
makes no mention of the effectual grace of Christ and the
gospel for the conversion and sanctification of sinners,
and the necessity thereof unto all acts of holy
obedience, - it is merely Pelagianism, and stands
anathematised by sundry councils of the ancient church. I
shall not, therefore, concern myself farther in any
passages of this section, most of them wherein it
reflects on others standing in competition for truth and
ingenuity with the foundation and design of the whole;
only I shall say, that the passage of pp. 88, 89, - "This
made the divine goodness so restlessly zealous and
concerned for the recovery of mankind; various ways he
attempted in former ages, but with little success, as I
observed before; but at last God sent his Son, our Lord
Jesus Christ, into the world," without a very cautious
explanation and charitable construction, is false,
scandalous, and blasphemous. For allow this author, who
contends so severely for propriety of expressions,
against allusions and metaphors, to say that the divine
goodness was "restlessly zealous and concerned" (for,
indeed, such is our weakness, that, whether we will or
no, we must sometimes learn and teach divine things in
such words as are suited to convey an apprehension of
them unto our minds, though, in their application unto
the divine nature, they are incapable of being understood
in the propriety of their signification, though this be
as untowardly expressed as any thing I have of late met
withal); yet what colour can be put upon, what excuse can
be made for, this doctrine, that "God in former ages, by
various ways, attempted the recovery of mankind, but with
little success," I know not. Various attempts in God for
any end without success, do not lead the mind into right
notions of his infinite wisdom and omnipotence; and that
God, by any way, at any time, attempted the recovery of
mankind distinctly and separately from the sending of his
Son, is lewdly false.
In the greatest part of his fourth section,
entitled, "How men pervert the Scripture to make it
comply with their fancy," I am not much concerned; save
that the foundation of the whole, and that which animates
his discourse from first to last, is laid in an impudent
calumny, - namely, that I declare that "our religion is
wholly owing to an acquaintance with the person of
Christ, and could never have been clearly and savingly
learned from his gospel, had we not first grown
acquainted with his person." This shameless falsehood is
that alone whence he takes occasion and confidence, to
reproach myself and others, to condemn the doctrine of
all the reformed churches and openly to traduce and
vilify the Scripture itself. I shall only briefly touch
on some of the impotent dictates of this great corrector
of divinity and religion. His discourse of accommodating
Scripture expressions to men's own dreams, pp. 99-101,
being such as any man may use concerning any other men on
the like occasion, if they have a mind unto it, and
intend to have no more regard to their consciences than
some others seem to have, may be passed by. P. 102, he
falls upon the ways of expounding Scripture among those
whom he sets himself against, and positively affirms,
"that there are two ways of it in great vogue among them:
- First, By the sound and clink of the words and phrases;
which, as he says, is all some men understand by keeping
a form of sound words. Secondly, When this will not do,
they reason about the sense of them from their own
preconceived notions and opinions, and prove that this
must be the meaning of Scripture, because otherwise it is
not reconcilable to their dreams; which is called
expounding Scripture by the analogy of faith."
Thus far he; and yet we shall have the same man not
long hence pleading for the necessity of holiness. But I
wish, for my part, he would take notice that I despise
that holiness, and the principles of it, which will allow
men to coin, invent, and publish such notorious untruths
against any sort of men whatever. And whereas, by what
immediately follows, I seem to be principally intended in
this charge, as I know the untruth of it, so I have
published some expositions on some parts of the Scripture
to the judgement of the Christian world; to which I
appeal from the censures of this man and his companions,
as also for those which, if I live and God will, I shall
yet publish; and do declare, that, for reasons very
satisfactory to my mind, I will not come to him nor them
to learn how to expound the Scripture.
But he will justify his charge by particular
instances, telling us, p. 102, "Thus when men are
possessed with a fancy of an acquaintance with Christ's
person, then to know Christ can signify nothing else but
to know his person and all his personal excellencies, and
beauties, fulness, and preciousness, etc. And when Christ
is said to be made wisdom to us, this is a plain proof
that we must learn all our spiritual wisdom from an
acquaintance with his person; though some duller men can
understand no more by it than the wisdom of those
revelations Christ has made of God's will to the world."
I would beg of this man, that if he has any regard unto
the honour of Christian religion, or care of his own
soul, he would be tender in this matter, and not reflect
with his usual disdain upon the knowledge of the person
of Christ. I must tell him again, what all Christians
believe, - Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ, the eternal Son
of God incarnate. The person of Christ is Christ himself,
and nothing else; his personal excellencies are the
properties of his person, as his two natures are united
therein, and as he was thereby made meet to be the
mediator between God and man. To know Christ in the
language of the Scripture, [of] the whole church of God
ancient and present, in common sense and understanding,
is to know the person of Christ as revealed and declared
in the gospel, with respect unto the ends for which he is
proposed and made known therein. And this knowledge of
him, as it is accompanied with, and cannot be without,
the knowledge of his mind and will, declared in his
precepts, promises, and institutions, is effectual to
work and produce, in the souls of them who so know him,
that faith in him, and obedience unto him, which he does
require. And what would this man have? He who is
otherwise minded has renounced his Christianity, if ever
he had any; and if he be thus persuaded, to what purpose
is it to set up and combat the mormos and chimeras of his
own imagination? Well, then, I do maintain, that to know
Christ according to the gospel, is to know the person of
Christ; for Christ and his person are the same. Would he
now have me to prove this by testimonies or arguments, or
the consent of the ancient church? I must beg his excuse
at present; and so for the future, unless I have occasion
to deal with Gnostics, Familists, or Quakers. And as for
the latter clause, wherein Christ is said to be made
wisdom unto us, he says, "Some duller men can understand
no more by it than the wisdom of those revelations Christ
has made of God's will to the world," - who are dull men
indeed, and so let them pass.
His ensuing discourses, in pp. 103-105, contain the
boldest reflections on, and openest derisions of, the
expressions and way of teaching spiritual things
warranted in and by the Scripture, that to my knowledge I
ever read in a book licensed to be printed by public
authority: as, in particular, the expressions of faith in
Christ, by "coming unto him," and "receiving of him," -
which are the words of the Holy Ghost, and used by him in
his wisdom to instruct us in the nature of this duty, -
are, amongst others, the subjects of his scorn. The first
part of it, though I remember not to have given any
occasion to be particularly concerned in it, I shall
briefly consider. P. 103, "Thus when men have first
learned, from an acquaintance with Christ, to place all
their hopes of salvation in a personal union with Christ,
from whom they receive the free communications of pardon
and grace, righteousness and salvation, what more plain
proof can any man who is resolved to believe this, desire
of it, than 1 John 5: 12, 'He that has the Son has life,
and he that has not the Son has not life?' And what can
having the Son signify, but having an interest in him,
being made one with him? though some will be so perverse
as to understand it of believing, and having his gospel.
But the phrase of 'having the Son,' confutes that dull
and moral interpretation, especially when we remember it
is called, 'being in Christ, and abiding in him;' which
must signify a very near union between Christ's person
and us."
I suppose that expression of "personal union" sprung
out of design, and not out of ignorance; for, if I
mistake not, he does somewhere in his book take notice
that it is disclaimed, and only a union of believers with
or unto the person of Christ asserted; or, if it be his
mistake, all comes to the same issue. Personal, or
hypostatical union, is that of different natures in the
same person, giving them the same singular subsistence.
This none pretend unto with Jesus Christ. But it is the
union of believers unto the person of Christ which is
spiritual and mystical, whereby they are in him and he in
them, and so are one with him, their head, as members of
his mystical body, which is pleaded for herein, with the
free communications of grace, righteousness, and
salvation, in the several and distinct ways whereby we
are capable to receive them from him, or be made
partakers of them; [in this] we place all hopes of
salvation. And we do judge, moreover, that he who is
otherwise minded must retake himself unto another gospel;
for he completely renounceth that in our Bibles. Is this
our crime, - that which we are thus charged with, and
traduced for? Is the contrary hereunto the doctrine that
the present church of England approveth and instructs her
children in? Or does any man think that we will be scared
from our faith and hope by such weak and frivolous
attempts against them? Yea, but it may be it is not so
much the thing itself, as the miserable proof which we
produce from the Scripture in the confirmation of it; for
we do it from that of the apostle, 1 John 5: 12. If he
think that we prove these things only by this testimony,
he is mistaken at his wonted rate. Our faith herein is
built upon innumerable express testimonies of the
Scripture, - indeed the whole revelation of the will of
God and the way of salvation by Jesus Christ in the
gospel. Those who prove it, also, from this text, have
sufficient ground and reason for what they plead. And,
notwithstanding the pleasant scoffing humour of this
author, we yet say that it is perverse folly for any one
to say that the having of the Son or Christ expressed in
the text, does intend either the having an interest in
him and union with him, or the obeying of his gospel,
exclusively to the other, - these being inseparable, and
included in the same expression. And as to what he adds
about being in Christ, and abiding in him, - which are
the greatest privileges of believers, and that as
expressed in words taught by the Holy Ghost, - it is of
the same strain of profaneness with much of what ensues;
which I shall not farther inquire into.
I find not myself concerned in his ensuing talk, but
only in one reflection on the words of the Scripture, and
the repetition of his old, putid, and shameless calumny,
p. 108, until we come to p. 126, where he arraigns an
occasional discourse of mine about the necessity of
holiness and good works; wherein he has only filched out
of the whole what he thought he could wrest unto his end,
and scoffingly descant upon. I shall, therefore, for
once, transcribe the whole passage as it lies in my book,
and refer it to the judgement of the reader, p, 206: -
"2. The second objection is, "That if the
righteousness and obedience of Christ to the law be
imputed unto us, then what need we yield obedience
ourselves?" To this, also, I shall return answer as
briefly as I can in the ensuing observations: -
"(1.) The placing of our gospel obedience on the
right foot of account (that it may neither be exalted
into a state, condition, use, or end, not given it of
God; nor any reason, cause, motive, end, necessity of it,
on the other hand, taken away, weakened, or impaired), is
a matter of great importance. Some make our obedience,
the works of faith, our works, the matter or cause of our
justification; some, the condition of the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ; some, the qualification of
the person justified, on the one hand; some exclude all
the necessity of them, and turn the grace of God into
lasciviousness, on the other. To debate these differences
is not my present business; only, I say, on this and
other accounts, the right stating of our obedience is of
great importance as to our walking with God.
"(2.) We do by no means assign the same place,
condition, state, and use to the obedience of Christ
imputed to us, and our obedience performed to God. If we
did, they were really inconsistent. And therefore those
who affirm that our obedience is the condition or cause
of our justification, do all of them deny the imputation
of the obedience of Christ unto us. The righteousness of
Christ is imputed to us, as that on the account whereof
we are accepted and esteemed righteous before God, and
are really so, though not inherently. We are as truly
righteous with the obedience of Christ imputed to us as
Adam was, or could have been, by a complete righteousness
of his own performance. So Rom. 5: 18, by his obedience
we are made righteous, - made so truly, and so accepted;
as by the disobedience of Adam we are truly made
trespassers, and so accounted. And this is that which the
apostle desires to be found in, in opposition to his own
righteousness, Phil 3: 9. But our own obedience is not
the righteousness whereupon we are accepted and justified
before God; although it be acceptable to God that we
should abound therein. And this distinction the apostle
does evidently deliver and confirm, so as nothing can be
more clearly revealed: Eph. 2: 8-10, "For by grace are ye
saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is
the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto
good works, which God has prepared that we should walk in
them." We are saved, or justified (for that it is whereof
the apostle treats), "by grace through faith," which
receives Jesus Christ and his obedience; "not of works,
lest any man should boast." "But what works are they that
the apostle intends?" The works of believers, as in the
very beginning of the next words is manifest: "'For we
are,' we believers, with our obedience and our works, of
whom I speak." "Yea; but what need, then, of works?" Need
still there is: "We are his workmanship," etc.
"Two things the apostle intimates in these words: -
"[1.] A reason why we cannot be saved by works, -
namely, because we do them not in or by our own strength;
which is necessary we should do, if we will be saved by
them, or justified by them. "But this is not so," saith
the apostle; "for we are the workmanship of God," etc.; -
all our works are wrought in us, by full and effectual
undeserved grace.
"[2.] An assertion of the necessity of good works,
notwithstanding that we are not saved by them; and that
is, that God has ordained that we shall walk in them:
which is a sufficient ground of our obedience, whatever
be the use of it.
"If you will say then, "What are the true and proper
gospel grounds, reasons, uses, and motives of our
obedience; whence the necessity thereof may be
demonstrated, and our souls be stirred up to abound and
be fruitful therein?" I say, they are so many, and lie so
deep in the mystery of the gospel and dispensation of
grace, spread themselves so throughout the whole
revelation of the will of God unto us, that to handle
them fully and distinctly, and to give them their due
weight, is a thing that I cannot engage in, lest I should
be turned aside from what I principally intend. I shall
only give you some brief heads of what might at large be
insisted on: -
"1st. Our universal obedience and good works are
indispensably necessary, from the sovereign appointment
and will of God; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Owen, A Vindication...
(continued in File 5...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: owvin-04.txt
.