II.
The following LettePvS embrace all the Correspondence of Dr Owen which has been preserved, and is of any importance : —
TO M. DU MOULIN.
Sin, — 1 have received your strietvares upon our Confession, wherein ^-ou charge it with palpable contradiction, nonsense, enthusiasm, and false doctrine, — that is, all the evils that can be crowded into such a writing : and I understand, by another letter since, that you have sent the same paper to others, — which is the sole cause of the return which I now make to you ; and I beg your pardon in telling you, that
LIFE OF DR OWEN. CXV
all vour instances are your own mistakes, or the mistakes of your friend, as I shall briefly manifest to you.
First, you say there is a plain contradiction between chap. iii. art. 6, and chap. XXX. art. 2. In the first place it is said, " None but the elect are redeemed ; " but in the other it is said, " The sacrament is a memorial of the one offering of Christ upon the cross for all." I do admire to find this charged by you as a contradic- tion ; for vou know full Avell that all our divines who maintain that the elect only were redeemed effectually by Christ, do yet grant that Christ died for all, in the Scripture sense of the word, — that is, some of all sorts, — and never dreamt of any contradiction in their assertion. But your mistake is worse ; for in chap. xxx. art. 2, which you refer to, there is not one word mentioned of Christ's dying for all ; but that the sacrifice which he offered was offered once for all, — which is the expression of the apostle, to intimate that it was but once offered, in opposition to the frequent repetitions of the sacrifices of the Jews. And pray, if you go on in your translation, do not fall into a mistake upon it ; for in the very close of the article it is said, " That Christ's only sacrifice was a propitiation for the sins of all the elect." The words you urge out of 2 Pet. ii. 1, are not in the text: they are, by your quotation, " Denied him that had redeemed them ; " but it is, " Denied the sovereign Lord which had bought them ; " — which words have quite another sense.
Something you quote out of chap. vi. art. 6, where I think you suppose we do not distinguish between the " reatus" and " macula" of sin; and so think that Ave grant the defilement of Adam's person, and consequently of all intermediate propagations, to be imputed unto us. Pray, sir, give me leave to say, that I can- not but think your mind was employed about other things Avhen you dreamt of our being guilty of such a folly and madness ; neither is there any one Avord in the Confession Avhich gives countenance unto it. If you Avould throAV avA'ay so much time as to read any part of my late discourse about justification, it is not unlikely but that you Avould see something of the nature of the guilt of sin, and the imputation of it, Avhich may give you satisfiiction.
In your next instance, Avhich you refer unto chap. xix. art. 3, by some mistake (there being nothing to the purpose in that place), you say, " It is presupposed that some who have attained age may be elected, and yet have not the knoAvledge of Jesus Christ; which is a pure enthusiasm, and is contrary to chap. xx. art. 2." Why, sir ! that many Avho are eternally elected, and yet for some season — some less, some longer — do live Avithout the knoAvledge of Christ, until they are con- verted by the Word and Spirit, is not an enthusiasm ; but your exception is con- trary to the Avhole Scripture, contrary to the experience of all days and ages, over- throAvs the work of the ministry, and is so absurd to sense, and reason, and daily exi)erience, that I knoAV not Avhat to say to it ; only, I confess that if, Avith some of the Arminians, you do not believe that any are elected from eternity, or before they do actually believe, something may be spoken to countenance your exception : but that we cannot regard, for it Avas our design to oppose all their errors.
Your next instance is a plain charge of false doctrine, taken out of chap. xi. art. 1, speaking, as you say, of the active obedience of Christ imputed to us, Avhich is contrary to art. 3, Avhere it is said that Christ acquits by his obedience in death, and not by his fulfilling of the law. Sir, you still give me cause of some new ad- miration in all these objections, and I fear you make use of some corrupt copy of our Confession ; — for Ave say not, as you allege, that Christ by his obedience in death did acquit us, and not by his fulfilling of the laAV ; but we say that Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those Avho are justified,- — ■ which comprehends both his active and passive righteousness. But you add a reason, Avhereby you design to disprove this docti-ine of ours concerning the im-