Owen, A Vindication... File 8
    (... continued from File 7)

         It is well if he know what it is that he aims at in
    these words; I am sure what he says does not in the least
    impeach the truth which he designs to oppose. The name
    and nature of God are everywhere in the Scripture
    proposed unto us as the object of, and encouragement
    unto, our faith, and his love in particular is therein
    represented unchangeable, because he himself is so; but
    it does not hence follow that God loveth any one
    naturally, or necessarily. His love is a free act of his
    will; and therefore, though it be like himself, such as
    becomes his nature, yet it is not necessarily determined
    on any object, nor limited as unto the nature, degrees,
    and effects of it. He loves whom he pleaseth, and as unto
    what end he pleaseth. Jacob he loved, and Esau he hated;
    and those effects which, from his love or out of it, he
    will communicate unto them, are various, according to the
    counsel of his will. Some he loves only as to temporal
    and common mercies, some as to spiritual grace and glory;
    for he has mercy on whom he will have mercy. Wherefore it
    is no way contrary unto, and inconsistent with, the
    eternity, the immutability, and fruitfulness of the love
    of God, that he suffered sin to enter into the world, or
    that he does dispense more grace in Jesus Christ under
    the New Testament than he did under the Old. God is
    always the same that he was; love in God is always of the
    same nature that it was; but the objects, acts, and
    effects of this love, with the measures and degrees of
    them, are the issues of the counsel or free purposes of
    his will. Want of the understanding hereof makes this man
    imagine, that if God's love in Christ, wherewith he
    loveth us, be eternal and fruitful, then must God
    necessarily always - in or out of Christ, under the old
    or new covenant - love all persons, elect or not elect,
    with the same love as to the effects and fruits of it;
    which is a wondrous profound apprehension. The reader,
    therefore, if he please, may take notice, that the love
    which I intend, and whereunto I ascribe those properties,
    is the especial love of God in Christ unto the elect.
    Concerning this himself says, that he loves them with an
    everlasting love, and therefore "draws them with
    loving-kindness," Jer. 31: 3; which love, I shall be bold
    to say, is eternal and fruitful. And hence, as he
    changeth not, whereon the sons of Jacob are not consumed,
    Mal. 3: 6, there being with him "neither variableness,
    nor shadow of turning," James 1: 17; so accordingly he
    has in this matter, by his promise and oath, declared the
    immutability of his counsel, Heb. 6: 17, 18, - which
    seems to intimate that his love is unchangeable. And
    whereas this eternal love is in Christ Jesus as the way
    and means of making it certain in all its effects, and
    with respect unto its whole design, it is fruitful in all
    grace and glory, Eph. 1: 3-5. And if he cannot understand
    how, notwithstanding all this, sin so entered into the
    world under the law of creation and the first covenant as
    to defeat in us all the benefits thereof, at present I
    cannot help him; for, as I am sure enough he would scorn
    to learn any thing of me, so I am not at leisure to put
    it to the trial. 
         His own account of the love of God succeeds. P. 211,
    "Not that I deny that the love of God is eternal,
    unchangeable, fruitful; that is, that God was always
    good, and always continues good, and manifesteth his love
    and goodness in such ways as are suitable to his nature,
    which is the fruitfulness of it: but then, the
    unchangeableness of God's love does not consist in being
    always determined to the same object, but that he always
    loves for the same reason; that is, that he always loves
    true virtue and goodness, wherever he sees it, and never
    ceases to love any person till he ceases to be good: and
    then the immutability of his love is the reason why he
    loves no longer; for should he love a wicked man, the
    reason and nature of his love would change. And the
    fruitfulness of God's love, with respect to the methods
    of his grace and providence, does not consist in
    procuring what he loves by an omnipotent and irresistible
    power; for then sin and death could never have entered
    into the world: but he governs and does good to his
    creatures, in such ways as are most suitable to their
    natures. He governs reasonable creatures by principles of
    reason, as he does the material world by the necessary
    laws of matter, and brute creatures by the instincts and
    propensities of nature." 
         This may pass for a system of his divinity, which
    how he will reconcile unto the doctrine of the church of
    England in her articles, she and he may do well to
    consider. But, whatever he means by the love of God
    always determined unto the same object, it were an easy
    thing to prove, beyond the reach of his contradiction,
    that persons are the objects of God's eternal love, as
    well as things and qualifications are of his approbation;
    or, that he loves some persons with an everlasting and
    unchangeable love, so as to preserve them from all
    ruining evils, and so as they may be always meet objects
    of his approving love, unto his glory: and whereas these
    things have been debated and disputed on all hands with
    much learning and diligence, our author is a very happy
    man if, with a few such loose expressions as these
    repeated, he thinks to determine all the controversies
    about election and effectual grace, with perseverance, on
    the Pelagian side. The hypothesis here maintained, that
    because God always and unchangeably approves of what is
    good in any, or of the obedience of his creatures, and
    disapproves or hates sin, condemning it in his law, [and]
    that therefore he may love the same person one day and
    hate him another, notwithstanding his pretences that he
    is constant unto the reason of his love, will inevitably
    fall into one of these conclusions: - either, that God
    indeed never loveth any man, be he who he will; or, that
    he is changeable in his love, upon outward, external
    reasons, as we are: and let him choose which he will own.
    In the meantime, such a love of God towards believers as
    shall always effectually preserve them meet objects of
    his love and approbation, is not to be baffled by such
    trifling impertinencies. His next reflection is on the
    manner of God's operations in the communication of grace
    and holiness; which, he says, is "not by omnipotent and
    irresistible power," - confirming his assertion by that
    consideration, that then sin and death could never have
    entered into the world; which is resolved into another
    sweet supposition, that God must needs act the same power
    of grace towards all men, at all times, under each
    covenant, whether he will or no. But this it is to be a
    happy disputant, - all things succeed well with such
    persons which they undertake. And as to the manner of the
    operation of grace, how far grace itself may be said to
    he omnipotent, and in its operations irresistible, I have
    fully declared there; where he may oppose and refute it,
    if he have any mind thereunto. His present attempt
    against it in those words, that God "governs reasonable
    creatures by principles of reason," is so weak in this
    case, and impertinent, that it deserves no consideration;
    for all the operations of divine grace are suited unto
    the rational constitution of our beings, neither was ever
    man so wild as to fancy any of them such as are
    inconsistent with, or do offer force unto, the faculties
    of our souls in their operations. Yea, that which
    elevates, aids, and assists our rational faculties in
    their operations on and towards their proper objects,
    which is the work of efficacious grace, is the principal
    preservative of their power and liberty, and can be no
    way to their prejudice. And we do, moreover, acknowledge
    that those proposals which are made in the gospel unto
    our reason, are eminently suited to excite and prevail
    with it unto its proper use and exercise in compliance
    with them. Hence, although the habit of faith, or power
    of believing, be wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, yet the
    word of the gospel is the cause and means of all its
    acts, and the whole obedience which it produceth. But if
    by "governing reasonable creatures by principles of
    reason," he intends that God deals no otherwise by his
    grace with the souls of men, but only by proposing
    objective arguments and motives unto a compliance with
    his will, without internal aids and assistance of grace,
    it is a gross piece of Pelagianism, destructive of the
    gospel, sufficiently confuted elsewhere; and he may
    explain himself as he pleaseth. 
         His proceed is, to transcribe some other passages,
    taken out of my book here and there, in whose repetition
    he inserts some impertinent exceptions; but the design of
    the whole is to "state a controversy," as he calls it,
    between us and them, or those whom he calleth "they" and
    "we," whoever they be. And this, upon the occasion of my
    mentioning the fulness of grace, life, and righteousness
    that is in Christ, he does in these words: - P. 215,
    "They say that these are the personal graces of Christ as
    mediator, which are inherent in him, and must be derived
    from his person; we say, they signify the perfection and
    excellency of his religion, as being the most perfect and
    complete declaration of the will of God, and the most
    powerful method of the divine wisdom for the reforming of
    the world, as it prescribes the only righteousness which
    is acceptable to God, and directs us in the only way to
    life and immortality." 
         I shall not absolutely accept of the terms of this
    controversy, as to the state of it on our part, proposed
    by him; and yet I shall not much vary from them. We say,
    therefore, that "Jesus Christ being full of all grace,
    excellencies, and perfections, he communicates them unto
    us in that degree as is necessary for us, and in
    proportion unto his abundant charity and goodness towards
    us; and we Christians, as his body, or fellow-members of
    his human nature, receive grace and mercy, flowing from
    him to us." This state of the controversy on our side I
    suppose he will not refuse, nor the terms of it; but will
    own them to be ours, though he will not, it may be, allow
    some of them to be proper or convenient. And that he may
    know who his "they" are, who are at this end of the
    difference, he may be p]eased to take notice that these
    words are the whole and entire paraphrase of Dr Hammond
    on John 1: 16; the first testimony he undertakes to
    answer. And when this author has replied to Mr Hooker, Dr
    Jackson, and him, and such other pillars of the church of
    England as concur with them, it will be time enough for
    me to consider how I shall defend myself against him. Or,
    if he will take the controversy on our part in terms more
    directly expressive of my mind, it is the person of
    Christ is the fountain of all grace to the church (as he
    well observes my judgement to be), and that from him all
    grace and mercy is derived unto us; and then I do
    maintain, that the "they" whom he opposeth, are not only
    the church of England, but the whole catholic church in
    all ages. Who the "we" are, on the other hand, who reject
    this assertion, and believe that all the testimonies
    concerning the fulness of grace in Christ, and the
    communication thereof unto us, do only declare the
    excellency of his religion, is not easy to be
    conjectured; - for unless it be the people of Racow, I
    know not who are his associates. And let him but name
    three divines of any reputation in the church of England
    since the Reformation, who have given the least
    countenance unto his assertions, negative or positive,
    and I will acknowledge that he has better associates in
    his profession than as yet I believe he has. But that
    Jesus Christ himself, God and man in one person, the
    mediator between God and man, is not a fountain of grace
    and mercy to his church; that there is no real internal
    grace communicated by him, or derived from him unto his
    mystical body; that the fulness which is in him, or said
    to be in him, of grace and truth, of unsearchable riches
    of grace, etc., is nothing but the doctrine which he
    taught, as the most complete and perfect declaration of
    the will of God, - are opinions that cannot be divulged,
    under pretence of authority, without the most pernicious
    scandal to the present church of England. And if this be
    the man's religion, that this is all the fulness we
    receive from Christ, - "a perfect revelation of the
    divine will concerning the salvation of mankind; which
    contains so many excellent promises that it may well be
    called 'grace;' and prescribes such a plain and simple
    religion, so agreeable to the natural notions of good and
    evil, that it may well be called 'truth;'" - and
    complying with its doctrine, or yielding obedience unto
    its precepts and believing the promises which it gives,
    in our own strength, without any real aid, assistance, or
    communication of internal saving grace from the person of
    Jesus Christ, is our righteousness before God, whereon
    and for which we are justified, - I know as well as he
    whence it came, and perhaps better than he whither it
    will go. 
         The remaining discourse of this chapter consisteth
    of two parts: - First, An attempt to disprove any
    communication of real internal grace from the Lord Christ
    unto believers for their sanctification; Secondly, An
    endeavour to refute the imputation of his righteousness
    unto us for our justification. In the first he contends
    that all the fulness of grace and truth said to be in
    Christ consists either in the doctrine of the gospel or
    in the largeness of his church. In the latter, that faith
    in Christ is nothing but believing the gospel, and the
    authority of Christ who revealed it; and by yielding
    obedience thereunto, we are justified before God, on the
    account of an internal inherent righteousness in
    ourselves. Now, these are no small undertakings; the
    first of them being expressly contrary to the sense of
    the catholic church in all ages (for the Pelagians and
    the Socinians are by common agreement excluded from an
    interest therein); and the latter of them, contrary to
    the plain confessions of all the reformed churches, with
    the constant doctrine of this church of England: and
    therefore we may justly expect that they should be
    managed with much strength of argument, and evident
    demonstration. But the unhappiness of it is (I will not
    say his, but ours), that these are not things which our
    author as yet has accustomed himself unto; and I cannot
    but say, that to my knowledge I never read a more weak,
    loose, and impertinent discourse, upon so weighty
    subjects, in my whole life before: he must have little to
    do, who can afford to spend his time in a particular
    examination of it, unless it be in the exposition of
    those places which are almost verbatim transcribed out of
    Schlichtingius. Besides, for the first truth which he
    opposeth, I have confirmed it in a discourse which I
    suppose may be made public before this come to view,
    beyond what I expect any sober reply unto from him. Some
    texts of Scripture that mention a fulness in Christ he
    chooseth out, to manifest (to speak a word by the way)
    that indeed they do not intend any such fulness in Christ
    himself. And the first is John 1: 16; the exposition
    whereof which he gives is that of Schlichtingius, who yet
    extends the import of the words beyond what he will
    allow. The enforcement which he gives unto his
    exposition, by comparing the 14th and 17th verses with
    the 16th, is both weak and contradictory of itself; for
    the words of the 14th verse are, "The Word was made
    flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the
    glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of
    grace and truth." It is evident beyond contradiction,
    that the expression, "full of grace and truth," is
    exegetical of his glory as the only begotten of the
    Father, which was the glory of his person, and not the
    doctrine of the gospel. And for the opposition that is
    made between the law given by Moses, and the grace and
    truth which came by Jesus Christ, I shall yet rather
    adhere to the sense of the ancient church, and the most
    eminent doctors of it, which, if he knows not it to be
    concerning the effectual communication of real, renewing,
    sanctifying grace by Jesus Christ, there are snow who can
    inform him; rather than that woeful gloss upon them, -
    "His doctrine is called 'grace,' because accompanied with
    such excellent promises; and may well be called 'truth,'
    because so agreeable to the natural notions of good and
    evil," which is the confession of the Pelagian unbelief:
    but these things are not my present concernment. For the
    latter part of his discourse, in his opposition unto the
    imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as he does not
    go about once to state or declare the sense wherein it is
    pleaded for, nor produceth any one of the arguments
    wherewith it is confirmed, and omitteth the mention of
    most of the particular testimonies which declare and
    establish it; so, as unto those few which he takes notice
    of, he expressly founds his answers unto them on that
    woeful subterfuge, that if they are capable of another
    interpretation, or having another sense given unto them,
    then nothing can be concluded from them to that purpose,
    - by which the Socinians seek to shelter themselves from
    all the testimonies that are given to his Deity and
    satisfaction. But I have no concernment, as I said,
    either in his opinions or his way of reasoning; and do
    know that those who have so, need not desire a better
    cause nor an easier adversary to deal withal. 
         In his third section, p. 279, he enters upon his
    exceptions unto the union of believers unto Jesus Christ,
    and with great modesty, at the entrance of his discourse,
    tells us, first, "how these men," with whom he has to do,
    "have fitted the person of Christ unto all the wants and
    necessities of the sinner;" which yet, if he denies God
    himself to have done, he is openly injurious unto his
    wisdom and grace. The very first promise that was given
    concerning him was, that he should save sinners from all
    their wants, evils, and miseries, that might, did, or
    could befall them by the entrance of sin. But thus it
    falls out, when men will be talking of what they do not
    understand. Again, he adds how he has "explained the
    Scripture metaphors whereby the union between Christ and
    Christians is represented; but that these men, instead of
    explaining of those metaphors, turn all religion into an
    allegory." But what if one should now tell him, that his
    explanation of these metaphors is the most absurd and
    irrational, and argues the most fulsome ignorance of the
    mystery of the gospel, that can be imagined; and that, on
    the other side, those whom he traduceth do explain them
    unto the understanding and experience of all that
    believe, and that in a way suited and directed unto by
    the Holy Ghost himself, to farther their faith,
    obedience, and consolation? As far as I perceive, he
    would be at no small loss how to relieve himself under
    this censure. The first thing he begins withal, and
    wherein, in the first place, I fall under his
    displeasure, is about the conjugal relation between
    Christ and believers, which he treats of, p. 280. "As for
    example," saith he, "Christ is called a husband, the
    church his spouse; and now all the invitations of the
    gospel are Christ's wooing and making love to his spouse;
    - and what other men call believing the gospel of Christ,
    whereby we devote ourselves to his service, these men
    call that consent and contract, which make up the
    marriage betwixt Christ and believers. Christ takes us
    for his spouse, and we take Christ for our husband, and
    that with all the solemnities of marriage, except the
    ring, which is left out as an antichristian ceremony;
    Christ saying thus, 'This is that we will consent unto,
    that I will be for thee, and thou shalt be for me, and
    not for another.' Christ gives himself to the soul with
    all his excellencies, righteousness, preciousness,
    graces, and eminencies, to be its saviour, head, and
    husband, - to dwell with it in this holy relation; and
    the soul likes Christ for his excellencies, graces,
    suitableness, far above all other beloveds whatsoever,
    and accepts of Christ by the will for its husband, Lord,
    and saviour. And thus the marriage is completed; and this
    is the day of Christ's espousals, and of the gladness of
    his heart. And now follow all mutual conjugal affections;
    which, on Christ's part, consist in delight, valuation,
    pity, compassion, bounty; on the saints' part, in
    delight, valuation, chastity, duty. But I have already
    corrected this fooling with Scripture metaphors and
         It might, perhaps, not unbecome this author to be a
    little more sparing of his correction, unless his
    authority were more than it is, and his skill, also, in
    the management of it; for at present those whom he
    attempts upon are altogether insensible of any effects of
    his severity. But whereas he seems much at a loss how to
    evidence his own wisdom any other way than by calling
    them fools with whom he has to do, it is sufficient to
    plead his excuse. But what is it that he is here so
    displeased at, as unfit for a man of his wisdom to bear
    withal, and therefore calls it "fooling?" Is it that
    there is a conjugal relation between Christ and the
    church? - that he is the bridegroom and husband of the
    church, and that the church is his bride and spouse? -
    that he becomes so unto it by a voluntarily, gracious act
    of his love, and that the church enters into that
    relation with him by their acceptance of him in that
    relation, and voluntarily giving up themselves unto him
    in faith, love, and obedience, suited thereunto? Is it
    that he loveth his church and cherisheth it as a husband,
    or that the church gives up itself in chaste and holy
    obedience unto him as her spouse? or is it my way and
    manner of expressing these things wherewith he is so
    provoked? If it be the latter, I desire he would, for his
    own satisfaction, take notice that I condemn his
    censures, and appeal to the judgement of those who have
    more understanding and experience in these things than,
    for aught I can discern by his writings, he has yet
    attained unto. If it be the former, they are all of them
    so proved and confirmed from the Scripture in that very
    discourse which he excepteth against, as that he is not
    able to answer or reply one serious word thereunto.
    Indeed, to deny it, is to renounce the gospel and the
    catholic faith. It is, therefore, to no purpose for me
    here to go over again the nature of this relation between
    Christ and the church, - wherein really and truly it does
    consist; what it is the Scripture instructeth us in
    thereby; what is that love, care, and tenderness of
    Christ, which it would have us thence to learn; and what
    is our own duty with respect thereunto, together with the
    consolation thence arising: the whole of this work is
    already discharged in that discourse which these
    impertinent cavils are raised against, and that suitably
    to the sense of the church in all ages, and of all sound
    expositors of those very many places of Scripture which I
    have urged and insisted on to that purpose. Let him, if
    he please, a little lay aside the severity of his
    corrections and befouling of men, and answer any material
    passage in the whole discourse, if he be able; or
    discover any thing in it not agreeable to the analogy of
    faith, or the sense of the ancient church, if he can. And
    though he seem, both here and in some of his ensuing
    pages, to have a particular contempt of what is cited or
    improved out of the book of Canticles to this purpose;
    yet, if he either deny that that whole book does
    mystically express the conjugal relation that is between
    Christ and his church, with their mutual affections and
    delight in each other, or that the places particularly
    insisted on by me are not duly applied unto their proper
    intention, I can, at least, confirm them both by the
    authority of such persons as whose antiquity and learning
    will exercise the utmost of his confidence in calling
    them fools for their pains. 
         From hence for sundry pages he is pleased to give me
    a little respite, whilst he diverts his severity unto
    another; unto whose will and choice what to do in it I
    shall leave his peculiar concern, as knowing full well
    how easy it is for him to vindicate what he has written
    on this subject from his impertinent exceptions, if he
    please. In the meantime, if this author supposeth to add
    unto the reputation of his ingenuity and modesty by
    assaulting with a few pitiful cavils a book written with
    so much learning, judgement, and moderation, as that is
    which he excepts against, not daring in the meantime to
    contend with it in any thing of the expository or the
    argumentative part of it, but only to discover a
    malevolent desire to obstruct the use which it has been
    of, and may yet farther be, to the church of God, - I
    hope he will not find many rivals in such a design. For
    my part, I do suppose it more becoming Christian modesty
    and sobriety, where men have laboured according to their
    ability in the explication of the mysteries of Christian
    religion, and that with an avowed intention to promote
    holiness and gospel obedience, to accept of what they
    have attained, wherein we can come unto a compliance with
    them; than, passing by whatever we cannot but approve of,
    or are not able to disprove, to make it our business to
    cavil at such expressions as either we do not like, or
    hope to pervert and abuse to their disadvantage. 
         P. 296, he returns again to my discourse, and
    fiercely pursues it for sundry leaves, in such a manner
    as becomes him, and is usual with him. That part of my
    book which he deals withal, is from p. 176 unto p. 187;
    and if any person of ingenuity and judgement will be
    pleased but to peruse it, and to compare it with this
    man's exceptions, I am secure it will need no farther
    vindication. But as it is represented in his cavilling
    way, it is impossible for any man either to conceive what
    is the true design of my discourse, or what the arguments
    wherewith what I assert is confirmed; which he does most
    unduly pretend to give an account of: for he so chops,
    and changes, and alters at his pleasure, going backwards
    and forwards, and that from one thing to another, without
    any regard unto a scholastic or ingenuous debate of any
    thing that might be called a controversy, merely to seek
    out an appearance of advantage to vent his cavilling
    exceptions, as no judgement can rationally be made of his
    whole discourse, but only that he had a mind to have cast
    aspersions on mine, if he had known how. But such stuff
    as it is, we must now take the measure of it, and
    consider of what use it may be. And first he quotes those
    words from my book, "That Christ fulfilled all
    righteousness as he was mediator; and that whatever he
    did as mediator, he did it for them whose mediator he
    was, or in whose stead and for whose good he executed the
    office of a mediator before God: and hence it is that his
    complete and perfect obedience to the law is reckoned to
    us." He adds, "This is well said, if it were as well
    proved. And because this is a matter of great
    consequence, I shall first examine those reasons the
    doctor alleges to prove that Christ fulfilled all
    righteousness, as he was mediator, in their stead whose
    mediator he was." 
         These assertions are gathered up from several places
    in my discourse, though p. 182 is cited for them all. And
    if any one find himself concerned in these things, I may
    demand of him the labour of their perusal in my book
    itself; and for those who shall refuse a compliance with
    so reasonable a request, I do not esteem myself obliged
    to tender them any farther satisfaction. However, I say
    again, that the Lord Christ fulfilled all righteousness
    as mediator; and that what he did as mediator, he did it
    for them whose mediator he was, or in whose stead and for
    whose good he executed the office of a mediator before
    God. He says, "It is well said, if it were as well
    proved." I say, it is all proved in the places where it
    is asserted, and that with such testimonies and arguments
    as he dares not touch upon. And although he pretends to
    examine the reasons that I allege to prove that Christ
    fulfilled all righteousness, as he was mediator, in their
    stead whose mediator he was, yet indeed he does not do
    so. For, first, I say no such thing as he here feigns me
    to say, - namely, that "Christ as mediator fulfilled all
    righteousness in our stead;" but only, that "Christ being
    the mediator, in our stead fulfilled all righteousness:"
    which is another thing, though perhaps he understands not
    the difference. Nor does he so much as take notice of
    that testimony which is immediately subjoined unto the
    words he cites in the confirmation of them; but he will
    disprove this assertion or at least manifest that it
    cannot be proved. And this he enters upon, p 297, "As for
    the first, we have some reason to require good proof of
    this, since the notion of a mediator includes no such
    thing. A mediator is one who interposeth between two
    differing parties, to accommodate the difference; but it
    was never heard of yet, that it was the office of a
    mediator to perform the terms and conditions himself.
    Moses was the mediator of the first covenant, Gal. 3: 19;
    and his office was to receive the law from God, to
    deliver it to the people, to command them to observe
    those rites, and sacrifices, and expiations which God had
    ordained: but he was not to fulfil the righteousness of
    the law for the whose congregation. Thus Christ is now
    the mediator of a better covenant; and his office
    required that he should preach the gospel, which contains
    the terms of peace and reconciliation between God and
    men; and since God would not enter into covenant with
    sinners without the intervention of a sacrifice, he dies
    too, as a sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the

    Owen, A Vindication...
    (continued in File 9...)

    file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: owvin-08.txt