you

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 shew 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 mis

carriages 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 doth 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, hath done and suffered for us, from whence we may learn those greater, deeper, and more saving mysteries of the gospel, which Christ hath 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 hath 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 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 hath learned from me I know not, but that I have any where 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 hath made, whereas his first undertaking was to shew how impossible it is to understand these things savingly and clearly, notwithstanding all those revelations God hath 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 hath made, or that God hath 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 his 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 tittle in my discourse, of any such knowledge of the nature or properties of God as whereof revelation is wholly silent? What doth this man intend? Doth he either not at all understand what I say, or doth 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