An answer to the discourse of Mr. William Sherlock, touching the knowledge of Christ,…

Never did I like Scoptical Divinity; [Greek or Hebrew]. Almost every where in this Passage there is a flurt and a sting at worthy Dr. Jacomb, who yet may comfort himself, that Sadeel, Zanchy, Davenant, Usher, Reynolds, with many more are Co. sufferers with him; all of them (however the Author be so civil as not to name them) hold the very same Mystical Union as Dr. Jacomb doth: But what saith the Author? Nothing is more easy to be understood than our Union to Christ: Nothing! how so? St. Paul calls it a great Mystery, our Church, a marvellous Incorporation, Bishop Reynolds, one of the deep things of God, not discernible without the Spirit; and yet nothing more easy to the Author: Only some men have made it, as he tells us, more than mystical, that is, an unintelligible Union. More than mystical they have not ⟨p. 230⟩made it; yet the Learned Whitaker saith,¹ it is Maximè mystica & planè mirifica: Neither do they make it unintelligible, though they would have it received in Faith; according to the measures of Scripture, and not of mere Reason: This latter in the Socinians cashiered the Hypostatical Union in Christ, because it could not pierce into the Vinculum Unionis, ²which tacks mortal and immortal, eternal and temporal together in one Person; and, unless it be subjected to Scripture, it may do as much in us touching the mystical one. But the Dr. saith, Faith receives Christ and so unites to him; which consequence is not good; for men are not united to every thing they receive: But Faith receives Christ as spiritual Food, and eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, as the Author tells us, pag. 184. signifies the most intimate Union with him, besides the Marriage union, which might have prevented the Exception. But Christ and Saints are united in respect of the Oneness between them: This is plain, saith the Author, they are one by their Oneness. I fear the Reader may think we are at Tittle-tattle; How should they be one without Oneness? or who would deny or ⟨p. 231⟩cavil at it? But the Doctor should have understood the Union first, before he had come to the Bonds: And hath not the Dr. in his Book set down the Properties of this Union? Or what can better show the Nature of it than the Bonds thereof? But the Dr. in his design to prove an Union of Persons is bewildered, and the Author will help him out: Bewildered? Not by any Arguments as yet;