Dr. Hammond.
This is all the observance M. J. seemes to expect of me at this time, unless his inti∣mation to all admirers of M. Hooker, that they should vindicate their great patrone, of Ceremonies, may passe for an admonition to me, who acknowledge my selfe a thankful ado∣ter of Gods graces in that godly learned man, and so exact a few lines more above the regular account.
56. This will detaine me no longer, then whilst I mind the Reader, that in a discourse of the benefits which we receive from Christ in the Sacrament, & otherwise, M. Hooker undertakes to set downe how Christ in his humane nature is communicated to us, and so present with 〈◊〉〈◊〉; To this end three things he shewes at large. 1. That as nothing created can be unlimited, or receive any such accident from any as may really make it infinite, so neither the soul nor body of Christ, nor Christ as man, nor according to his humane nature, can possibly be every where present, no nor the substance of the body of Christ, which net∣ther hath or can have any presence but onely local. 2. That this cannot be rendred possi∣ble, either by the grace of union with the Diely, nor by any other possible meanes, as he at large excellently deduceth it, pag. 300, 301, 302, 3. That it may peradventure be well enough granted in some sense, and after a sort, that Christ is every where present, as man, viz. 1. In respect of the conjunction of the humane nature with the Deity, which conjun∣ction is extended as farre as the Deity, the actual position being restrained, and tied to a certain place, and 2. By cooperation with the Deity, and that in all things.
57. Now on this third head, (without reflecting on the two former, which assure us of the authors meaning in it) two passages M. J. takes hold of, which if he know any thing in either Philosophy, or scholastical divinity, are both 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of a grosse mistake, and cannot be sufficiently wondred at by him, that they should fall from so a learned a pen.
58. But I suppose there is no great skill in either of those learned faculties required, to distinguish betwixt that which truly and properly is, and that which may in some sense, and after a sort, and in two respects onely (〈◊〉〈◊〉 of which belong to the propriety of being) be well enough granted, and that with a (peradventure) also to have influence on all these.
59. And what severity is this, to require of every learned man, that hath most largely refuted an adversary, to be so averse from all thoughts of peace, and reconciliation with him, that he may not allow him to speak truth, or but perhaps to speak truth in a sort, and in some sense, and in two onely respects? All which are still more than intimations, that he thinks him to be absolutely, and in simplicity and propriety of speaking, in a gross errour, impossible even to the power of God to have truth in it.
60. If any should chance to say of an eloquent man, that you might hear an Angel speak in him, and I should reply, that it might per adventure be well enough granted in a sort, or in some sense, that when he spoke you might hear an Angel, assuring you at large of my opinion, that no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 man can truly be an Angel, nay that it was impossible for God himself to bring to pass, that at the same time he should be an Angel, and not an Angel, a man, and not a man, or which is all one, a bare man, and yet an Angel, or (in fewer words) when Christ saith he is a door, and a vine, if I should say that in a sort, and in some sense, and that in two respects, each of these had truth in them, would M. J. think fit to leave 〈◊〉〈◊〉 subject, and let loose for three leaves together, and pawne all his philosophy, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (not confidering what the consequence also may be to his practical) divi∣nity, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and wonder at, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to give over wondering, and withal solemnely to refute this or that improper figurative 〈◊〉〈◊〉, so perfectly acknowledged by the Spea∣kers to be such?