Uniformity in Human Doctrinal Ceremonies, hammond 39 – jeanes 40
Dr. Hammond.
This is all the obſervance M. J. ſeemes to expect of me at this time, unleſs his intimation 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 adorer 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 Saerament, & otherwiſe, M. Hooker undertakes to ſet downe how Chriſt in his humane nature is communicated to us, and ſo preſent with us; 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 neither hath or can have any preſence but onelyonly local. 2. That this cannot be rendred poſſible, either by the grace of union with the Diety, 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 conjunction 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 guilty 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 onelyonly (neither 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 onelyonly 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 peradventure be well enough granted in a ſort, or in ſome ſenſe, that when he ſpake you might hear an Angel, aſſuring you at large of my opinion, that no bare 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 his ſubject, and let looſe for three leaves toge…r, and pawne all his philoſophy, and ſcholaſtical (not conſidering what the conſequence alſo may be to his practical) divinity, to accuſe and wonder at, and never to give over wondering, and withal ſolemnely to refute this or that improper figurative ſpeech, ſo perfectly acknowledged by the Speakers to be ſuch?
61. If he have that great leiſure, and any prevalent temptation thus to lay it out, I ſhall onelyonly aſsure him, that I have not ſo much of either, as to attend theſe his motions, nor any other lover or admirer of Mr. Hooker, that I know of, and therefore beſeech him contentedly to reſt in this general return to his charge of that learned man, without expecting any more explicite, or particular ſurvey of it: And ſo much for Mr. Hooker alſo.
Jeanes.
I beleeve that moſt ordinary Readers wil think me guilty of this diſingenuous carriage towards Mr. Hooker, which the Doctor accuſeth me of; but if they would have but the patience to read me in the paſſage related unto, they would ſoon acquit me, and find the Doctor guilty of a great deal of injury towards me. Indeed Mr. Hooker ſayes, that it may well enough be granted in ſome ſenſe, and after a ſort, that Chriſt is every where preſent as man, viz. in two reſpects; but whether this were lyable to exception, I meddle not, 'tis the firſt of the reſpects which he mentioneth, that I queſtion, and the words that I challenge, the Reader may find page 141, of my Treat. of the Fulneſſe of Chriſt thus ſummed up. Then for the great Hooker, whereas he ſaith, That the conjunction of the Manhood with Deity, is extended as farre as Deity, that the Body of Chriſt is joyned unto Deity, whereſoever Deity is, that his Bodily ſubſtance hath every where a preſence of true conjunction with Deity This alſo is eaſily refuted, &c. Now this he affirmeth abſolutely and ſimply without any limitation, and not in a ſort, or in ſome ſenſe, and in two reſpects; and this any man that hath his eyes in his head may ſee, that will compare Mr. Hooker and me together; and if any learned and impartial Reader will but make this compariſon, I ſhall be very well contented that hee ſhall judge betwixt us, who of us hath moſt treſpaſſed againſt practical Divinity, I in my charge of Mr. Hooker, or the learned Doctor in his groſſe and undeniable falſification of my ſaid charge? But I ſhall in charity hope, that this falſification was but a miſtake, proceeding from his haſty and over paſſionate zeal towards the memory of Mr. Hooker: Whereas he is pleaſed to talk his pleaſure of my pawning all my Philoſophy and ſcholaſtical Divinity, I ſhall only humbly aſſume the boldneſſe to intimate thus much unto the Reader, that though I have no great ſtore of either, yet I hope I have enough to attend (that I may borrow the Doctors phraſe) the motions of him, and all other admirers of Mr. Hooker in the Defence of the matter queſtioned: but if he ſhall decline all future further debate of it, I ſhall with a great deal of probability conclude, that what Mr. Hooker ſaith is uncapable of any tolerable vindication: for if he were defenſible, Dr. Hammond is ſo able as that he could, and withall ſo zealous a lover and admirer of him, as that he would continue the juſtification of him: Now from the undefenſibleneſſe of Mr. Hooker in this one point, I ſhall onelyonly take occaſion to admoniſh his followers, that ſeeing he hath erred in ſo weighty a point, therefore he might erre in matters of a farre inferiour nature, eſpecially ſeeing the times were ſuch, as that they tranſported with prejudice many men, that were unqueſtionably otherwiſe very learned and godly.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 62.
I have thus without any other obligation, than what my deſire to undeceive the Author and his Readers laid upon me, paid him now this my ſecond obſervance: And may be allowed to think it time, that he who hath been ſo liberal of his uſes of publick refutation of others words, ſhould find ſome vacancy for one uſe of more private (if not reprehenſion, yet) examination of his own actions: And then I ſhall offer to his conſideration, how much more agreeable to the Laws of brotherly kindneſſe or candour it hath been, to have propoſed his exceptions in ſuch a manner, or friendly addreſſe, as might have brought him home the ſame ſatisfaction, and ſaved others the importunity of theſe uſeleſſe, becauſe perſonal debates: When he hath ſincerely obſerved in himſelf the motive of his other diſtant choice, I have obtained the end of my charity in mentioning it to him, and have no more to return to him at this time.
Jeanes.
We poor ignorant men, that uſe the trite, but not illogical Method of Doctrine and Uſe in Preaching, doe uſually firſt confirme our Doctrine, before we inferre any Uſes therefrom. Now Sir, if you will be pleaſed. firſt to prove, that it is much more agreeable to the Laws of Brotherly kindneſſe or candour, to propoſe a mans exceptions againſt a printed Book in a way of private Letter (for that I conceive is the manner of friendly addreſſe that you ſpeake of) than in a publique way from the Preſſe, eſpecially when the ſaid exceptions are propounded, not for any perſonal ſatisfaction, but for the undeceiving of others, unto which end the private way is no apportionare means; I ſhall then proceed unto the uſe of, not only examination, but alſo reprehenſion of this mine action; but in the mean while I ſhall ſtand upon my juſtification, and maintaine that I am guiltleſſe of any unbrotherly, uncandid, and diſreſpective carriage towards you in the propoſall of my objections, which was in as civil and friendly a manner, I am confident, as ever you received any from any Antagoniſt whatſoever.