Reall differencies betwixt the Protestation of the Par­liament, and the Oath of the Canon: first in the matter of them both, the Doctrine established.

THe differences betwixt the Protestation of the Parliament, and Oath of the Synod are Reall and Personall.

The Reall are such as concern the matter and forme of them both. The matter, (wheron you ground the chief cause of your doubting) I shall distinguish into that which is common to them both and that which is peculiar to either.

That which is common to both is, the asserting of the Doctrine established in the Church of Eng­land, especially as in opposition to Popish Doctrine: wherof (as it is set down in the Canon) there be three doubts, 1. 2. Parti [...]. doubt p. 16. What is meant by the Church of England? 2. 4. Parti [...]. doubt. p. 32. What is meant by Popish Doctrine? 3. 5 Parti [...]. doubt. p. 37. What establishment of Doctrine is here m [...]ant, and how farre it may be said to be established? which doubts with their reasons, whosoever reads with an impartiall and unprejudiced apprehension, will never apply to the Protestation of the Parlia­ment.

And in what sence we may well understand these words in the printed Protestation (though [Page 6] I will not take upon me to interpret it, except for satisfaction to my self, and to such as require my Judgement of it) in my conceipt is very clear, especially by the Declaration annexed to many printed copies of that Protestation (though that which you sent me came forth without it) in this tenour; by these words: [The true reformed Protestant Religion, expressed in the Doctrine of the church of England against all Popery and Popish In­novations within this Realme, contrary to the same Doctrine, was and is meant only the publike Do­ctrine professed in the church of England; so farre as it is opposite to Popery and Popish Innovations] And that is (as I take it without taking upon me the Authority of an Interpreter of it, save as before I have said) the Doctrin contained in the 39. Articles. For,

First, that is the most publick Doctrin of the Church; because in the Church of every Parish, all that are admitted into Benefices must publi [...] ­ly read the 39. Articles unto the people within the first month of their admission to them, upon perill of loosing their livings by falling into lapse.

2. That Doctrin is most professedly the Doct­rin of the Church of England; for all Doctours and teachers of the Church are bound, so farre to professe it, as to subscribe unto those Articles, with­out which subscription, they are not to be allow­ed for publike Preachers, or teachers, at least not admitted into pastorall charges, in the Church of England.

3. The Doctrin of those Articles is most op­posite to Popery, and popish Innovations; for they were framed and tempered of purpose for an Antidote to Popery, in the Raign of Queen Eli­zabeth, about four yeers after her coming to the [Page 7] Crown, for she began her Stow [...] Annals p. 1074. raigne, November 17. 1558. and in 1562. were these Articles con­cluded on, to be the publike and professed Do­ctrine of the Church of England. This Doctrine and these Articles are in congruity of right Rea­son, to be intended in this Protestation.

Yet not all of them neither (though none of them be denied or renounced) but onely those which are opposite to Popery and popish Innova­tion: as these that follow.

An Advertisement touching the wine which in some places is allowed to the Laity after the taking of the bread.

SOme (to excuse the sacriledge of the Romanists) have said, the people are not deprived of the Com­munion Cup, as we pretend, for that they have a little wine allowed them after the receit of the wafer.

The truth is, some times, and in some places, the peo­ple have so, to In quibusdum locis po [...]gunt vinum non [...]on­secratum; solet apud Gallos [...]i­eri, & ex eo prejudicio crea­debam ego qui­dem ap [...]d om­nes, nunc primū audivi, apud quosdam & a­liunde didici, in Hispania a­quam [...]ari, sed our non apud omnes? nam fo­liola illa [...]arina­cia non sunt fa­ciliùs degluben­da alibi, quam apud nos Cham de Euchar. l. 9. c 6. Tom. 4. de Sacr. p. 496. wash the wafer down their throats, which otherwise might be like to stick in their mouths; yet it must not be consecrated wine, least it should be received as the other part of the Sacrament: and where Claret wine is more deare (as in Spain) they give the people water instead of wine: To that pur­pose, the French-Priests were (as Ita (que) nostro­tes▪ Sacerdotes pudor aliquis tenuit, apudquos vili [...]s est vi­num. Chamier. de Eucharist. l. 9. c. 6. Tom. 4. de Sacr. p. 496. Col. 2. Chamier noteth) more bashfull, then to be so base, where that kinde of wine (which would come nearest the complection of Transubstantiation, if it were true) is more cheape then in other places. But both the French and the Spanish (what difference so ever is betwixt their Nati­ons or Churches) agree in the violation of the Lords ordinance, and an injurious detention of the peoples allowance, since the French-wine, is not more Sacra­mentall then the Spanish-water, though that seem more hereticall, as carrying an appearance of the Doctrine and practise of the Aquarij loco vini aquâ [...]si sunt, ne odore vini Christianit atis judicio proderentur. Cyprian. Ep. 63. ad Caelium. Vide et Baron. Annal. ad an. 257. [...]. 9, 10, 11. Aquarij, who held it not unlaw­full to administer the Sacrament in meere water, and so forbore the use of wine, though as Cyprian giveth the reason, their practise did partake of policy, as well as of heresie, for they did it lest the smell of wine should bewray them to their enemies, to be Christian Communicants.

[Page 22-23]

[Page 25] TO these particulars, I might adde other Pro­testant tenets of our Church, out of the Books of Homilies, wherin, though there be some things doubtfull, there are many very true and Orthodox Doctrines, very soundly stated and proved, and zea­lously pressed against the Heresies of Popery; and a­mong these thirty-nine Articles there are some o­thers opposite to Popery, which I have not men­tioned, as the tenth of Freewill; and the thirteenth of workes done before Justification, because the Antithesis betwixt the Protestant and Popish Do­ctrine, by the subtile and ambiguous formes of ex­pression (on the Popish-side) is made more intricate and problematicall, then in the rest, and in these we have exprest, there are some other which are necessarily implied as by mutuall relation, defending or destroying one another. So it is betwixt H [...]retici om­nes tum recen­tiores, tum antiquiores, qui purgatorium negarunt, conse­quenter etiam suffragia & indulgentias mortuis prodes­se negaverunt. Bellar. de In­dulg. lib. 1. c. 14 Tom. 2 p. 456. col. 1. Purga­tory and prayers for the dead; for if there be a Pur­gatory (as Papists affirme) prayers for the dead will be needfull, and profitable offices of the living on their behalfe: if no Purgatory (as our 22. Arti­cle orthodoxally determineth) prayers for the dead are frivolous, and fruitlesse services; for if there be only two places for receipt of soules after death, Heaven and Hell, to pray for those in Heaven is needlesse, for them in Hell bootlesse: To them no good thing is wanting, See also Bell. de purg. l. 1 c. 15. Tom: 2. p: 250. Suffragia Ec­clesiae de­functis pro­desse. Ibid: l: 2. de purg. ca. 15. Tom. 2. p 264. col. 2. for these no good thing will be obtained, not so much refreshing, as a drop of water from the tip of the finger, Luk▪ 16. 24.

These then may be sufficient both to informe such as make this Protestation, what Doctrine of our Church is opposite to Popery: and to assure those that do propound it, of their minds to the Reli­gion established, who willingly present themselv [...] to promise, vow and protest, in the forme fore-mentioned, [Page 26] for they that are Protestants and An­tipapists in these points, will never side with the Popish-party, against the Religion established, or the Parliament assembled.

Thus much of matter of Doctrine, mentioned both in the Oath of the sixt Canon, and the late Protestation: Wherin though they materially a­gree, yet considering what hath beene said by way of In my booke ag [...]inst the Oath, D [...]ubt. 2. pag. 16. and Doubt. 4. p▪ 32. and Doubt. 5. p. 37. doubt aganist the meaning of the Canon (which hath no place in this Protestation.) They that were affraid of the former (in this respect) have no cause to make scruple of the latter.

Of that wherin the Oath of the sixt Canon and the Protestation do differ, in respect of the matter con­tained in either, which the other hath not.

THe most doubts for number, and the most per­plexing for difficulty, for the Oath of the Ca­non, are in that part of it, which concerneth dis­cipline and government, by Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, with that boundlesse &c. beyond which we can find no shore, and wherin our line and plummet can reach no bottom, e­specially if rites and Ceremonies, be reduced to dis­cipline, as I have observed in [...] my My booke of Doubts and Hopes, p. 15, 16. first particular doubt of the Oath, from all this perplexity (wher­with the Canon entangleth a timerous conscience) the Protestation giveth very good, and undoub­ted Security, expresly declaring, that these words [The true reformed Protestant Religion, expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, against all Popery and Popish Innovations, within this Realme, contrary to the same Doctrine] are not to be exten­ded [Page 27] to the maintaining of any forme of worship, disci­pline or government, nor of any rites or Ceremonies of the said Church of England; wherin, as they do not require the ratification of any such particulars, so neither do they disa [...]ow them, but leave them (as controversed points) to such a decision as is due unto them.

This Declaration was not in that Protestation you sent unto me, if it had, it may be, you had not mooved the doubt (as you did) Whether my doubts against the Oath, did not stand up, and invite to scruples against the present Protestati­on.

But though all this doubtfull matter be discar­ded from it (which was the most dangerous part of the charge of the Canon) yet there is other matter of much doubt and great moment within the Protestation, which the Canon contains not, as the Power and Priviledges of Parliaments, the rites and liberties of Subiects, which are points of too high a pitch for common capacities; and it may be difficult enough for the wiser sort, well, and truly to understand.

I will not (as I said before) take upon me to ex­pound the meaning of these termes (for generall satisfaction, for so it belongeth to them that made the Text to make the Comment) the Authours are the best, and most Authenticke Interpreters of their owne words; who alone can make the one as generall as the other: but for the guiding of mine own conscience (touching the sence of these words) I have this to say.

First, for the Power and Priviledges of Parlia­ments K. Iames in his Speech in Starr-chamb [...]r. 1 [...]16. Op [...]. p. 552. King Iames taught me to take them in a very large extent, where he repeated and approo­ved the Speech of that old wise man (as he cals him) the Treasurer Burleigh, who was wont to say, [Page 28] he knew not what an Act of Parliam [...]nt could not doe in England, doubtlesse it may doe any thing, but what is contrary to his Acts or Statutes, whose least word hath more right to rule in all Lands, then any Laws that are made by men, in any one Country or Kingdome whatsoever.

2. For the Rights and liberties of Subjects, I find no cause to doubt of them in the generall, since the word [ lawfull] is added unto them, and indeed (throughout the whole Protestation) here are such words of Caution and limitation, as may serve for prevention of all scruples, in this respect, for though the length of it be not fully twelve lines, there are thus many clauses to give it a relish of regular construction: [ as farre as lawfully I may, lin. 2. law­full rites, lin. 6. lawfull pursuance, and as farre as lawfully I may, lin. 7. by all good wayes, lib. 8. in [...] all iust and honourable waies, lin. 10.] there are no such words of caution to the conscience in the Canonicall Oath.

There is one clause in it which seemeth to limit one part of it to the rule of right, for it requi­reth a ratification of the Governement by Arch­bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, &c. [ as of right in ought to stand] which words are like a Picture in a [...]urrowed Table, equivocally varying the aspect, according to the site or placing of him that looketh towards it.

These limitations are none such: but very plain, and they are so placed as to diffuse an influence of fidelity and Justice the Protestation throughout, and that may suffice for assent unto it in generall termes, and when any particular is singled out for approbation or pursuit, I doubt not but it will come forth so plainly declared, by the same au­thority that proposeth it, that we may both con­ceive it well, and conceive well of it, and so ad­dresse [Page 29] our selves to conformity to it. Thus much for comparison of the Oath of the Canon and Protestation in respect of the matter of them both.

The difference in forme betwixt the Parliamentary Pro­testation and the Canonicall Oath may induce us to the one, and with-hold us from the other.

IF we consider them in their forme; we shall finde that difference betwixt them, which may make us more willing to hee Protestants then Canonists: For the Protestation goeth no further then to vow, promise and protest, but the sixt Ca­non requireth a solemne Oath.

Now though a [...]vow lawfully made, (and we may say the same of a Promise and Protestation) must be carefully kept, Numb. 30. 22. Deut. 23. 21. Psalm. 50. 14. Ps. 76. 11. Esa. 19. 21. Eccles. 5. 4 and though made unto men the performance of it (as of conscience to God) be a religious duty: and albeit a vow in Votum quo­dammodo ad [...]u­ramen [...]um pro­missarium refer­ri debet. Rivet. in Dec [...] l. p 146. M Whateley his Prototypes▪ part [...] p. 51. some sort be referred to a pre­missary Oath, and sometimes be a part of divine worship as well as an Oath (in which respect the Papists are justly charged with Idolatry, for their vowes made unto Saints) and though as Vovens & non solvens quid ni­si perjuro. Bern▪ de praecept▪ & dispensat c. 20. col: 930. Bernard saith, he that breaketh a vow is perjured, yet there is great difference betwixt a Promise, vow, Protest­ation, and an Oath; for an oath is more then a Promise (though promises only have served in former times for consent and ratification of Haec ita (que) le­galia statuta vel decreta in nostro conventu Synedali edicta [...]uncti tunc temporis opti­mates se ob­servaturos fide­liter spondebant Conc. Aenham. Can 7. Tom 1. Con [...] D. Spelm p. 527. Canonicall Decrees) for that is but a simple expression of a purpose, for [Page 30] somewhat to come: A vow is that and some­what more. viz. Votum est te­stificatio quae­dam promissio­nis spontaneae, quae Deo & de [...]is que Dei sunt propriè fi­eri debet, Lum­bard. l 4. dist. 38. a. fol. 423. pag. 1. a religious engagement of man with reference to God, and ⁱ with intention to binde the conscience to the thing vowed, but an Oath goeth beyond all this, and so it giveth vi­gour and obligation to a vow, whence it is ^k that the Jewes when they meant to give their vowes the strongest degree of Asseveration and assurance added an Oath unto them; and an Oath is more then a Protestation; Votum est actus religiosus soli Deo debitus. Bell. de cul [...]u Sanct. l. 1. c. 9. Tom. 2 p. 355. for that (as Al [...]at defineth it) is no more ^l but a declaration of the mind made for the acquiring or preserving of some Right, or for depulsion, or driving away of some damage.

And because it is made (many times) with vehe­mency and vigour of spirit, Votum est aeli­cujus faciendi vel non sacien­di versu [...] Deum deliberata & justa promissio. Andr. Alc [...]at. de verbor. sig­nif Commen­tar. p. 474. it is defined by some, to be a loud, ^m or shouting testification, for Caution to him that makes i [...].

But an Oath (as we see by that which but now I noted of the Jewes) engageth the conscience, more deeply then a single promise, [...]ow, or pro­testation doth, and the breach of it bindeth over the forsworne man to the perill of a greater pu­nishment: Votum est pro­missio & spon­sio Deo [...]acta. Azor. Instit. l. 11. c. 12 p. 754 Quod inter ho­mines dicitur promissio id Dei respectu votum appellatur. Z [...]nch. Tom. 7. p. 707. col. 2. And of Oaths there be divers kinds in respect of the different Formalities and Ceremo­nies, wherwith they are taken.

Some Oathes are called verball, some corporall: ⁿ a corporall Oath is that which hath an outward gesture annexed to it, as the verball hath not: and [Page 31] of these gestures or Ceremonies there is much va­riety. The manner of old (even as old as to A­brahams time) was by lifting up the hand, Gen. 14. 22. The like we read of the Angell, who lifted up his hand to Heaven and swore by him who liveth for ever and ever, Rev. 10. 5. upon which place, Hic erat gestus jurantium [...] [...] ­ [...]iamnùm bodie. Beza Annot. in R [...]v. 10. 5. Be­zaes note is, That it was the gesture accustomed to accompany an Oath; as at this day in Rivet. exer­cit 81. in Gen. p. 390. France, the Judges use to say to him that is to take an Oath (as in England is said by the Clerke of the Assize, to the Prisoner at the barre) hold up thy hand, but an Ecclesiasticall person is bidden, to [...]ay his hand on his breast. In the Pa [...]aeus Gen. 24. c. 2. Palatinate Paraeus observes the manner of taking of an Oath to be, by lifting up three fingers, with reference to the blessed Trinity atte­sted in it.

There is a difference also in regard of the dig­nity of the person who is to sweare, so in the sixt Councell of Millan, a Quid ab Epis­copis Prelatis­ve ob dignita­tem qua praecel­lunt ex instituto fieri decet, ut manu ad pectus admota, si quan­do oportet jus­jurandum pre­stent. Concil. Mediol. Tom. 9. pag. 676. col. 2. Bishop or a Prelate, was (for reverence of his place or dignity) to be put to no more (when he was to sweare) then to lay his hand upon his breast, wheras the Inferiour Cler­gy were to use another Ceremony (as I shall shew anon) Sometimes the Inferiores sub superiorum [...]e­more manum ponebant. Gen. 24. 2. & 34 7. & 47. 29. Dud. Fenneri The [...]. l. 5. c. 3. fol. 53. pa. 2. Superiour, caused the In­feriour, to put his hand under his thigh, to whom he swore; so did Abraham, when he sent, and swore his servant to make choyce of a wife for his sonne, Gen. 24. 2. So also did Iacob sweare his sonne Ioseph for his buriall out of Aegypt. In which Ceremony Aug. de C. D. l. 16. c. 33. pag. 608. S ^t. Augustine imagined a great mystery, viz. a prophesie of the promised Seed, to be derived from the loynes of Abraham, and so of Isaack his sonne, and of Iacob his Grand-childe, &c.

The most received Ceremony, (since the Gospel had the protection of Christian Princes) hath bin to lay the hand upon some part of Holy-Writ: [Page 32] this was required of Reliqui Ec­clesiastici bomi­nes subdiacon [...] Diaconi, Pres­byteri, si jura re necesse habent, id tactis sacri [...] litteris a­ga [...]t. Concil. medio l [...]n. 6. Tom. 9. pag. 676 col 2. sub [...], Deacons and Pres­byters by the Councell of Millan, when Bishops were onely to lay their hands upon their breast; but with this difference, that in In causis ve­ro levibus, ubipo [...] est, jurent manu pectori almotâ s [...] mo­do superior prae­sen [...] no [...] adest, quo praese [...]te contactis Scrip­turis jusjuran­dum prestent. Ibid pag. 676. col. 2. 677. col. 1. lesser matters it would suffice inferiour Clerks (unlesse a Prelate were pre­sent) to use the same Ceremony, but in greater matters they were to take their Oath with touching of the Bible.

Of this formality the first instance I meet with­all, is the Homil. 44. o­p [...]r Imper [...]. in Math. imperfect worke ( which goeth in Chrysostomes name) upon S. Matthew: But I find not the expresse manner of it untill the sixt Coun­cell of Constantinople, where Georgius Deo a nabilis, & Charta [...]ylax dixit hi sunt duo Codices qui continet Acta Sanctae Synodi—tangens i­gitur proposita sa [...]ro sanct [...] Dei eloquia, dixit per ist as sanct as virtutes & D [...]um [...] est per eas, cum [...] libri, &c. Sext. Synod. Constantinop. Art. 14. Tom 5. pag. 231. 232. Georgius Charta­phylax a Deacon, gave testimony to two parchment books, touching the holy Oracles of God, saying, by these holy vertues, and by him who hath spoken by them in truth and verity, these are the two bookes which contain the acts of the fif [...] generall Synod▪ which the ^z Magdeburgenses note upon the seventh Century, and about the ninth ^a Century I finde first menti­on of kissing of the Booke. Afterwards ( about the eleventh Century) the forme of an Oath was vari­ed thus: ( as may be seene in an example of Ar­nulpus giving an Oath to a Bishop in this man­ner) He gave him one hand, and laying the other hand upon the Gospell, averred the truth of his words, with this conclusive clause, ^b so helpe me God, and these holy Gospels.

The manner of an Oath among us is common­ly knowne to be this: he that sweareth layeth his hand upon the Bible, or some part of it (especial­ly the Gospell) and having delivered the matter to be assured by swearing, concludeth it with [Page 33] these words, so helpe me God in Iesus, Christ, sealing up all with kissing the Book.

In the forme of the Oath required by the sixt Canon, are all the ingredients, which (with so much doubtfull matter) may make it formidable to a scrupulous and timerous conscience, for it is con­cluded thus: This I do heartily, willingly and truly, upon the Faith of a Christian, so helpe me God in Ie­sus Christ, wherto the finall Why do they not as vvell challenge us that vvee give the booke to touch and kisse in taking an oath. The de­fence of the Humble Re­monstrance, §. 11. p 81. kisse must be added, though it be not mentioned, which, taking it ac­cording to the exposition of Doctor Cousins a late famous Civilian, maketh it, is as full of danger, as of doubting; D. R Cousins Apology for proceeding in Ecclesiasticall Courts, part. 3. c 4. We renounce, saith he, in taking a Corporall oath, all the Promises of the Bible, and call upon us all the curses therin contained, if we sweare not truly.

A man may be willing to promise, vow and protest, and he is bound in conscience to make good his word, whether it be promise, vow or protestation, if it be of a matter lawfull, and with­in his power to performe: For instance, a god-fa­ther promising and vowing for a childe at Baptis­me, but he would be loath to be engaged to per­formance of what he so saith, with a pawn or for­feiture of goods and lands, of wife, and children, and friends, and whatever else (wherin he taketh comfort) and to be whipt, or hang'd, or burnt, or torne in peeces, if he keep not touch for what he undertaketh: and yet all this is nothing, to lay­ing Jesus Christ and his merits to pawne, renoun­cing all right and interest to him and them: and imprecating all the curses and comminations in the word of God against himselfe, as in this Oath he doth who taketh it, if his sincerity and con­stancy bee not answerable to what hee profes­seth.

There is no such danger in making the Prote­station [Page 34] fore-mentioned: Nay, no danger at all, un­lesse a man take no heed how he takes it, or make no conscience how he keeps it.

Personall considerations, which may induce to the ma­king of the Protestation, and discouragement from taking of the Oath.

ANd yet (besides this reall difference) we are in the next place to note, that which is perso­nall; and therein to observe the different conditi­on betwixt those that proposed the Protestation, and the composers of the Canon, and that is obser­vable in foure particulars.

1. In their Authority. 2. In their Liberty. 3. In their Integrity. 4. In their Benignity. For the first.

They who sent forth the Protestation were un­doubtedly endowed with sufficient Authority, 1. Authority. for what they did: we cannot say so of the Ecclesi­asticks of that Synod, wherin the late Canons were decreed since their Assembly, and Acts done in it have beene questioned, and disallowed by the Par­liament.

2. For Liberty, 2. Liberty. they who composed the Pro­testation, and commended it with generall publi­cation and proposall to all throughout the Land were free and independent, none subordinate to a­nother (howsoever diversified by the titles of Lords, Knights, Citizens and Burgesses) and so their con­sent therin being unanimous is (in congruity of reason) to be taken for a dictate of free Judgement, and good [Page 35] conscience: See the Preface pr [...]fixed before the doubts of the Oath. fol. 2. p. 2. It was not so with those that de­creed the Oath of the sixt Canon, as elswhere hath bin observed.

3. For Integrity, 3. Integrity. the Protestation came from those, who give undoubted evidence of their dislike of all, both black and blanched Popery, opposing, not only the grosser Tenets and superstitions of the Romish-Religion, but the Arminian-fallacies which are devised to ensnare the subtler, as the other to deceive the simpler sort, and they shew therin a sincere and uniforme affection and fore-cast to the welfare of the King and his Subjects of all sorts, and to the establishment of Religion, Justice and Peace, throughout all the Kingdomes of his Ma­jesties Dominions. I am sorry we cannot say nor thinke so of some, who had too great a sway in composing of the Canons; and who are probably suspected of a partiall intent to maintain their own interests, and to support their Ecclesiasticall Pre­lation, with little regard of the good of the inferiour Clergy, how good soever, or of the Churches com­mitted to their particular charges.

4. For Benignity; 4. Benigni­ty. our Protestant leaders of the Commons-House, give leave to private persons out of their House, to make doubts concerning the mea­ning of some words, contained in their Protesta­tion.

But some of our Canonicall Lords (who would have us rather their sworne-men, then the Chur­ches free Ministers; and would have us give our as­sent to their dictates, with an implicite faith) much disliked our doubting of their new devised Oath, notwithstanding it be of much more perillous im­portance to us, then this Protestation can be to a­ny; and therfore some have bin called in question, and strictly examined (as if they had been suspected of some haynous crime) concerning the shewing or [Page 36] communicating of the London Ministers Quaeries of the Oath to the reading of others.

2. The Composers of this Protestation were so facile and favourable to those that doubted of it, that what did scruple them, they expresly discharged and excluded out of the compasse of their Protestation, and that with such readinesse and expedition, that to many, if not to most, the doubt was rather prevented then removed, the Protestation and ex­planation comming both at once unto their hands.

But the doubts of the Oath were not so tender­ly taken to heart by some of our Ecclesiasticall Governours, though their title Fathers obliged them to more mildenesse and pitty to their perplexed sonnes: for some were so farre from a compassi­onate complying with us, by with-drawment of that which was so full of ambiguity and danger in our apprehension, that for moving doubts unto them (though with as much meeknesse and mode­ration of spirit as the cause would well beare) some of us were noted as adversaries to them, and so accompted not onely uncapable of their fatherly indulgence, but unworthy the good will and ac­ceptation of our Bretheren: And if they had still been as predominant as of late they were, wee might have expected rather punishment, See the De­fence of the Humble Re­monstrance, p. 162. as for some high presumption against our Superiours, then any satisfaction of our scruples, or removall of the scandals that did offend us.

This may suffice to manifest such disparity be­twixt the Oath and Protestation, that he that is afraid to take the one, may have a good heart to take the other. By that which hath bin said you will well perceive that the doubts in my booke are blocks lying at the doore of the Convocation house (where the Oath was framed) none of them will be found in the way of the House of Parlia­ment, [Page 37] from whence this promise, [...]ow and protesta­ [...]n proceeded.

An Answer to your doubt of the [...]ase of Conscience, wherin the opposition betwixt your Seminary and me is clearly demonstrated.

NOw for your scruple, at some part of my re­solution of the Case of Conscience, (I pre­sume you will not blame mine answer to it in this place, as an hysteron proteron, if you forget not my reasons before delivered, for departing from the order of your proposals) having promised your first motive of writing unto me, you begin your mat­ter of exception against me, with that which I cannot but receive with much acceptation: viz. I have here­tofore endea­voured tovvith [...]dravv one (vvho had neere rela­tion to mee) from the Ro­m [...]sh Religion, attempting to vvork it, upon the great vvrōg the Laity did suffer in that Religion for vvant of the Communion Cup M. Harlow p▪ 1. Your zealeus endeavour to reduce one of neare rela­tion to you from the Romish Religion: And I doe as much approve of your prudence in making choice of the grand Sacriledge of the Papists (in with­holding the Communion Cup from the Laity) as a ground of perswasion to returne to that Church where the Laity receive their full right in both kinds, as well as the Clergy.

But then you tell me that having therupon re­ceived an escript from a Romish Priest, (about Christmas, 1639.) who, as you say, stated the point to the same effect as I have done, wherto you retur­ned an answer, which be tooke with him to Rome, where he hath, as it seemes, ever since beene resident, your indeavour will proove f [...]uitlesse, If you and the Seminary doe meane, &c. [...] Ibid. if the truth be as I have condescended unto. Afterwards you Because nei­ther you nor the Seminary have declared vvhat kinde of presence, &c. p. 6. twice joyne me and the Seminary together, as if we two [Page 38] were at better accord about their fraudulent detenti­on of half the Sacrament, then you and I.

Truly, Sir, I am so farre from all guilt of that Sacrilegious guile of the Romish Church, that I conceive if any had suspected me for it heretofore, my booke which you have read, might have ser­ved for a compleat Apology and purgation from it; but I see, by your conceipt, the saying of Ci­cero verified betwixt you and me; Non tam inte­rest quo animo s [...]ribatur, quam quo accip [...]atur, Cic. Ep. f [...]. l. 6. p 65. nu 26. It is not of so much moment, with what minde one writeth, as with what mind another readeth.

I suppose you set your selfe so affectionately a­gainst the Seminaries sacrilegious tenet, that the heat of your zeale warped your misconceipt to a degree of excesse; which hath bin an occasion of errour to Ardebant ve­teres tanto syn­cerae pietatis ar­dore, ut dum u­num errorem omni virium conatu destru. ere annituntur, s [...]epe in alterum oppositum erro­rem, vel decide­rint, vel quo­da [...]odo deci­disse videan­tur, Sixt. Se­nens. Prefat. in lib. [...]. Bibli­oth. Sanct. p. 1. & 2. some of the greatest Clerkes, as King Iames hath observed of S ^t. Augustine in particular, giving some rules for reading of the Fathers, he adviseth to distinguish D. Featley Cygnea ca [...]tio, p. 31. their positive Doctrine from that which they write in heat of opposition, wherin, saith he, sometimes (through too much vehemency) they over-straine in their Polemicke Tractates against Hereticks; for instance, S. Augustine in his worthy Treatises extant in the seaventh Tome of his workes, in vehemently oppugning those Hereticks that agree with our Arminians, to wit, the Pelagians, who deni­ed Originall sin in Infants, and consequently held Bap­tisme needlesse, was so farre transported to urge the ne­cessity therof, that he excludeth all Infants (dying un­baptized) from all hope of Salvation.

In application of this to your Case, you may see my disposition to returne you better coyne, then I received from you; for you joyne me with a Ro­mish Seminary, in society of Sacriledge: I joyne you with a most renowned Doctour of the Church, in an exube [...]ancy of zeale, easily capable of pardon, and not altogether uncapable of some commenda­tion: [Page 39] and if either you or any one els had con­vinced me of any errour, whether of this or any other kinde, I would learne of him a better lesson then this example sheweth, which is Secundas ba­beat mod estiae, qui primas non po [...]uit ba [...]ere sa [...]ientiae. Aug. Ep 7. Marc [...]lli­no. Tom. 2. p. 32. f [...]r want of wisedome before hand to make amends by modest confession of a fault afterwards. But (as yet I con­ceive my cause) I must stand upon my just de­fence against a three-fold charge in your Let­ter.

1. Of Popish conformity with the Seminarie Priest.

2. Of ambiguity in mine own Tenet, without reference to him.

3. Of scandall and offence, which you conceive some may take (as your selfe have done) at that passage, wherat, you say, you have taken a stum­ble.

For the first, you first set downe my words, then the Seminaries; my words (as you rightly set them downe, though you take them in a wrong sence) are these; M. Ley his Case of Con­science. p. 17. Though there be most dispute betwixt us and the Papists, upon the with-holding of the Cup of the holy Communion, in the thing it selfe, there is no more necessity held (by either side) of the use of the one Element then of the other, nor is Christ lesse pre­sent to the faithfull in the one then in the other.

The Seminaries Tenet you deliver more largely, but I will note onely so much of it, as is most pertinent to cleare the point of consent or difference betwixt us; and this it is: I affirme, saith the Se­minary, that by one of the Elem [...]nts alone, the whole thing is both signified, and the efficacy produced, for by the one we receive whole Christ, who is as really present by receiving one, as by both. Hereupon you addresse this demand unto me. Now Sir, if it be true, as to the thing it selfe, that there is no other ne­cessity of the use of one Element then of the other; [...]r [Page 40] that the whole benefit may be received by one; and that Christ is no lesse present to the faithfull in the one element then in the other, or in both together; then me thinks it is not well done by any of our side, to foment or cherish so great a controversie, as is main­tained betwixt us Protestants and the Papists, concer­ning the obolition of the Communion Cup.

Answ. If your Seminary had seen this part of your Let­ter he would perhaps have taxed you for [...]andering his Church; since though the Communion Cup be with-held from the Laity, it is not abolished: for you know (and you shew it afterwards out of Popish Authours) that they consecrate the Sacra­ment, and the consecrating Priests and Princes re­ceive it, in both kinds: but (though I would be so just, as to give the Divell his due, and therfore would not make any point of Popery (which is bad enough) worse then it is) I answer for my selfe touching your conceipt of my conformity with the Seminary Priest, that we differ in two main Points (which are noted by your self) besides divers others.

First, that the Seminary equals one Element with both, I comp [...]re the one with the other, the Cup with the bread, and say there is no more necessity of the one then of the other: neither necessitate med [...] (for the one is not either more or lesse needfull to a Christian then the other) nor necessitate precepti (for both were alike, and together prescribed by the same precept) if you hold otherwise, you must shew that the bread is more necessary then the Cup, or the Cup more necessary then the bread; and that the one was prescribed, the other but permitted, or wholly omit­ted in Christs institution.

2. The Seminary holds one as sufficient as both, both for efficacy, and for signification. I compare the one with the other, but for efficacy (as your self con­fesse) [Page 41] and if you hold that the faithfull receiving of the one is not as effectuall as the faithfull recei­ving of the other, shew which of the two hath the preheminence of efficacy, and your reason why.

3. Your Seminary Priest (especially if commo­rant at Rome (as you note he was, and it may be yet is) holds himselfe bound to beliefe and pract­ise of the decrees of the Councels of Constance, Basil and Trent (as I have set them down in the Popish contradiction to our 30. Article) which not onely forbid the use of the Communion Cup to the Lai­ty in common, but excommunicateth and anathe­matizeth those that contradict their decree: I hold it is most soundly determined (in our thir­tieth) That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people, for both parts of the Lords Sacra­ment (by Christs ordinance and commandement) ought to be administred to all Christian men alike; and I take it for no lesse then I ranke the Papists with grosse Heretiks for taking the Communion Cup from the Laity. In my case of consci­ence, p. 15, 16. Heresie and a most impious presumption, and damnable Sacriledge of the Po­pish Prelates, so to crosse our Saviours expresse prescription and practice, an [...] to defraud so many thousands, of halfe that holy portion of the Sacra­men [...] which his beneficence bequeathed to them when he left this world.

Therefore (Sir) there is certainly very good cause (though you seeme to doubt of it) why you and I should contest in this controversie against the Seminaries Tenet; Yea why the Protestant Church should be for ever at unreconcilable odds and opposi­tion with the Church of Rome.

I shall not need much to insist on that you say (by way of Because nei­ther you nor the Semina [...]y have decl [...]red what kinde of pr [...]sence you intend, &c. p. 6. And again if you a [...]d the Seminary due meane, &c [...]b. As before is noted. comparison) betwixt the Seminary and me, touching the manner of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament: since,

First, my words gave you no cause to suspect [Page 42] me, as either unsound or ambiguous in that point: For they are these [nor is Christ lesse present to the faithfull in the one then in the other] whereby you may well enough perceive, I meane (as a true Pro­testant should doe) such a presence as is determi­ned in the 15. Article of our Religion, viz. the body of Christ (and the same must necessarily bee conceived of his blood) is given, taken and eaten in the Supper onely after an heavenly and spirituall man­ner, and the means whereby it is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

And supposing your Seminary Priest (as in con­gruity of reason you must) to be a Papist, you need not doubt but he holds such a presence as you set downe, for the Ibid. second member of your four-fold distinction of presence, a corporeall presence by tran­substantiation, which (according to the 38. Article of our Church) I condemne, as repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture, and destructive of the na­ture of a Sacrament.

This is enough to make me an Hereticke to Pa­pists, and that Papists for their Sacramentall Sacri­ledge are Hereticks to me, you might have obser­ved in the next leafe of my Case of Conscience Pag. 15, 16. before the words, wheron you ground your com­parison betwixt the Seminary and me; so that your joyning of him and me together (in this sacrile­gious Synecdoche, of a part for the whole) whom Religion hath put a sunder at further distance then Rome (where the Seminary resided, and London where my Booke was printed) is a match as un­meet as their divorce is unjust and unlawfull, who sever the Sacramentall Elements (with a Canonicall curse) which our Saviour joyned together with a blessing in the first Institution.

My words which you take for the ground of your doubt cleared of ambiguity, and the truth declare [...], how Christ may be said to be received with one kind, how with both.

HAving purged my selfe, I hope, from all ap­pearance of participation with your Romish Seminary, I shall now cleare my words from your three demands which you raise upon them; and shall further declare, how Christ may be said to bee received with one, how with both the parts of the Sacrament. Your first demand is what I mean 1. Demand▪ by these words [There is no more necessity of the use of the one Element then of the other] whereupon Pag. 1. your words are, I cannot tell certainly what to un­derstand, whether you meane comparatively for dimen­sion or number.

If I have pusled you in that I have said, you have cryed quittance with me in your distinction of [comparatively for dimension or number] for I cannot understand with any congruity to the point in hand, what you meane by the difference betwixt dimension and number, if you had said [for degree or number] the termes of your distinction (being lodged in divers predicaments) might have been more easily conceived, and then I should have ta­ken your doubt to be, whether the necessity be as binding for the one as for the other, and no more bin­ding for both, but that one alone might serve for both kindes?

If you enquire of the comparison of one single Element with the other, I have answered you to that already: if of one with both, my words [Page 44] give you none occasion of such a doubt: for I compare but one with one, not one with both, yet the Case of Conscience, being mooved upon the inability of one to receive the bread of the Communion, I conceived it most probable, that in such a case it is better to receive the Sacrament in See the case of conscience, p. 13, 14, 18, 19 Wine onely, as for them that have an Su [...]t qui sine animi deliquio [...] n [...]n possunt. Calv. Ep inter Ep. Bez Ep. 15. p. 167. Antipathy to Wine to receive it in Bread onely, then either to forbeare both, or to make use of some other thing instead of that which they cannot have, or cannot take, which I pro­pound (as in a probleme) but by way of probabi­lity, not meaning to binde any one to this resolu­tion, nor to contend with any for it, who is o­therwise minded, which, you may perceive by that Case of con­science, pa. 8. I say of substituting some other matter analogi­call to bread or wine in some cases of extreame and extraordinary necessity. And for mine opinion in that point conformable to the judgement and practise of the Ibid. p. 10. reformed Churche in France, confirmed in twenty severall Synods, I Ibid. p. 13, 14. rendred two reasons, which have had the approbation of as learned and judicious Divines as any I know. The one is that by receiving the one kinde [re] the other [ [...]oto] the one Element in deed, the other in desire (when it cannot really be had, or not so recei­ved) the party receiveth Christ, and with Christ both his body and blood. The other is, that it seemes hard measure to debarre any from both parts of the Sacra­ment, because God hath enabled them to partake but of one, especially if they much desire it, and be en­clined to scruples and discomforts if they should want it.

The latter Reason is obvious to a meane under­standing.

Of the former an intelligent Citizen (accusto­med both to reading and reasoning more then or­dinary Tradesmen) made some question, but he [Page 45] was not more scrupulous in his doubt, then inge­nuous in receiving satisfaction by mine answer unto it.

And because others may haply be scrupled (as well as either you or he (though I be not made acquainted with it, as I am with your doubts) I will briefly deliver how I conceive Christ may be said to be received with one kinde, how with both.

It is the constant and Totum & in­tegrum Christ­um a [...] verum S [...]cramentum subqualibet spe­cie sumi. Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. c 3. Tom. 9. pa. 399. Bin. euit. 1636. common Doctrine of the Papists, that whole and entire Christ is wholy and entirely under each kind, and that as whole Christ, and a true Sacrament is received in one kinde, so as tou [...]hing the f [...]uit they are defrauded of no grace ne­cessary to salvation that receive only one kinde: and that not onely Nec Vllatenus ambigendum est quod non sub specie panis caro tantum, nec sub specie vini san­guis tantum, sed sub qualibet specie est integer & totus Christi [...]s. Basil Con­c [...]. Oecumen. Sess. 30. Tom. 8. p. 85. col 2. Totus Christus continetur sub specie panis, & totus sub specie vini, & sub qualibet qu [...] (que) parte host [...]ae consecratae, & vini consc [...]rati. Concil. Floren [...]. 3. sub Eugen. 4. Decret. super unione Jacobinorum & Atmenorum. Tom. 8. Conc [...]l p 866. col 1. Lumbard. l. 4. dist. 11. fol. 354 b Bel. l 4 de [...]uchar. cap. 21. Tom. 3 pag 287. Col 2. Ruardus Tapperun. act. 15 notat. post pag. 402. Tom. 1. Hard apud Jewell. Act. 2. pag 75. Ecciu [...] in locis suis dicit in unâ specie tantumesse quantum sub utra (que), ideo quod sub qualibet specie totus fit Christus. Musc. loc. com. de caena. Dom. p. 373. whole Christ is contained under the species of bread, and under the species of wine, but un­der every part of the consecrated host, and consecrated wine.

And this so commonly held and pleaded (by the Romanists) that it commeth in continually like the Cuckoes note, as In utra (que) spe­cie totu [...] Chri­stus [...] perpetu [...]. Cha­mi [...]r de Euch. l. 9. c. 10. Tom. 4. p. 510. col. 1. Chamier observeth, and giveth it a name accordingly.

Wherin though the Popish expression have a tang of Transubstantiation, saying, [in each kinde and un­der each kind is whole Christ] and that in such an [Page 46] advancing of the value of one Element only, their craft and drift is, to make the people contented to be cousened of the other; yet in a case of ne­cessity (such as that I resolved) where both Ele­ments cannot be had, or cannot be taken, it is no Popish, but a protestant Doctrine, That he that faithfully receiveth one kinde with an affection to both, receiveth whole Christ both body and blood. This po­sition in expresse or equivalent termes, you might have read before my booke came forth, in the dis­courses of divers They (as we) also hold that whole Christ is received in either kind, for Christ is not d [...]vided. Bishop Morton. instit. Sacr lib. 1. c. 3. Sect. [...] p. 58 So also saith D. Willet. Synops. Papis. 13 Gen. controv. q. 8. pa. 640. As touching the use of the Eucharist, though we doe not deny that whole Christ is distributed, as well in the bread as in the wine, yet we teach the use of both parts to be common to the whole Church. Confess. Wittenburg. Harm. Confess. Sect 14. c 9. p 459. And the note of other Protestant D [...]vines upon it is, notwithstanding the signes be severally distributed, nothing is divided in the humanity of Christ. Observ. in Harm. Observ. 41. 42. He that receiveth in one kinde being not qualified to receive the other, receiveth the whole substance of the Sacrament, as it is taken for the thing signified. Dr. Featly in his conference with Mr. Everard, pag. 267. Idem. pag 201. The same confession of whole Christ received with either element. Dr Fr. White maketh, as his words are cited afterwards at the letter [...]. See also to the same purpose Fest. Hommij dis. 648 p. 263. Protestant Divines, who have approoved themselves very zealous Antipapists in the controversie of the Eucharist for both kinds.

Here I may fitly return you an answer to your second demand, viz. what I meane by the thing it selfe? wherin I may well admit of your distin­ction of Mr. Harlow. pa. 2. res Sacramentalis & res Sacramenti, the Sacramentall signes or elements, and the thing of the Sacrament, that is, Christ which is signified and re­presented by them.

In application of which distinction, I say first, that on both sides it is held, as At the letter [...]. I have shewed, that he that rightly receiveth but one element only, may re­ceive rem Sacramenti, that is Christ, and whole Christ.

[Page 47] 2. For res Sacramentalis, or the Sacramentall signes, there is no difference for the things them­selves, but on both sides it is held that Christ is no lesse present to the faithfull receiver, when he recei­veth the one signe then when he receiveth the other, which is all one as if we should say, that the bread hath no preheminence over the wine, nor the wine over the bread, as to a Sacramentall either ordinance or operation, and therfore, D. Willet Sy­nops Papis. 13. Gen. controv. q. 8. p. 644. as Dr. Willet rightly observeth, the Papists might as well have kept backe the bread, and have given the Cup without bread, as bread without the Cup.

But if the Sacrament be received but in one kind, though in such a case as that I discussed, you seem to deny participation of Christ and Sacramentall efficacy; otherwise your professed pleading against mine assertion were very impertinent, and if that be your mind, I shall desire your further considera­tion upon the sayings of sundry Orthodox Divines, forenoted in the margine at the letter [...], consen­ting that whole Christ is received with either E­lement. Of the same Judgement with them is learned Chamier, who, when the Papists urge the receiving of whole Christ, though but with halfe the visible Sacrament, grants Concedo quod ad rem signifi­catam, idem el­se edere corpus & bil ere san­guinem. Cha­mier. de Euchar. l. 9. c. 10. Tom. 4. p. 511. col. 1. that for the thing signified by the Sacrament, that is all one to eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ; and that De re signifi­cata non est quod agane prolixius, quia bujus ratio longè est diversa á ratione signorum, certè res significata, neque editur, neque bibitur, cujus [...]ei illud argumentum est quod verè Bell [...]minus asserit non distirgui, sci l. in ie significata cilum & po­tum. Ibid. p. 508. col 2. there is great difference betwixt that, and the signes by which it is signified, for the thing signified, saith he, is neither eaten nor drunken; and hereto he applieth and approveth the saying of Bellar­mine, that for the thing signified there is no distin­ction [Page 48] betwixt meat and drinke, and we have, saith I am saepius protestati sumus non disputari de re significa­tâ, Ita (que) hoc sensu argumen­tum est extra Thesi [...]. Cham. de Euchar l. 9. c. 10. Tom 4. p. 510. col. 2. he, often protested unto you that we dispute not of the thing signified by the Sacramentall signes, but of the signes themselves; therfore in this sence your argument is an Alien from the Thesis in Question. Whence we may inferre a spirituall concomitancy and averre it too, though we deny the c [...]rnall concomitancy of the Papists, as D. Francis White hath done in his answer to Fisher the Jesuite, his words are these.

D Ft. White ans [...]er to Fish­er, p. 4 [...]6. The ob [...]ection, to wit, if the soule and blood were not in Christs body by concomitancy (s [...]il. according to the Popish tenet, which teacheth that the bread is turned into flesh, and the wine into blood) communicants should receive the body of Christ, but not truly Christ is inconsequent, because by receiving the [...], they receive the other: So in this kinde of spi­rituall concommitancy, neither the Fathers, nor Cal­vin, nor we, nor you, need to be at any difference: which differeth so much from the carnall conco­mitancy of the Papists, that the one is most abs [...]rd and contradictory both to Religion, and Reason, and common sence; the other, though too high a mystery to be perceived by a sensuall apprehension, yet very consonant to sound and religious reason, according to the prec [...]dent distinction betwixt the signes, and the thing signified.

For the Popish concomitancy dasheth upon this horrible absurdity, To this ab­su [...]dity [...] M. E [...]erar [...] driv [...] by D Featly in his disput. pag. 268, 269. That the flesh and bones of Christ without any alteration of them at all are drunke out of the Challice.

In which respect with other such like sutable absurdities, which are concomitant with transub­stantiation and concomitancy, [...] illu [...] [...]rrendum, & qua [...]e nu [...]qu [...]m [...] in [...], vel [...] vel [...], nul­lum no [...] [...], sed [...]e (que), i [...] Tur [...]ismo, out etia [...] [...] de Euc [...]ar. l. 9. c. 6. Tom. 4 de S [...]cr. p. 497. c [...]l. [...]. Chamier calleth Transubstantiation the most horrid monster that in the whole world was ev [...]r fained or formed, not onely [...] ­mong the Haeresies, but in Turcisme or He [...]henis­ [...]e.

[Page 49] But of the spirituall concomitance, that is of re­ceiving whole Christ in spirituall manner, though but one element be received, as in the case of ne­cessity fore-mentioned and presupposed in my re­solution of the case of conscience, there is good reason very agreeable to Orthodox Doctrine; as

First, because the means of receiving Christ spi­ritually is by faith, according to our fifteenth Arti­cle, and faith so layeth hold upon Christ, as to be partaker of whole Christ, according to the spiri­tuall concomitancy fore-mentioned, and acknow­ledged by our Protestant Authours.

2. Though the manner of signification of Christ be divers betwixt the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, yet Christ the thing signified is as fully exhibited to those that are fit to receive it by the use of one element (though but water) as by the use of both those of the Eucharist, bread and wine; and therfore it is true which In baptism [...] proponitur Iesus Christus concep­tus, [...]atus, cru­cifixus, ut om­nibus credenti­bus fiat sapi­entia. justitia, sanctificatio & redemptio, Sic Beza confess. c. 4. Act. 50. Beza delivereth, That in Baptisme Jesus Christ is propo­sed as conceived, borne, crucified, dead, buried, raised up, and ascended into Heaven, that to all beleevers he may become wisdome, justification, sanctification and redemption, and though in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the signes & significations be divers, the thing signified, that is whol Christ is the same to the faithful receiver: & though the signes be severed, the thing sig­nified is not so, the body and blood of Christ are not di­vided, as out of our Protestant Writers I have observed.

3. Then if one have received the bread (faith­fully beleeving that he receiveth whole Christ, ac­cording to the Protestant concomitancy fore-men­tioned) should by some extraordinary hap be dis­appointed of the other part of the Sacrament (as sometimes it hath, and too oft may fall out in Congregations of the Country, where there may be an unexpected failing of wine, and no timely [Page 50] supply from Vintners to be expected, doth that failing which was none of the receivers fault, make his faith to faile, which was his duty and vertue rightly exercised upon the right object, if it doe not in a case of such necessity, as I discussed, the faithfull receiver may receive whole Christ, though for the outward element he receive but one part of the Sacrament. 3. Demand.

Vpo [...] your second demand you presently make a third, viz. wh [...]t I meane by necessity? To which I need not make a particular reply in this place, for I have made answer to it already under the first part of your charge, wherin you would have chain [...]d your Seminary and me tog [...]ther in an hai­nous breach of the Sacramentall combination. And yet even the word necessity maketh a maine and materiall diff [...]rence betwixt the halfe Communion of the Papists, and that which I propound and plead for in my Case of Conscience, viz. the law­fulnesse and sufficiency of one Element alone in case of necessity where both cannot be had, or can­not be taken, which is Extraordin [...]ry cases ought not to ju [...]tle outor­dinary laws & customes; [...]or th [...]t command of Christ to his Apostles, Goe [...] every crea [...]ure of ma [...], stood good in the generall, al­beit many men hapned to b [...] deafe—every one by S Peter is to give an answer of his faith, to every one t [...]at asketh, which precept was not there­fore alterable because of mul­titudes of men that were dūb Bish. Morton of t [...]e Instit. of the Sacr. l 1. c. 3. §. [...]0 p. 61. extraordinary and rare. But the Popish parting of the Sacrament and put­ting a part for the whole (saving a few excepti­ons of conficient or consecrating Priests or Princes) is generall and ordinary, and that by Canon dis­charged with a dreadfull curse, as hath before been observed; so that when you professe to hold, That the Eucharist ought to be communicated by such as are able and fit, both Priests and people in both Elements, and not in one of them indifferently. You hold no­thing against me for your limitation [of able and fit] maketh for such indulgence as I defend; other­wise and out of such cases of exception, I hold (as you doe) that all both Pastours and people ought to receive in both Elements, and not in one of them indifferently.

Though the faithfull receive whole Christ with on [...] part of the Sacrament, yet it is utterly [...]nlawfull, ei­ther to administer the Sacrament in the Popish Church with [...] kind [...], or so to receive it, though none o­ther exception were to be taken at the Religion then their broken communion, with the inducements to it, and consequences upon it.

FRom that which hath been said of receiving whole Christ by or with one element only, it will not follow that either the Popish Doctrine, and practise (concerning the dismembred admini­stration of the Eucharist) is not to be [...]ndemned as unlawfull, and no lesse then sacrilegious and he­reticall, nor that any one may lawfully receive the Sacrament in one kinde only in their Church, though nothing els w [...]re amisse in it then their maiming and mangling this holy Sacrament. And for their pretence of whole Christ under one kind to defraud the people of the other, it is easily an­swered.

First, that Christ knew that much better then they, and yet he did institute the Sacraments in both kinds, and so delivered it to his Disciples, as is confessed in the Councell of Licet Christ [...] post caenam i [...] ­stituerit & suis Disci [...]li [...] a [...] ­ministraverit sub utra (que) spe­cie ven [...]rabile [...] Sacramen­tum, tamen hoc non o [...]sta [...]te, &c. Concil. Constant. Self 13. Tom. 7. part. 2. pag. 1042. col [...]. Constance and ^b Trent, and so it was accustomed to be from the begin­ning of Christian Religion, as is likewise confessed by many learned ^c Papists and the constant pra­ctice [Page 52] of it for Praxis Eccle­si [...] per 1200. secula [...]ro cal [...] ­ce. [...]. Tom. 4 l. 9. [...]. 10. p. 512 col. 2. twelve hundred yeeres is averred by Protestant Divines, and the Papists themselves in part confor [...]e to the originall rule and example in consecrating the Sacrament in both kinds (as in the Priests and Princes receivin [...] in both kinds) to which purpose you have [...] Harlow, p. 10. cited sundry testimo­nies of Romish Writers which make much a­gainst their with-holding of the consecrated Cup from the Lay Communicants. But what matter is it, saith [...] faci­a [...]us ( [...]) legatum [...] sibi ess [...] & totum in [...] scriptum co [...]ti­neri, &c. [...] Chamier. Tom 4. de Sa­crament. Euch: l. 9. c. 7. p. 498. col. 2. Beca [...]us, if they have whole Christ, though they have but one halfe of the Sacrament? Suppose, saith he, that a [...] a lega [...]y of a thousand Florens bequeathed to him in two codicills or wills, each containing the same summe, it is s [...]fficient for him to have the one of them, which will be as benefici­all as both.

But he is well answered by Ibid. Chamier, that th [...] Testator in this case appoints as well both the co­dicils to be delivered, as the legacy it selfe; for it was instituted by our Saviour at the first, and so delivered over in his name to the Church by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11. Nay to say the truth, he tru­steth the Ministers of the Church only with the codicils or outward evidences of this legacy, the gift of himselfe, he reserveth to himselfe, and he giveth himselfe to those only whom he, and he a­lone knoweth, by faith to be meetly qualified to re­ceive him.

They then who are trusted with two tokens of Christs love, and charged to deliver them both to his people, and keepe backe one halfe, doe proove themselves both disobedient and unfaithfull to their Lord, and injurious unto men.

Ob. But while they administer in one kind, and in that kinde whole Christ unto the people, though th [...]y may have some wrong, they have neither damage nor danger, by keeping back the other part of [...]he Sa­crament.

[Page 53] Sol. The answer to this will require a second reason against their halfe Communion, and it is that which you have touched in your Letter to me, as well as the former, yet in both you will, I hope, give me leave (if you give me not thanks) to ex­presse mine exception [...] against this Popish Sacri­ledge in mine own way: and for that I say, that if we consider either the significancy of the signes, or energy of effect where both may be had▪ there is a double maime in that single administration with­out the Cup of the Sacrament.

For the first, where there is but one Element the signification is defective, and that two wayes.

• 1. In regard of fullnesse.
• 2. Of clearnesse.

For the former. Our Saviour meant by the [...]e out­ward signes to signifie a Bi. Morton in his Institut. of the Sacrament. l. 1. Sect. 8 p. 57. perfect refection to the soule of the faithfull by m [...]at and drinke, which makes up a full and compleat repast, so that what­soever is needfull for our nourishment is reduced to one of them, this we may call a reall f [...]ll [...]esse, and there is a personall also, wherto the Elements must in their use and application be extended, so that they must signifie such a full refreshing to the Laity as well as to the Clergy, since as it is well said in the Dat [...] Laicis utra (que) pars Sa­cramenti, quia Sacra [...]entum institutum est non solum pr [...] parte Eccle [...] scil [...]pro Presby­teris, sed etia [...] pro reliqua Ec­clesia Confess. Aug. Syn [...]ag. confess. p. 36. Augustan Conf [...]ssion, the Sacrament was instituted not for a part of the Church, but for the whole Church both Priests and people.

2. For clearnesse; as this is more fully, so it is more clearly signified in two distinct [...]lements, which must be received in a distinct and severall manner, according to their kind: as bread by it selfe in the manner of eating and wine by it selfe in the manner of drinking, not according to the confused concomitancy of the Papists, wherby they fancy the b [...]dy of Christ to be drun [...]e in the Cup, and his blood [...] in the [...].

[Page 54] 2. For efficacy where both may be had, and ei­ther is refused, there may be a question, whether there be any gracious efficacy at all, and more li [...]e that there is not, for me thinks that sounds to good reason, which Dr. Francis White hath de­livered against Fisher the Iesuite. D. Fr. White against Fisher, p. 479. The Church (saith he) cannot expect that Christ should fullfill his promise in giving his flesh and his blood, unlesse shee observe his ordinance, and do that which he hath ap­pointed. But if there be any benefit by such a re­ceiving, it is like to be lesse ( Cham. Tom. 4 l. 9. c 9 p [...]06. D. Willet. synops Papis. 13. Gen. contr. q. 8. pag. 64 [...]. Bish. White an­swer to Fisher, p. 463. & 479. & 480. D. Featly in the grand Im­post. p. 205. according to our Protestant Tenet) then might bee expected by both.

For first, Christ blessed both Elements severally, and they that so take them as he ordained them, take them not with a single, but a double bles­sing.

2. The double representation works more upon the apprehension and affections (in one that cometh duly prepared to receive the Sacrament) and so ma­keth them fitter to receive Sacramentall grace with the Sacramentall signes, and when men are more fitted for grace, they are like to be more furnished with grace: and as there is a two-fold act of faith on their part who rightly receive the Sacrament in both kinds: So no doubt there is an answera­ble operation of grace on Gods part, where the words of Salomon (though spoken in another sence) may be verified, Two is better then one, for they have a good reward for their labour, Eccles. 4. 9. two Sa­cramentall [...]ignes, two faithfull receivings are bet­ter then one, for they have not only a good reward but a better reward, viz. two gracious refreshings from the Authour of the Sacrament, and a stron­ger union with him then is made by one signe or one act of receiving of the Sacrament, Sumpto hoc Sa­cramento dign [...] [...], specie major est affe­ctus unionis cor­poris mystici cum capite quam sumptio sub altera. Alex Hal. 4, q. 10. in 4. act. 1. §. 1. as by this entire receiving of the Sacrament there is a [Page 55] str [...]nger union betwixt the mysticall body and the head, then where the Sacrament is received in one kind only. And that there is lesse benefit by one Element then by both (as hath been said) is im­plicitly confessed in the Tridentine Councell, where the Step-Fathers of Trent, decreeing the defra [...] ­ding of their children, of halfe the portion of their heavenly fathers provision for their soules, say Quod ad fru­stum attinet nulla gratia [...]e­cessaria ad sa­lutem eos de­fraudari qui u­nam speciem so­lùm accipi [...]n [...] Concil. Trid. Sess 21. c 3. Tom. [...] p. 399. col. 1 & 2. That by keeping the Cup from them, they are not deprived of any grace that is necessary to salvation. Of some grace then they are deprived, but not of any with­out which they cannot be saved. But it is more plainly acknowledged by Vasquez, where he saith, Concedimus Laicos quibus altera species negatur, gratia aliqua defra [...] ­dart, non tamen necessaria ad salutem. Vasq. in 3 c. 4. dis. 215 We grant that the Lay-people (who are not allowed the Communion Cup) are defrauded of some grace, but none of that, without which they may not be sa­ved. By the same reason they might take from them the other part of the Sacrament, and so let them have no Sacrament at all, for Nec sane con­clusimus unquā necessitatem Eu­charistiae; quo­modo ergo utri­us [...], speciei? Sed tantum necessi­tatem utri [...]s (que) specieiposito usu Eu [...]ar. Cham. Tom 4 l. 9 c. 10. p. 508. col. 2 though it be ne­cessary, that when the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is administred, it be done according to his institution, except in such cases of necessity (as I have partly here, and partly in the resolution of the Case of Conscience observed) yet there is no such simple necessity of it, but that a man may be saved without it, which the Papists themselves will not deny, and though they hold a greater necessity (for salvation) of the Sacrament of Baptisme then of the Eucharist, yet they will not gain-say the saying of Quicur (que) e [...]t­am non percepto regenerationis lavacro pro Christi confessi­one, moriun [...]ur ta [...]um, eis va­let ad demitten­da peccata, quā ­tum si ablueren­tur sacro fonte Baptismatis. Aug. de Civ. Deid. 13. c. 7. S. Aug. that those who have not beene washed in the Laver of Regeneration, if they die for confession of the Christian faith, that is as availeable for remission of their sinnes, as if they had been washed in the fountain of Baptisme.

And why should they confine the comforts of a Christian within the narrow lists of necessity to [...]alvation? when the Lord hath been liberall in his [Page 56] allowance of sweet and gracious refreshings, a man may be saved and yet be distressed and tro [...] ­bled in conscience (as Perkins ope [...]. vol. 1. p. 417. col. 2. b. Luther was for three yeers together) and it may be the want of an entire Sa­crament (according to the Lords ordinance) may be cause of much discontent to a well affected and scrupulous Christian, will it stand then with the charity of those who (above others) affect the name of Fathers, and of that Church which usurps and glories in the title of a common mother to b [...] so hard-hearted to their children, as not to care how uncomfortable their condition be upon earth, so they goe not to Hell for lacke of necessaries to salvation? Their doctrine and practice proclaimes them such unkinde, u [...]naturall Parents as unchari­table to their children in with-holding from them their spirituall aliment, in an entire receipt of the blessed Sacrament, as they are undutifull and diso­bedient to their Lord and master in breaking his com­mandment in their broken Communion.

Upon these premises it wil necessarily follow that if there were nothing to be blamed in the Ser­vice or Lit [...]rgy of the Romish Church, but this vi­olation of the Lords ordinance, as they make it in decree and practice (notwithstanding that whole Christ may be, as we have shewed, received with one kind) it is utterly unlawfull to receive the Sa­crament, as the Romanists administer it in one Element only, for that were to consent unto, and (for his part that so doth) to confirme their sinfull separation of those things, which God for the good of man, hath (by expresse both institution and practise) joyned together.

The third p [...]rticul [...] of scandall answered.

TOwards the conclusion of your Treatise (wher­to I may now addresse my selfe after full satisfa­ction (I trust you will take it for no lesse) to the two former particulars) you professe a feare of M Harlow p. 11 I pray God that on our side it ca [...]se not ma­ny among us to becom changed in opinion, or at least o [...]ēded therby, & that on the Romish Party, this con­fession of yours be not vouched against us for indifferency of communion in one kinde, as the concessions of their learned men for com­munion in both kind [...] are cited against the pra­ctice of the Ro­mish Church the [...]in. scandall to many among us (you mean Protestants) who may be changed in opinion or at least offen­ded by that passage of my case of conscience, which you have selected, as most worthy of ex­ception, and to the Romish-party who may vouch this concession of mine, for indifferency of Com­munion in one kind, for which cause you heartily wish, that that peece of my book had been obliterated before it came to the Presse.

Sir, I will not blame you for being chary of scandals, it is too common a fault, and more common in these times then in any (within the compasse of mine observation) to be too much addicted in self satisfaction, with too little respect of others whe­ther they stumble or stand at our sayings or doings. And if you concived my words so offensive as you say, you could not wish any lesse unto them then the dash of a pen, which mine owne hand should have made, if I had conceived any suspition that they did deserve it.

But I hope by this time you well understand, that you were more afraid, then any could be hurt by that I have written: Yet I deny not but there be some, who are either so uncapable of religious reason, especially in problematicall discussion [...], or so captiously perverse as to turn most saving truths into matter of scandall, els Alphonsu [...] a Castro [...] 13. H [...]res de Eucharisti [...]. l. 6. a [...]ol. 169. [...]. 190. Alphonsus a Castro could not have counted thir­teen Heresies concerning the Sacrament of the Eu­charist, as he hath done.

And for the Papists in particular, they are the lesse [Page 58] to be heeded, because they are knowne to make no conscience of corrupting, wresting and misapplying of the writings of the Protestants: Wherin they seeme sometimes to take the Divel [...] practice for their [...]t­terne, who alleadging a Text of angelicall protection out of the 91. Psalm (when he tempted our Savio [...]r to cast himselfe down from the Pinacle of the Tem­ple) [In all thy wa [...]es, Ps. 91. 11. left out the words which were most pe [...]nent to repell his temptation. So do Quirinus Cn [...] ­gler. in his book called Symbola tria Act 1. Symbol Cal p 25. a. Quirinus Cnoglerus, Petrus Lud [...]mius de desperata Calv ni [...] S [...]ct 5. p 64. Pe [...]rus Ludsemius and Fr [...]nci [...]c. Lon prelu [...] in sum. Concil. p. 91. Franciscus Longus deale with Calvine, where they cite him as such an enemy to the sacred Trinity, that he could not indure the words Trinity, person, [...], and therefore wished they were buried: and they quote for proof, lib. 1. I [...]stit. c. 13. Sect. 5. wheras there he reproves the perversnesse of the Arrian spirit in their distaste and detestation of those words, yet shews his owne indisposition to a logomachy or strife of words, so far that he wishes that those words were buried, but upon this condition (which these Popish, yea divellish slanderers con­ceale) that the [...]aith of the Trinity were soundly asserted, as I have more lagely shewed in the fourth Chapter of mine Apology for the Geneva annotations, against the [...]mputation of Iudaisme and Arri [...]isme.

And your selfe in your M. Harlow his detection of papisticall fraud. Sect. 3. p. 24. late detection of papisticall fraud observe how forward they were to falsifie Sir Humphry Linds words touching the number of Sacra­ments, and most absurdly to make him to dispute a­gainst himself and the Church of England; and your selfe perhaps may be abused by them in the like kinde, for they may say you plead for the use of the (much a­bused) termes Ibid. p [...]5. Priest, Altar, Sacrifice with an affecti­onate relish of the Romish-Religion, and from your te­net of Episcopacy by Ibid. p [...] 40. divine Right, they may [...] that you condemne all the reformed Churches that [...] [...]ot under the government of Episcopall Authority.

And some on the quite contrary side, may [...] use [Page 59] of your words in favour to the Lay-Presbytery, in that Ibid p. 8. you all [...]adge such instances of Lay-men made Bi­shops, as Gerso [...] B [...]cer dissertat. de gu­bernat. Eccles. p 27. Gersom Bucer bringeth in for establishment of Laicall Presbyters: and if a man will set himself to cavill at your words, it may be he may impose upon you that which is as farre from your purpose, as Pope­ry from mine, viz, M. Har. p. 38. that making Timothy a Bishop, and ordained and consecrated to that office by the office of the Presbytery, (which you say may be done by one) then a Presbyter may ordain a Bishop, and so Presby­tery shall be superiour to Episcopacy.

But for my Tenet touching comm [...]nicating in one kind (as I have stated it) I feare no just occasion of of­fence, since D. [...]eatly in his confer. with Everard added to his grand Imposture, pag. [...]67. D. Featly delivered the same in disputa­tion with M. Everard; and the In my case of conscience, p. 10. the like is proposed by D. Featly in his grand Impo­sture, p. 200. French-Church hath both decreed, and as occasion required, administred the Sacrament accordingly, and yet no scandall hath been given, no advantage taken therof by the Papists, so far as I have either read or heard.

So much for your charge and my clearing, or (if you like better) for your doubts, and my resolution: wher­in if the truth be further cleared and confirmed (as I doubt not but you will acknowledge upon your un­partiall peru [...]all of what I have written) neither you nor I shall have cause to wish that those lines had bin obliterated, which you took for the ground of this in­tercourse betwixt us. Which I trust for my part you will take as a testimony both of my love to the truth, and of my respect to your self, and that you will be no more displeased with me for my reply, Si culpa est re­spondi [...]e, qu [...]so ut patienter a [...] ­dias mul [...]o ma­j [...] est prov [...] ­casse Aug. [...]p. [...]ter op [...]ra. Hier. Tom. [...]. p. 257. then I am with you, for your provocation unto it: since I strive not Non de aduer­sario victoria [...], sed de mendacio [...] veri­tate [...] D [...]l in­ter Aug. & Hi­er. Tom. 4. oper H [...]er. p. [...]97. as with an adversary for victory, but for the pre­vailing of truth aboue errour, which may be a contest­ation not incompatible with the affections of very good friends: and such a one I shall be glad upon all good occasions to approve my s [...]lf on your behalf that you may account me,