Comparison of Parliamentary Protestation

Real 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 Real and Personal.

The Real are such as concern the matter and form of them both. The matter, (whereon 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: whereof (as it is set down in the Canon) there be three doubts, 1. What is meant by the Church of England? 2. What is meant by Popish Doctrine? 3. What establishment of Doctrine is here m • ant, and how far it may be said to be established? which doubts with their reasons, whosoever reads with an impartial and unprejudiced apprehension, will never apply to the Protestation of the Parliament.

And in what sense we may well understand these words in the printed Protestation (though I will not take upon me to interpret it, except for satisfaction to myself, and to such as require my Judgment of it) in my conceit 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 tenor; 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 Realm, contrary to the same Doctrine, was and is meant only the public Doctrine professed in the church of England; so far 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 Doctrine contained in the 39. Articles. For,

First, that is the most public Doctrine of the Church; because in the Church of every Parish, all that are admitted into Benefices must publi • lie read the 39. Articles unto the people within the first month of their admission to them, upon peril of loosing their livings by falling into lapse.

2. That Doctrine is most professedly the Doctrine of the Church of England; for all Doctors and teachers of the Church are bound, so far to profess it, as to subscribe unto those Articles, without which subscription, they are not to be allowed for public Preachers, or teachers, at least not admitted into pastoral charges, in the Church of England.

3. The Doctrine 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 years after her coming to the Crown, for she began her reign, November 17. 1558. and in 1562. were these Articles concluded on, to be the public 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 only 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 sacrilege 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 receipt of the wafer.

The truth is, sometimes, and in some places, the people have so, to 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 dear (as in Spain ) they give the people water instead of wine: To that purpose, the French-Priests were (as Chamier noteth) more bashful, then to be so base, where that kind of wine (which would come nearest the complection of Transubstantiation, if it were true) is more cheap 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 Lord's ordinance, and an injurious detention of the people's allowance, since the French-wine, is not more Sacramental then the Spanish-water, though that seem more heretical, as carrying an appearance of the Doctrine and practice of the Aquarij, who held it not unlawful to administer the Sacrament in mere water, and so forbore the use of wine, though as Cyprian giveth the reason, their practice did partake of policy, as well as of heresy, for they did it lest the smell of wine should bewray them to their enemies, to be Christian Communicants.

TO these particulars, I might add other Protestant tenets of our Church, out of the Books of Homilies, wherein, though there be some things doubtful, 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 works done before Justification, because the Antithesis betwixt the Protestant and Popish Doctrine, by the subtle and ambiguous forms of expression (on the Popish-side) is made more intricate and problematicall, then in the rest, and in these we have expressed, there are some other which are necessarily implied as by mutual relation, defending or destroying one another. So it is betwixt Purgatory and prayers for the dead; for if there be a Purgatory (as Papists affirm) prayers for the dead will be needful, and profitable offices of the living on their behalf: if no Purgatory (as our 22. Article orthodoxally determineth) prayers for the dead are frivolous, and fruitless services; for if there be only two places for receipt of souls after death, Heaven and Hell, to pray for those in Heaven is needless, for them in Hell bootless: To them no good thing is wanting, 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 inform 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 form fore-mentioned, 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 sixth Canon, and the late Protestation: Wherein though they materially agree, yet considering what hath been said by way of doubt aganist the meaning of the Canon (which hath no place in this Protestation.) They that were afraid of the former (in this respect) have no cause to make scruple of the latter.

Of that wherein the Oath of the sixth 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 boundless &c. beyond which we can find no shore, and wherein our line and plummet can reach no bottom, especially if rites and Ceremonies, be reduced to discipline, as I have observed in • my first particular doubt of the Oath, from all this perplexity (wherewith the Canon entangleth a timorous conscience) the Protestation giveth very good, and undoubted Security, expressly 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 Realm, contrary to the same Doctrine] are not to be extended to the maintaining of any form of worship, discipline or government, nor of any rites or Ceremonies of the said Church of England; wherein, 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 moved 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 doubtful 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 Privileges of Parliaments, the rites and liberties of Subjects, 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 terms (for general satisfaction, for so it belongeth to them that made the Text to make the Comment) the Authors are the best, and most Authenticke Interpreters of their own words; who alone can make the one as general as the other: but for the guiding of mine own conscience (touching the sense of these words) I have this to say.

First, for the Power and Privileges of Parliaments King James taught me to take them in a very large extent, where he repeated and approved the Speech of that old wise man (as he calls him) the Treasurer Burleigh, who was wont to say, he knew not what an Act of Parliam • nt could not do in England, doubtless it may do anything, 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 Kingdom whatsoever.

2. For the Rights and liberties of Subjects, I find no cause to doubt of them in the general, since the word [ lawful ] 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 far as lawfully I may, lin. 2. lawful rites, lin. 6. lawful pursuance, and as far as lawfully I may, lin. 7. by all good ways, lib. 8. in • all just and honorable ways, lin. 10.] there are no such words of caution to the conscience in the Canonical 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 general terms, 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 address ourselves 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 form betwixt the Parliamentary Protestation and the Canonical Oath may induce us to the one, and with-hold us from the other.

IF we consider them in their form; we shall find that difference betwixt them, which may make us more willing to he Protestants then Canonists: For the Protestation goeth no further then to vow, promise and protest, but the sixth Canon requireth a solemn 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 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 vows made unto Saints) and though as 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 Canonical Decrees) for that is but a simple expression of a purpose, for somewhat to come: A vow is that and somewhat more. viz. a religious engagement of man with reference to God, and with intention to bind the conscience to the thing vowed, but an Oath goeth beyond all this, and so it giveth vigor and obligation to a vow, whence it is that the Jews when they meant to give their vows the strongest degree of Asseveration and assurance added an Oath unto them; and an Oath is more then a Protestation; for that (as Al •• at defineth it) is no more 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 vigor of spirit, it is defined by some, to be a loud, 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 Jews) engageth the conscience, more deeply then a single promise, • ow, or protestation doth, and the breach of it bindeth over the forsworn man to the peril of a greater punishment: And of Oaths there be divers kinds in respect of the different Formalities and Ceremonies, wherewith they are taken.

Some Oaths are called verbal, some corporal: a corporal Oath is that which hath an outward gesture annexed to it, as the verbal hath not: and of these gestures or Ceremonies there is much variety. The manner of old (even as old as to Abraham's time) was by lifting up the hand, Gen. 14. 22. The like we read of the Angel, who lifted up his hand to Heaven and swore by him who liveth for ever and ever, Rev. 10. 5. upon which place, Beza's note is, That it was the gesture accustomed to accompany an Oath; as at this day in 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 bar) hold up thy hand, but an Ecclesiastical person is bidden, to • ay his hand on his breast. In the Palatinate Pareus 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 swear, so in the sixth Council of Milan, a Bishop or a Prelate, was (for reverence of his place or dignity) to be put to no more (when he was to swear) then to lay his hand upon his breast, whereas the Inferior Clergy were to use another Ceremony (as I shall show anon) Sometimes the Superior, caused the Inferior, to put his hand under his thigh, to whom he swore; so did Abraham, when he sent, and swore his servant to make choice of a wife for his son, Gen. 24. 2. So also did Jacob swear his son Joseph for his burial out of Egypt. In which Ceremony S ^t . Augustine imagined a great mystery, viz. a prophesy of the promised Seed, to be derived from the loins of Abraham, and so of Isaac his son, and of Jacob his Grand-child, &c.

The most received Ceremony, (since the Gospel had the protection of Christian Princes) hath been to lay the hand upon some part of Holy-Writ: this was required of sub 〈◊〉 , Deacons and Presbyters by the Council of Milan, when Bishops were only to lay their hands upon their breast; but with this difference, that in lesser matters it would suffice inferior Clerks (unless 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 withal, is the imperfect work ( which goeth in Chrysostom's name ) upon S. Matthew: But I find not the express manner of it until the sixth Council of Constantinople, where Georgius Chartaphylax a Deacon, gave testimony to two parchment books, touching the holy Oracles of God, saying, by these holy virtues, and by him who hath spoken by them in truth and verity, these are the two books which contain the acts of the fif • general Synod▪ which the Magdeburgenses note upon the seventh Century, and about the ninth Century I find first mention of kissing of the Book. Afterwards ( about the eleventh Century) the form of an Oath was varied thus: ( as may be seen 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 Gospel, averred the truth of his words, with this conclusive clause, so help me God, and these holy Gospels.

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

In the form of the Oath required by the sixth Canon, are all the ingredients, which (with so much doubtful matter) may make it formidable to a scrupulous and timorous conscience, for it is concluded thus: This I do heartily, willingly and truly, upon the Faith of a Christian, so help me God in Jesus Christ, whereto the final kiss 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; We renounce, saith he, in taking a Corporal oath, all the Promises of the Bible, and call upon us all the curses therein contained, if we swear 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 lawful, and within his power to perform: For instance, a god-father promising and vowing for a child at Baptism, 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 (wherein he taketh comfort) and to be whipt, or hanged, or burnt, or torn in pieces, if he keep not touch for what he undertaketh: and yet all this is nothing, to laying Jesus Christ and his merits to pawn, renouncing all right and interest to him and them: and imprecating all the curses and comminations in the word of God against himself, as in this Oath he doth who taketh it, if his sincerity and constancy be not answerable to what he professeth.

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

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

ANd yet (besides this real difference) we are in the next place to note, that which is personal; and therein to observe the different condition betwixt those that proposed the Protestation, and the composers of the Canon, and that is observable in four 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, for what they did: we cannot say so of the Ecclesiastics of that Synod, wherein the late Canons were decreed since their Assembly, and Acts done in it have been questioned, and disallowed by the Parliament.

2. For Liberty, they who composed the Protestation, and commended it with general publication and proposal to all throughout the Land were free and independent, none subordinate to another (howsoever diversified by the titles of Lord's, Knights, Citizens and Burgesses ) and so their consent therein being unanimous is (in congruity of reason) to be taken for a dictate of free Judgment, and good conscience: It was not so with those that decreed the Oath of the sixth Canon, as elsewhere hath been observed.

3. For 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 show therein a sincere and uniform 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 Kingdoms of his Majesty's Dominions. I am sorry we cannot say nor think so of some, who had too great a sway in composing of the Canons; and who are probably suspected of a partial intent to maintain their own interests, and to support their Ecclesiastical Prelation, with little regard of the good of the inferior Clergy, how good soever, or of the Churches committed to their particular charges.

4. For 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 Canonical Lord's (who would have us rather their sworn-men, then the Churches free Ministers; and would have us give our assent to their dictates, with an implicit faith) much disliked our doubting of their new devised Oath, notwithstanding it be of much more perilous importance to us, then this Protestation can be to any; and therefore some have been called in question, and strictly examined (as if they had been suspected of some heinous crime) concerning the showing or communicating of the London Ministers Queries of the Oath to the reading of others.

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

But the doubts of the Oath were not so tenderly taken to heart by some of our Ecclesiastical Governors, though their title Fathers obliged them to more mildness and pity to their perplexed sons: for some were so far 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 meekness and moderation of spirit as the cause would well bear) some of us were noted as adversaries to them, and so accounted not only uncapable of their fatherly indulgence, but unworthy the good will and acceptation of our Brethren: And if they had still been as predominant as of late they were, we might have expected rather punishment, as for some high presumption against our Superiors, then any satisfaction of our scruples, or removal 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 been said you will well perceive that the doubts in my book are blocks lying at the door of the Convocation house (where the Oath was framed) none of them will be found in the way of the House of Parliament, from whence this promise, • ow and protesta • n proceeded.

An Answer to your doubt of the • ase of Conscience, wherein 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. Your zealeus endeavor to reduce one of near relation to you from the Romish Religion: And I do as much approve of your prudence in making choice of the grand Sacrilege of the Papists (in withholding the Communion Cup from the Laity) as a ground of persuasion to return 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 thereupon 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, whereto you returned an answer, which be took with him to Rome, where he hath, as it seems, ever since been resident, your endeavor will prove f • uitlesse, if the truth be as I have condescended unto. Afterwards you twice join me and the Seminary together, as if we two were at better accord about their fraudulent detention of half the Sacrament, then you and I.

Truly, Sir, I am so far from all guilt of that Sacrilegious guile of the Romish Church, that I conceive if any had suspected me for it heretofore, my book which you have read, might have served for a complete Apology and purgation from it; but I see, by your conceit, the saying of Cicero verified betwixt you and me; It is not of so much moment, with what mind one writeth, as with what mind another readeth.

I suppose you set yourself so affectionately against the Seminaries sacrilegious tenet, that the heat of your zeal warped your misconceipt to a degree of excess; which hath been an occasion of error to some of the greatest Clerks, as King James hath observed of S ^t . Augustine in particular, giving some rules for reading of the Fathers, he adviseth to distinguish their positive Doctrine from that which they write in heat of opposition, wherein, saith he, sometimes (through too much vehemency) they over-strain in their Polemicke Tractates against Heretics; for instance, S. Augustine in his worthy Treatises extant in the seventh Tome of his works, in vehemently oppugning those Heretics that agree with our Arminians, to wit, the Pelagians, who denied Original sin in Infants, and consequently held Baptism needless, was so far transported to urge the necessity thereof, 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 return you better coin, then I received from you; for you join me with a Romish Seminary, in society of Sacrilege: I join you with a most renowned Doctor of the Church, in an exube • ancy of zeal, easily capable of pardon, and not altogether uncapable of some commendation: and if either you or any one else had convinced me of any error, whether of this or any other kind, I would learn of him a better lesson then this example showeth, which is f • r want of wisdom 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 defense against a three-fold charge in your Letter.

1. Of Popish conformity with the Seminary Priest.

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

3. Of scandal and offense, which you conceive some may take (as yourself have done) at that passage, whereat, you say, you have taken a stumble.

For the first, you first set down my words, then the Seminaries; my words (as you rightly set them down, though you take them in a wrong sense) are these; 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 self, there is no more necessity held (by either side) of the use of the one Element then of the other, nor is Christ less present to the faithful in the one then in the other.

The Seminaries Tenet you deliver more largely, but I will note only so much of it, as is most pertinent to clear the point of consent or difference betwixt us; and this it is: I affirm, 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 address this demand unto me. Now Sir, if it be true, as to the thing it self, that there is no other necessity of the use of one Element then of the other; • r that the whole benefit may be received by one; and that Christ is no less present to the faithful 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 controversy, as is maintained betwixt us Protestants and the Papists, concerning the obolition of the Communion Cup.

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 withheld from the Laity, it is not abolished: for you know (and you show it afterwards out of Popish Authors) 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 Devil his due, and therefore would not make any point of Popery (which is bad enough) worse then it is) I answer for my self touching your conceit of my conformity with the Seminary Priest, that we differ in two main Points (which are noted by yourself) 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 less needful 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 show 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 Christ's 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 yourself confess) and if you hold that the faithful receiving of the one is not as effectual as the faithful receiving of the other, show which of the two hath the preeminence 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 himself bound to belief and practice of the decrees of the Councils of Constance, Basil and Trent (as I have set them down in the Popish contradiction to our 30. Article) which not only 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 Lord's Sacrament (by Christ's ordinance and commandment) ought to be administered to all Christian men alike; and I take it for no less then Heresy and a most impious presumption, and damnable Sacrilege of the Popish Prelates, so to cross our Savior's express prescription and practice, an • to defraud so many thousands, of half 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 seem to doubt of it) why you and I should contest in this controversy against the Seminaries Tenet; Yea why the Protestant Church should be forever at irreconcilable odds and opposition with the Church of Rome.

I shall not need much to insist on that you say (by way of 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 me, as either unsound or ambiguous in that point: For they are these [nor is Christ less present to the faithful in the one then in the other] whereby you may well enough perceive, I mean (as a true Protestant should do) such a presence as is determined in the 15. Article of our Religion, viz. the body of Christ (and the same must necessarily be conceived of his blood) is given, taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual 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 down, for the second member of your four-fold distinction of presence, a corporeal presence by transubstantiation, which (according to the 38. Article of our Church) I condemn, as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and destructive of the nature of a Sacrament.

This is enough to make me an Heretic to Papists, and that Papists for their Sacramental Sacrilege are Heretics to me, you might have observed in the next leaf of my Case of Conscience before the words, whereon you ground your comparison betwixt the Seminary and me; so that your joining 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 Book was printed) is a match as unmeet as their divorce is unjust and unlawful, who sever the Sacramental Elements (with a Canonical curse) which our Savior joined 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 myself, I hope, from all appearance of participation with your Romish Seminary, I shall now clear my words from your three demands which you raise upon them; and shall further declare, how Christ may be said to be received with one, how with both the parts of the Sacrament. Your first demand is what I mean by these words [There is no more necessity of the use of the one Element then of the other] whereupon your words are, I cannot tell certainly what to understand, whether you mean comparatively for dimension or number.

If I have pusled you in that I have said, you have cried 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 mean by the difference betwixt dimension and number, if you had said [for degree or number ] the terms 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 kinds?

If you inquire of the comparison of one single Element with the other, I have answered you to that already: if of one with both, my words 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 moved 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 Wine only, as for them that have an Antipathy to Wine to receive it in Bread only, then either to forbear 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 problem) but by way of probability, not meaning to bind any one to this resolution, nor to contend with any for it, who is otherwise minded, which, you may perceive by that I say of substituting some other matter analogical to bread or wine in some cases of extreme and extraordinary necessity. And for mine opinion in that point conformable to the judgment and practice of the reformed Church in France, confirmed in twenty several Synods, I rendered 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 kind [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 seems hard measure to debar 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 inclined to scruples and discomforts if they should want it.

The latter Reason is obvious to a mean understanding.

Of the former an intelligent Citizen (accustomed both to reading and reasoning more then ordinary Tradesmen) made some question, but he 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 kind, how with both.

It is the constant and common Doctrine of the Papists, that whole and entire Christ is wholly and entirely under each kind, and that as whole Christ, and a true Sacrament is received in one kind, so as tou • hing the f • uit they are defrauded of no grace necessary to salvation that receive only one kind: and that not only 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 cometh in continually like the Cuckoes note, as Chamier observeth, and giveth it a name accordingly.

Wherein though the Popish expression have a tang of Transubstantiation, saying, [in each kind and under each kind is whole Christ] and that in such an advancing of the value of one Element only, their craft and drift is, to make the people contented to be cozened 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 kind with an affection to both, receiveth whole Christ both body and blood. This position in express or equivalent terms, you might have read before my book came forth, in the discourses of divers Protestant Divines, who have approved themselves very zealous Antipapists in the controversy of the Eucharist for both kinds.

Here I may fitly return you an answer to your second demand, viz. what I mean by the thing it self? wherein I may well admit of your distinction of res Sacramentalis & res Sacramenti, the Sacramental signs 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 I have shown, that he that rightly receiveth but one element only, may receive rem Sacramenti, that is Christ, and whole Christ.

2. For res Sacramentalis, or the Sacramental signs, there is no difference for the things themselves, but on both sides it is held that Christ is no less present to the faithful receiver, when he receiveth the one sign then when he receiveth the other, which is all one as if we should say, that the bread hath no preeminence over the wine, nor the wine over the bread, as to a Sacramental either ordinance or operation, and therefore, as Dr. Willet rightly observeth, the Papists might as well have kept back 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 Sacramental 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 margin at the letter , consenting that whole Christ is received with either Element. Of the same Judgment with them is learned Chamier, who, when the Papists urge the receiving of whole Christ, though but with half the visible Sacrament, grants that for the thing signified by the Sacrament, that is all one to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ; and that there is great difference betwixt that, and the signs 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 betwixt meat and drink, and we have, saith he, often protested unto you that we dispute not of the thing signified by the Sacramental signs, but of the signs themselves; therefore in this sense your argument is an Alien from the Thesis in Question. Whence we may infer a spiritual concomitancy and aver it too, though we deny the c • rnall concomitancy of the Papists, as D. Francis White hath done in his answer to Fisher the Jesuit, his words are these.

The ob • ection, to wit, if the soul and blood were not in Christ's 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 kind of spiritual concommitancy, neither the Fathers, nor Calvin, nor we, nor you, need to be at any difference: which differeth so much from the carnal concomitancy of the Papists, that the one is most abs • rd and contradictory both to Religion, and Reason, and common sense; the other, though too high a mystery to be perceived by a sensual apprehension, yet very consonant to sound and religious reason, according to the prec • dent distinction betwixt the signs, and the thing signified.

For the Popish concomitancy dasheth upon this horrible absurdity, That the flesh and bones of Christ without any alteration of them at all are drunk out of the Challice.

In which respect with other such like suitable absurdities, which are concomitant with transubstantiation and concomitancy, Chamier calleth Transubstantiation the most horrid monster that in the whole world was ev • r feigned or formed, not only • mong the Haeresies, but in Turkism or He •• henis • e.

But of the spiritual concomitance, that is of receiving whole Christ in spiritual 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 spiritual concomitancy fore-mentioned, and acknowledged by our Protestant Authors.

2. Though the manner of signification of Christ be divers betwixt the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lord's 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 therefore it is true which Beza delivereth, That in Baptism Jesus Christ is proposed as conceived, borne, crucified, dead, buried, raised up, and ascended into Heaven, that to all believers he may become wisdom, justification, sanctification and redemption, and though in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the signs & significations be divers, the thing signified, that is whole Christ is the same to the faithful receiver: & though the signs 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 believing 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 supply from Vintners to be expected, doth that failing which was none of the receivers fault, make his faith to fail, which was his duty and virtue rightly exercised upon the right object, if it do not in a case of such necessity, as I discussed, the faithful receiver may receive whole Christ, though for the outward element he receive but one part of the Sacrament.

Vpo • your second demand you presently make a third, viz. wh • t I mean 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, wherein you would have chain • d your Seminary and me tog • there in an heinous breach of the Sacramental combination. And yet even the word necessity maketh a main and material diff • rence betwixt the half Communion of the Papists, and that which I propound and plead for in my Case of Conscience, viz. the lawfulness and sufficiency of one Element alone in case of necessity where both cannot be had, or cannot be taken, which is 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 general and ordinary, and that by Canon discharged with a dreadful curse, as hath before been observed; so that when you profess 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 do) that all both Pastors and people ought to receive in both Elements, and not in one of them indifferently.

Though the faithful 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 practice (concerning the dismembered administration of the Eucharist) is not to be •• ndemned as unlawful, and no less then sacrilegious and heretical, nor that any one may lawfully receive the Sacrament in one kind only in their Church, though nothing else w • re amiss 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 Council of Constance and Trent, and so it was accustomed to be from the beginning of Christian Religion, as is likewise confessed by many learned Papists and the constant practice of it for twelve hundred years is averred by Protestant Divines, and the Papists themselves in part confor • e to the original 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 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 Beca • us, if they have whole Christ, though they have but one half of the Sacrament? Suppose, saith he, that a 〈…〉 a lega • y of a thousand Florins bequeathed to him in two codicills or wills, each containing the same sum, it is s • fficient for him to have the one of them, which will be as beneficial as both.

But he is well answered by Chamier, that th • Testator in this case appoints as well both the codicils to be delivered, as the legacy it self; for it was instituted by our Savior 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 himself, he reserveth to himself, and he giveth himself 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 Christ's love, and charged to deliver them both to his people, and keep back one half, do prove themselves both disobedient and unfaithful to their Lord, and injurious unto men.

Ob. But while they administer in one kind, and in that kind 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.

Sol. The answer to this will require a second reason against their half 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 express mine exception • against this Popish Sacrilege in mine own way: and for that I say, that if we consider either the significancy of the signs, or energy of effect where both may be had▪ there is a double maim 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 ways.

• 1. In regard of fullness.
• 2. Of clearness.

For the former. Our Savior meant by the • e outward signs to signify a perfect refection to the soul of the faithful by m • at and drink, which makes up a full and complete repast, so that whatsoever is needful for our nourishment is reduced to one of them, this we may call a real f • ll • esse, and there is a personal also, whereto the Elements must in their use and application be extended, so that they must signify such a full refreshing to the Laity as well as to the Clergy, since as it is well said in the 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 clearness; as this is more fully, so it is more clearly signified in two distinct • lements, which must be received in a distinct and several manner, according to their kind: as bread by it self in the manner of eating and wine by it self in the manner of drinking, not according to the confused concomitancy of the Papists, whereby they fancy the b • dy of Christ to be drun • e in the Cup, and his blood 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 .

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 Jesuit. The Church (saith he) cannot expect that Christ should fulfill his promise in giving his flesh and his blood, unless she 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 less ( according to our Protestant Tenet) then might be 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 Sacramental grace with the Sacramental signs, and when men are more fitted for grace, they are like to be more furnished with grace: and as there is a twofold 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 God's part, where the words of Solomon (though spoken in another sense) may be verified, Two is better then one, for they have a good reward for their labor, Eccles. 4. 9. two Sacramental • ignes, two faithful receivings are better then one, for they have not only a good reward but a better reward, viz. two gracious refreshings from the Author of the Sacrament, and a stronger union with him then is made by one sign or one act of receiving of the Sacrament, as by this entire receiving of the Sacrament there is a str • nger union betwixt the mystical body and the head, then where the Sacrament is received in one kind only. And that there is less benefit by one Element then by both (as hath been said) is implicitly confessed in the Tridentine Council, where the Step-Fathers of Trent, decreeing the defra • ding of their children, of half the portion of their heavenly fathers provision for their souls, say 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, 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 though it be necessary, that when the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is administered, 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 Baptism then of the Eucharist, yet they will not gain-say the saying of S. Aug. that those who have not been washed in the Laver of Regeneration, if they die for confession of the Christian faith, that is as available for remission of their sins, as if they had been washed in the fountain of Baptism.

And why should they confine the comforts of a Christian within the narrow lists of necessity to • alvation? when the Lord hath been liberal in his allowance of sweet and gracious refreshings, a man may be saved and yet be distressed and tro • bled in conscience (as Luther was for three years together) and it may be the want of an entire Sacrament (according to the Lord's ordinance) may because 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 go not to Hell for lack of necessaries to salvation? Their doctrine and practice proclaims them such unkind, u • natural Parents as uncharitable to their children in with-holding from them their spiritual aliment, in an entire receipt of the blessed Sacrament, as they are undutiful and disobedient to their Lord and master in breaking his commandment in their broken Communion.

Upon these premises it will 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 Lord's ordinance, as they make it in decree and practice (notwithstanding that whole Christ may be, as we have shown, received with one kind) it is utterly unlawful 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 confirm their sinful separation of those things, which God for the good of man, hath (by express both institution and practice) joined together.

The third p • rticul •• of scandal answered.

TOwards the conclusion of your Treatise (whereto I may now address myself after full satisfaction (I trust you will take it for no less) to the two former particulars) you profess a fear of scandal 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 piece of my book had been obliterated before it came to the Press.

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 compass 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 less unto them then the dash of a pen, which mine own hand should have made, if I had conceived any suspicion 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 scandal, else 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 less to be heeded, because they are known to make no conscience of corrupting, wresting and misapplying of the writings of the Protestants: Wherein they seem sometimes to take the Devil • practice for their •• tterne, who alleging a Text of angelical protection out of the 91. Psalm (when he tempted our Savio • r to cast himself down from the Pinacle of the Temple) left out the words which were most pe •• nent to repel his temptation. So do Quirinus Cnoglerus, Pe • rus Ludsemius and Franciscus Longus deal with Calvin, where they cite him as such an enemy to the sacred Trinity, that he could not endure the words Trinity, person, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and therefore wished they were buried: and they quote for proof, lib. 1. I • stit. c. 13. Sect. 5. whereas there he reproves the perverseness of the Arian spirit in their distaste and detestation of those words, yet shows his own 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 devilish slanderers conceal) that the • aith of the Trinity were soundly asserted, as I have more lagely shown in the fourth Chapter of mine Apology for the Geneva annotations, against the • mputation of Judaism and Arri •• isme.

And yourself in your late detection of papistical fraud observe how forward they were to falsify 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 self perhaps may be abused by them in the like kind, for they may say you plead for the use of the (much abused) terms Priest, Altar, Sacrifice with an affectionate relish of the Romish-Religion, and from your tenet of Episcopacy by divine Right, they may 〈◊〉 that you condemn all the reformed Churches that 〈◊〉 • ot under the government of Episcopal Authority.

And some on the quite contrary side, may 〈◊〉 use of your words in favor to the Lay-Presbytery, in that you all • adge such instances of Lay-men made Bishops, as Gersom Bucer bringeth in for establishment of Laicall Presbyters: and if a man will set himself to cavil at your words, it may be he may impose upon you that which is as far from your purpose, as Popery from mine, viz, 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 superior to Episcopacy.

But for my Tenet touching comm • nicating in one kind (as I have stated it) I fear no just occasion of offense, since D. Featly delivered the same in disputation with M. Everard; and the French-Church hath both decreed, and as occasion required, administered the Sacrament accordingly, and yet no scandal hath been given, no advantage taken thereof 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: wherein if the truth be further cleared and confirmed (as I doubt not but you will acknowledge upon your impartial peru • all of what I have written) neither you nor I shall have cause to wish that those lines had been 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 yourself, and that you will be no more displeased with me for my reply, then I am with you, for your provocation unto it: since I strive not as with an adversary for victory, but for the prevailing of truth above error, 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,