2. Our author farther adds, "That sometimes the whole sacred syn- axis^ is called breaking of bread, without any mention of the chalice." And what then? I pray, is not the body of Christ sometimes men- tioned without speaking of the blood, and the blood oftener without speaking of the body? Is not the whole supper called the cup, with- out mentioning of the bread (1 Cor. x. 21), all by the same synec- doche? I shall not insist on his gross, palpable mistakes from Luke xxiv. 80. Nothing but domineering prejudices could ever put men upon such attempts for the j ustifying of their errors. Upon the whole matter, we may easily discern what small cause our author hath, from such feeble premises, to erect his triumphant conclusion of the non- necessity of participation of the blessed cup by the people in the » A word used in ancient times to denote the Lord's supper. — Er>.
ENTITLED FIAT LUX. 151
sacrament of the Lord's supper. As little cause liath lie to mention antiquity and tradition from the apostles, which He universally against him in this matter; and that there is now no such custom in the Romish chiu'ch, it is because they have taken up a practice contrary to the command and practice of Christ and his apostles, and contrary to the custom, in obedience thereunto, of all the churches in the whole world.
CHAPTER XIX.
Saints.
Sect, xxvii. From the communion we come to saints; and these take up the longest discourse of any one subject in the book. Our author found it not an easy task to set this practice of his church, in the worship and invocating of saints, right and straight in the miiids of sober men. Several ways he turns himself in his attempt; all, as far as I can perceive, to very little purpose. In all of them it is evident that he is ashamed of their practice and principles in this matter; which makes his undertakings as to Protestants so much the worse, in that he invited them to feed upon that which he himself is un- willing to taste, lest he should be poisoned. At first he would per- suade us that they had only a " respectful memory and reverence for the saints departed, such as ingenuous persons will have for any Avorthy personages that have formerly ennobled their families." To this he adds " the consideration of their example, and the patterns they have set us in the ways of holiness, to persuade and prevail with us to imitate and follow them." And with sundry arguments doth he dispute for his honourable esteem and imitation of the saints de- parted. Herein, then, it may be, lies the difference between them and Protestants, — that they contend that the true saints are to be thus honoured and followed ; Protestants are of the mind that neither of them is to be done. "True; for ' Luther, Wickliff, and especially Calvin, have intemperately opened their mouths against all the saints ; Calvin in special against the persons renowned in the Old and New Testament, Noah, Abraham, Rebecca, Jacob, Rachel, Moses,' etc., with a great number of others." Naughty man ! what hath he said of them ? " It is certain, in general, that he hath said that they were all in their days sinners." Is this to be endured, that " Calvin, that holy-faced man," should say of such holy persons, that they had need to be redeemed and saved by Jesus Christ ? Who can bear such intemperate "theomachy?" " Nay, but he had gone farther, 'and charged them every one with sins and miscaniages.'" If he hath
152 ANIMADVERSIONS ON A TREATISE
spoken any tiling of their sins and failings but what God hath left upon record on set purpose in his word, that they might be examples of human frailty, and testimonies of his grace and mercy in Christ towards them, ifor the encouragement of others that shall be over- taken in the like temptation as some of them were, let him bear his own burden. If he have said no more but what the Holy Ghost hath recorded for him and others to make use of, I envy not their cheer who triumph in falsely accusing of him. But is this indeed the difference between Papists and Protestants about the saints ? Is this the doctrme of the Papists concerning them ? Is their practice confined within the limits of these principles ? Are these the things which in their principles and practice are blamed by Protestants? The truth is, this is the very doctrine, the very practice of Protest- ants. They all jointly bear a due respect to the memorial of all the saints of God, concerning whom they have assurance that they were so indeed. They praise God for them, admire his grace in them, rejoice in the fruits of their labours and sufferings for Christ, and endeavour to be followers of them in all things wherein they were followers of Christ; and hope to come to be made partakers with them of that glory and joy which they are entered into. Is this the doctrine of the Council of Trent, or of the Harmony of Confessions ? Doth this represent the practice of Papists, or Protestants? It is very seldom you shall hear a sermon of a Protestant, wherein the example of one saint or other is not in one thing or other insisted on, and proposed to imitation. If this venerable esteem and sedulous imi- tation of saints, with praising God for his graces in them, his mercy towards them, and an endeavour to obtain the crown they have re- ceived, be the doctrine, and the whole doctrine, of the church of Rome about the saints departed, why should we contend any longer ? All parties are agreed ; let us contend no more about that which is not. But if it be otherwise, and that neither are these things all the things that the Papists assert and maintain in this matter, nor are these things at all opposed by the Protestants, a man may easily understand to what end our author makes a flourish with three or four leaves of his book,"as though they were in difference between us. Such arti- fices will neither advantage his cause nor his person with sober know- ing men. As to his whole discourse, then, I shall only let him know that Protestants are unconcerned in it. They bear all due reverence to the saints departed this life, and strive to follow them in their course; although I must add, also, that their example is very remote from being the chiefest incentive or rule unto and in the practice of universal obedience. The example of Christ himself, and the revealed will of God in his word, are their rule and guide; in attendance where- unto thousands amongst them (be it spoken to the praise of his glo-