Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 13
SECT. 29.30. Concerning our Confessions, and Practises.
IN the 29. Section, onelyonly Calvin, Martyr, and Zepperus, are brought in as witnessing something against us. But their judgements have beene so declared before, that it would be a tedious repetition, to insist on them againe.
In the 30. or last Section, a contradiction being soughtfor in vaine, betwixt our conclusi…ns, and our confessions and practises, the Replier thought it sufficient to dispatch all briefely, in a few questions, to which the Rejoynder answers; but so, as he bringeth little or nothing that requireth a new confutation.
The first question was about Temples, Bells, Tablecloths (objected by the Defendant) whether they have such Idolatry put upon them by Papists, as the Crosse hath? The Rejoynder answereth 1. that if they have as much as the Surplice, that will serve the turne. It would indeed, in part; though nor in whole. But that cannot be prooved. His second answer is, that such a Crosse as ours is, was never abused at all in Popery. Which is a Metaphisicall conceit, sufficiently before confuted. His third is, that Temples and Bells, were as well abused. But the question was of such Idolatry. His fourth is, that the white linnen Altar cloth was as much abused as the Surplice.
But the quaestion was of the Crosse. And 2. The Papists Altar-cloath, differeth much from the Table-cloath which we allow of.
2. The second was, if the Defender his owne heart did not tell him, that ther is a civil use of the thinges fore-named; which cannot be imagined of the Crosse? The Rejoynder granteth a civil use of Bells; th…ugh not of Churches, or Communion table-cloathes: Adding, that ther may be a civil use of some Crosses, though not of Transient Grosses (such as ours) and also of Wafers. But he attended neyther to those wordes of the Replier: If his owne heart doe not tell him; nor to those: such thinges. For his bringing-in first of termes, which involve the use together with the thinges, and that use also immedia…, which is but mediat, in Churches, and Communion table cloathes; with his contrarie changing of such Crosses as ours, into some Crosses, and Wafer-Gods into Waf…r-seales for letters, declare both. Concerning the difference, enough hath been sayd in the first part of this Fresh-suit, in the head of Ceremonies.
3. The third was, what Superstition was in the meer signification, given by Durandus unto Bells, and Bell-ropes, which is not to be found in our Crosse and Surplice? The Rejoynder heer answereth nothing; but onelyonly noteth many more superstitious significations to have been then conceited, of diverse thinges, and also of Bells, then we have in our Ceremonies. But the quaestion was onelyonly of the weight, not the number of superstitious significations.
4. The 4. was, whether the Pagans use of Bay-leaves (objected by the Defender) about 1000. yeares past, doeth cast such a reflexion upon our civil use of Bayleaves, as Popish Superstition doeth upon our Ceremonies? The Rejoynder his answer consisteth onelyonly in wordes; save that he aequalleth the Countries (of Papists) to those of ancient unknowen Heathens; the time (before or after Baptisme) unto a 1000. yeares distance; the place (crowne of the head and fore-head) unto farre-removed and unknowen Landes. Heer againe he neglected that item of the Repliers: If his owne heart doeth not tell him?
5. The fift was, what sense the Defender had, to finde fault with us, for not altering the situation of Churches? Nay (sayth the Rejoynder) what face have you, to say, that he did finde fault with you, for not doeing it? Surely the plaine countrie face, of taking the Defend. his wordes, as they stand in your Rejoynder, pag. 645. Nor doe you alter the Situation of your Churches, and Chauncels toward the East.
6. The 6. was, if it be all one, to call a Ship, by the name of Castor and Pollux (Act. 28.11.) and to use a religious Ceremonie, in Gods worship, taken from those Idolls? No, sayth the Rejoynder. Which is enough to shew the vanitie of the Defender in comparing the names of Wensday, Thursday, Friday, unto Ceremonies taken from Poperie.
7. The 7. was, whether it be one thinge, to change Coapes into Cushions, and to use a Masse-vestiment, in Gods worship? The Rejoynder sayth nothing worth the repeating.
8. The last quaestion was, if it be not a kinde of slander, to say, that the Church of Geneva imposeth a round Wafer-cake, like the Papists, to be used in the Lords Supper. And if it be not a wide leap, to bring in the practise of Geneva, for an instance of the Nonconformists practise, in England? The Rejoynder answereth 1. Yes, it is a slander to impute unto Geneva a round Wafer-cake, like the Papists: but addeth, that the Defender did not so. If he doeth not, what mean those wordes of his: allbeit the Church of Geneva is not ignorant, what the round Wafer among the Papists did signifie? Or what consequence made the Defender from Genevas Wafer-cake, to Ceremonies abused unto Idolatrie, if the Geneva Wafer-cake be not like unto the Papists?
In the second place, the Rejoynder confesseth, that the bread used at Geneva, is a large square Cake, which is broken in sondry parcels, unto the Communicants: and yet he addeth, that it is a Wafer-Cake, as thin, as thin may be. Where it is something, that he confesseth their bread not to be like the Papists, neyther in extensive quantitie, nor yet in Forme and Figure. But yet I am perswaded, he wrongeth that Church, in making their Cakes as thin as the Papists Host. For the Papists Host is a starchie or scummie crust, distinct from cibarius panis, bread fitting for food, by our Divines censure of it: And it is not credible, that the Church of Geneva should reteyne such a grosse corruption. But (sayth the Rejoynder) you allow their Ceremonie of Wafer-bread. Nothing lesse. We never read, nor heard from them, that they made any Wafer fashion a Religious significant Ceremonie. This Wafer was first baked in England. And if they did, they are olde enough, let them answer for themselves.
But (addeth he) even unleavened bread hath been abused. Neyther allow we of any Ceremonious leaving out of leaven: nor can it be proved of the Geneva Church. As for that which was added by the Replier, of custome heerin praevayling against Farells, Calvins, and Virets advise; it is confessed by the Rejoynder that these Divines had brought-in a custome of using common bread; but after some knaves working upon the reliques of the former custome, brought in unleavened bread: which is enough for to confirme that which the Replier spake (as the Rejoynder sayth) at random.
To the second part of the quaestion: whether it be nor a wide leape, to bring in the Practise of Geneva, for an Instance of the Non-Conformists practise in England? The Rejoynder answereth, that it is an abuse, unruly lightnesse, eagernesse after squibs, and scornes, which wrought the Replier out of his geares: All this it pleaseth him to lay upon this one phrase (a wide leape) a litle after he had commended Hellebore unto M. Parker, with many such Drugges unto others. And what is the cause? Forsooth, because this Geneva Wafer-cake was given as an instance of our Confessions, and not of our Practise. But this is as wide, as if it had been confessed to belonge to our Practise. For no such Confession of ours can be shewed. It had been fitting to object nothing unto us as Confessed, but that which we have eyther in practise, or in writing allowed. Neyther in deed was it the Defender his meaning to make all the rest of his instances our Practises, and this onelyonly our Confession: but he stumbled upon this in the ende, as a thing that must have some place among his objections; because it had been objected by others: and the Rejoynder having begunne his booke with the accusation of Scurrilitie, finding him to be taken, had no other way, but with this shew of a distinction, to vente some salt phrases, like unto that, Vt ultima primis consentirent. 1. e. That both endes might agree.