Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies, Part · Chapter 4 · Section 3
#Sect. 3. That the Croſſe corrupteth the ſimplicitie of the Sabboth.
BVt if the popiſhe Sabboth breach bee not a ſufficient guilt to condemne the Croſſe, wee hauehave further cuidence of home pollution, for that euen amongſt our ſelues he both corrupteth the ſimplicitie, & hindreth the ſanctitie of this day. Touching the former, the Croſſe being not founde in the Leiturgies of the primatiue Church, it ought not to appeare in ours; no more then the ſurplice ought of which thus one;aBucer. in Cenſur ca. 2. pag 458. Conſentaneum eſt. &c. It is meet that we ſhould aſpire as in all outwards things, ſo in the attire of the Miniſter vntounto the ſimplicitie of Chriſt our Sauiour, & of his Apoſtles. when Iewell, Bullinger, Mornaeus and the reſt of our writers cite the Leiturgies of the firſt Churches as Iuſtinus & Irenaeus do deſcribe them to exclude the ceremonies of the Maſſe, diſpute they not vponupon this ground: the ſimplicitie of the firſt Church is a patterne for vsus to followe? The purer Church of thoſe whom we terme ſub vna in Boheme, beare the torche (as it were) before vsus in this dutie:bDauid. Chytreus in oration. prelect. Cronic. an…. 1569. Pontificios ritus. &c. They hauehave altogether hiſſed out all popiſh rites, either as impious of themſelues, or otherwiſe vnprofitable to edification, & to the diſcipline of true pietie: and hauehave recalled omnes Ceremonias, euen all their ceremonies; to the grauitie and to the ſimplicitie of the firſt Apoſtolicall Church. Aſcende we vpward and we finde the like doctrine:cGregor. Nazians. ad Gregor. Niſſen. orat. 3. Sanctorum patr…m conſtitutiones qui proximiores fuerunt Chriſto agnoſcamus. Come we downward and we meet (againe) with the like doctrine:dAct. and monu. pa. 1494. Thoſe orders be moſt pure that come moſt nigh to the enſample of the primatiue Church, ſaith Saunders holy Martyr; when wee are come quite downe we finde the ſame doctrine: Thoſe times be pureſt (ſaith oneeAndre. Willet. controner 2. queſt. 4. of our writers) that bee neerest to Chriſt and to the Apoſtles, as the waters be cleereſt that be neereſt the fountaine. yea, when we are come home to the croſſe it ſelfe we finde the like doctrine.fPhilip Motnae. de Euchari. lib. 1. cap. 6. pag. 50. Diſpute wee not againſt the Papiſtes: the Croſſe was not vſed in the Lords Supper, in the primatiue times of the Church as apppeareth by Dioniſius Areopagita, who amongſt ſo many Ceremonies which he rehearſeth, maketh no mentioned of the ſigne of the Croſſe? It is here replyed that the Croſſe was an Eccleſiaſticall and a Sabboths rite before Tertullian. for in his booke de praeſcriptionibus which is one of his firſt workes, among other auncient rites of the Chriſtians (which Satan imitated) he reckoneth the ſigne of the Croſſe for one, in theſe wordes:gTertul de preſcript. ſignat & illic in fronte milites ſuos. Firſt, we are made beleeuehGenebr. lib. 3. in anno 220. by ſome, that this booke was one of the laſt he wrote for a teſtimonie of his returne from Montaniſme. lCaeſat. Baron. Annal.in hi…tor eius.Others tell vsus it was one of the firſt hee wrote before Montanus had infected him; Neither of which coniectures is probable, becauſe in this very place cited, he approueth the Monogamie of Montamus. which beareth witnes vntounto vsus, who hold the Croſſe came into the Sabboth by Montanus and grewe to credit with the reſt of his inventions. Let it be [then] the ſigne of the Croſſe which Sathan doth imitate in the words of Tertullian. ſo in theſe wordes of Tertullian he doth imitate the Monogamie which is no auncienter then Montanus. Secondly, why ſhould it be the ſigne of the Croſſe that here is imitated, or not rather ſome Iewiſh ceremonie, ſeeing the concluſion of the whole treatice is this: that Satan doth imitate moroſitatem Iudeae. he maketh mention of a ſummus pontifex; which, was it not the highe Prieſt of the Iewes? the deuill in Mytraes bread doth imitate panis oblationum, that is the bread of propoſition. For Mytraes bread is more auncient then the bread of the Supper. Will our Oppoſites ſay that though the bread of Mytrae be more ancient then the bread of the Supper, yet that Tertul doth ſay that Satan doeth imitate it: then we ſay on the other ſide, that this place proueth not any auncientnes in the Croſſe, becauſe Tertullian may referre it to ſom ceremonie of the pagans which was auncienter then it ſelfe. What then? we cannot reade of any Idolatrours ſigne in the forehead, vnleſſe it be the foreheads garlands, which may be ſaid to imitate the oyle in the Forehead or the prieſtes petalum, asmRhenan. ibid. in aedit. Baſil. 2528. Rhenaenus in his firſt notes ſeemeth to inſinuate. Thirdly, Tertullian ſaith, it is Sathan that imitateth Moroſitatem Iudeae in hir rites. is Rome better then Ieruſalem, that we may imitate her moroſitie in her ceremonies, and yet be ledd by a good ſpirit? frons cum ſigno Dei pura (ſaith Cyprian) diabolt cotonam ferre not potuit. no more will the water in Baptiſme abide the Croſſe. which being an hereticall and Idolatrous rite of the forehead, it is as badde as a pagane garlande about the forehead, elſe is Tertullian much deceiued who in the very place affirmeth: Non distat Haereſis ab Idololatria.