Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	write_v	writer_n	writing_n	265	4	9.0950	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09002	A scholasticall discourse against symbolizing with Antichrist in ceremonies: especially in the signe of the crosse	Parker, Robert, 1564-1614.	1607 (1607)	STC 19294; ESTC S115299	592,763	372

20. Obire eas actiones quae Idolorum cultum prae se ferunt The second difference which our Opposites doe alleadge is that the Corinthian went in to the Temple of the Idoll to eate while the Idolater was eating there But we goe not into any popish Church to vse the Crosse together with them First the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is not the Temple by any likelihood but the d Erasm in 1. cor 8. Pet. Martyr ibid. ver 20. feasting chamber rather as doth appeare by this that the Apostle 1. Cor. 10.21 doth not charge them for presenting themselues before the Altar of the Idoll but for being present rather in a roome where is a table for eating onely and not an Altar for sacrificing Secondly e August in ● Psal 99. Hoc est presentem vel absentem esse sensu abesse vel presentem esse Was not Paul present at Corinth when he was in spirit there So long then as by the vse of Crosse and Surplice we seeme present in good liking wee giue as great honour well neare to poperie as the Corinthian bodily presence gaue to the Idoll Thirdly the Corinthian participated when hee did eate the Idolothite 2 1. Cor. 10.28 euen out of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being once made knowen to be such euen as it was out of the Temple in priuate and ciuill vse that 3 1. Reg. 13.22 Bethels water and 4 Dau. 1. ver 8. Bels meate were vnlawfull The Papists indeed say that the feastes the which Paul writeth against were onely at the Altar but our writers affirme the contrary prouing out of the Scriptures that the manner was to feast at 5 1. Sam. ● 8.9 pro. 7 14. home after the sacrifice was once ended and out of the heathen writers likewise for the manner of the Gentiles was the same as appeareth by f Virgil ●●e ad ● Evander who when he had sacrificed to Hercules invited Aeneas to a feast at home They prooue out of the Fathers also that the knowen eating of the Idolothite out of the Temple g Clement exam p. 2. de missa col 175. Math. Sutcliff de missa li. 3. cap. 13. wheresoeuer doth in Pauls doctrine make a man guiltie of participating with the Idoll Whereby it appeareth that our vsing of Crosse and Surplice so it be reuerent makes vs participant wheresoeuer wee vse them and not onely when we are present in the act of their Idolatrie Fouthly our transporting of Crosse and Surplice from their Temples into our Churches is as great a participation as if we had gone to some Church of theirs in the eyes of our k Ludouic Lauat in Hest homil 46. pag. 89. Pet. Martyr loc comm● clas 2. ca. 5. sect 24. writers who hold it a Corinthian sinne in an high degree to bring into holy vse any rite of the heretiques The auncients agree to this m Concil Aphrican tempore Bonifac. Pap. 1. can 27. Feastes which were vsed by imitation of the Gentiles are abhominable if they be vsed in ipsis locis sacris in the very Churches themselues of the Christians So in like manner as it was held detestable to enter into an hereticall Temple so was it counted an execrable matter n Concil Epaunens can 33. basilicas haereticorum sanctis vsibus applicare to applie the Churches of the heretiques to Gods seruice vnlesse they were such as they had taken from the Catholiques themselues before But whether it be as great a participation or no as if we went into an Idols Temple after the supposed Corinthian manner Sure I am it is greater then that of the Corinthian was when he did eate the Idolothite at home at a priuate table For wherefore must he not be eaten but because it returneth a certaine o Pet. Martyr 1. cor 10. honour to the Idoll to which it belongeth And p Tertul. li. de Idololat Omnis honor Idoli Idololatria And it skilleth not whether it be verus honor or q Thom. A. quin. in ● cor 10. lect 4. putatiuus it being Idolothisme when the Idoll is honoured by vs in the estimation of other men Nowe this is done when by our vse of Idolatrous rites we make their Idolatry to be r Pet. Martyr 1. cor 8.10 thought the better of and when s Ambros 1. cor 10. ver 28. alius qui Idolis seruit gloriatur Which cannot bee auoyded in our religious vse of the Crosse because he that seeth thee eate the Idols meate saith t Chrysost 1. cor 10. Chrysostom Existimabit te non nihil Idolorum cultui deferre And u Ambr. ibid. in ver 29. Ambrose Iudicatur non distare ab eo qui colit Idol●● quando non horret quod oblatum est simulachro What that the Crosse is worse then Corinthes Idolothite euen in priuate vse and all like vnto the Iewish meate Because the very common crossing of the Papist being knowen to be euill we pertake with their Idolatry if we vse their Crosse in priuate euen as they w Decret p. 2. caus 28. qu. ● cap. 14. partaked with the Iewish superstition that sate with the Iewe at a priuate table for that euen here his meate was knowen to be superstitious whereas Corinthes meate against which Paul writeth was often vnknowen to be Idolothious The third difference which our opposites make is this The Crosse and Surplice are sanctified by the comment of our Church which the Corinthian Idolothite lacked and wanted First the Idolothite at Corinth must be forborne when he is knowen to be such 2. Cor. 10.30 although sanctified by giuing of thankes This deceiued the young Prophet at Bethell he thought hee might eate the bread and the water there so it were not in the fellowship of Idolaters in the societie of an old Prophet who commaundeth him in the name of the Lord and sanctified them before they were eaten he thought it to be lawfull ynough 1 King ●3 18.19 which is vp and downe our error x August de temp serm 241. Augustine handleth the very case we are to flie saith he from the Idolothite as if we saw the Deuill himselfe and that in our owne houses not onely in Idolatrous places where some say ego signo sic manduc● I crosse my selfe and sanctifie the meate before I eate take heede of this This were for a man to crosse his mouth and to stabbe his heart What God hath sanctified polute thou not so what God hath polluted sanctifie thou not No Church no holy societie can make holy a Crosse or Surplice or any other Idolothite because the word of God defileth them and pronounceth them vncleane Secondly the Temple cannot sanctifie what is vncleane but what is vncleane can pollute the Temple Agge 2. vlt. 2. Cor. 6.16 What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idoles saith Paul either here he reasoneth a y Glossa or

is strooken dead in the neast by e Caesar Baron anal in an Christ 180. Caesar Baronius who lahoureth to proue that Ezra neuer chaunged the letters that the olde auncient Copies of the Hebrew Bibles were many of them remayning in Ezralies time that they all are in one character to witt the olde and auncient character of the Hebewes Howbeit Baronius him self sayleth in part the whole matter is here of late brought cleerlie to light by Ioseph Scaliger who writeth thus The olde Hebrewe and the Samaritane letters be all one and the letter Tau in neither of them is like a Crosse or the Greeke or Romane T. Hierome what he reciteth of Ezraes chaunge of the old Samaritane Tau he taketh word by word out of Origene in Romanes Origine was deceiued by a Iewe on whose bare relatiō he grounded him selfe which relation was also false Whereas Hierome saith elswhere he sawe a Samaritane copie that was after he had written this if before he had seene it hee would haue seene Origens errour and haue preuented it in him selfe But if there be any thing worth the learning in this error it is this Hierome and others thinke it a worthy thing for Ezra to chaunge the letters of the scripture to the ende that the Church may differ from Samaritanes and from aliens euen in their writing An ensample of like zeale we see in f Paul D●●t 〈◊〉 ●● Vlid the Arabian who when hee meant to enlarge the religion of Mahomet not onely rased the churches of the Christians that were in Damascus but also abolished their verie letters making a law that nothing should be written in Greeke but in Arabique only And when the Christians were after afflicted because they would not menscrizare that is conforme who can say but that they stoode out against these characters amongst the rest which they refused What then We may not conforme to the Crosse especially in religious vse it being a Character of the beast but our Church must chaunge it and make a lawe against it if it meane to be zealous after the patterne and proportiō of these examples Thirdly let it be the word Tau or the letter T. let the letter be changed or not changed all is one and this one thing is nothing for the Crosse Then are the Fathers nothing neither say our Opposites for they are all of them for the Crosse euen in this text But may wee not a little chaung the wordes of Christ and say to the Fathers in this matter Men what haue we to doe with you euen as we are prompted by Doctor Fulke Maister Calfhill saith h D. Fulke reioyn art 1. pa. 137. he doth iustly reproue the Fathers for so high extolling the signe of the crosse which hath no ground in the worde of God but was brought in either by contention against the heathens who despised it or in emulation of heretiques who first vsed it We must giue the Fathers leaue to play and according to their owne pleasure not only to fetch the figure of the Croffe out of this Tau but also out of the l Aug● cont Faust lib. 12. cap. 34. two stickes which the Widdow of Sarepta gathered yea to fetche a Crosse and a T. too out of the 300. m Augusti questi suplib Iudle lib. 7. ca. 17 soldiers of Gedion who me thinkes resemble the 300. ministers who now stand out against the Crosse for that disdayning to ley downe vnder the burthen of an euill conscience to drinke at ease the pleasaunt waters of conformitie they are contented to lapp like dogs the waters of marah or rather to be vsed like doggs surely no more to be called Naomi although their giftes and their labours in the Church had made them beautifull but Marah rather because the Lord beginning iudgement at his owne house hath shewed them bitternes Secondly what though the Crosse bee here insinuated that is nothing to the signe of the Crosse in the foreheade but to n Pet. serran in hunc loc Calfhill ag Mart. art 2 D. Fulke reioyn ibid pag. 146. Christes Crosse only on which he died which is not here insinuated neither for any honour to it selfe but for the forshewing of Christs death wherof it was the cursed instrument As for the signe of the forehead mentioned in the Reuelation o Hector Pintus in hunc loc it is as fondly after Aquinas Martiall the Rhemistes and the rest of that ●●●ble drawne to the aereall figne of the Crosse as this signe of Ezechiell is For this p Mr. Calfh ag Mart. art 1. D. Fulke reio ar 1. p. 137 signe in the reuelation giueth the Spirit of life and faith so doth not the Crosse this signe maketh a difference between good and bad so doth not the Crosse this signe in the forehead noteth those who with open q Ioh●n de ●a●●o in Apo● ca. 7 forheads should professe the Gospel euen as they who are not signed in the forehead vers 9. note those who should lye hid and not so openly professe as the former who yet made the signe of the Crosse in the forehead as well as the former called to martyrdom and confession if antiquitie be true Thirdly what if the signe of the Crosse in the forehead be alluded to in Ezechiell and in the Apocalips yet this maketh nothing for the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme because it was tollerable in old time r Lambet Dane cont Bellarm. de Imag. c. 29 quatenus erat testimonium confessionis in trepida contra ethnicos not r Lambert Dane dont Bellarm. de Imag. c. 29 quatenus it was a signe in baptisme Fourthly Our Opposites that entitle the signe of the Crosse to the place of Ezech. and that of the Apoca the same must needes entitle it to an effectiue and operatiue power for such a power doth the text giue to the signes of these scriptures witnes the very Fathers themselues who thinking these textes to speake of the Crosse cōclude out of them that the signe of the Crosse doth arme defende preserue vs. of which error we are ashamed to our shame vntill we disclaime their interpretation of this scripture and the obligation of their authoritie in this question of the Crosse #Sect 40. That the signe of the Crosse is not the signe of the Sonne of man THE second scripture which of late we haue heard alleadged against vs is the 24. chap. of Math. 30. vers where some of our Opposites will haue the signe of the sonne of man to be the signe of the Crosse euen as the Fathers teach Alas whether will the Fathers carry them Because of the Fathers they will beleue that a signe of the Crosse shall appeare in heauen for a fore-runner of Christ his comming vnto iudgement Will they not awake to see that this is no other dreame then that which Lactantius dreameth There shall be a great sword let fall from the heauen into the earth