Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	flesh_n	soul_n	word_n	5,587	5	4.4264	3	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03915	An ansvvere to a certaine treatise of the crosse in baptisme. Intituled A short treatise of the crosse in baptisme contracted into this syllogisme. No humane ordinance becomming an idoll may lawfully be vsed in the service of God. But the signe of the crosse, being an humane ordinance is become an idoll. Ergo: the signe of the crosse, may not lawfully bee vsed in the service of God. VVherein not only the weaknesse of the syllogisme it selfe, but also of the grounds and proofes thereof, are plainely discovered. By L.H. Doct. of Divinitie.	Hutton, Leonard.	1605 (1605)	STC 14023; ESTC S104328	89,079	150

Thibaritanos ca. 7. Christianicum Ethnicis Christum crucifixum deridentibus permixti vt doctrinae salutaris quae in ChristuÌ„ nos credere iubet se minime pudere testaerentur digitis in aere formabant figuram transuersam quasi crucis quae Cerimonia tunc erat Christianismi non superstitionis Magicae vt postea accidit symbolum That it might once haue had good vse and was a profession of Christianity as Mr. Beza speaketh Or that St. Augustine and other Auntients vsed it with such due regard as therto belonged as Hemingius thinketh Or that it was a most auntient vse in the Church very simple and of present admonition of the Crosse of Christ as Bucer testifieth to my vnderstanding doth plainly describe a most Christian and religious vse of it among the Auntients and vtterly discouer your slaunderous accusation But those other that tel you particularly wherin it was wel vsed as Pezel M. Perk. by a proposition most manifestly contradictory vnto yours say it had a most holy and godly end as Daneus and that it was without any superstition in the Auntients as Goulartius Zanchius doe They J say plainly free it from sinn and superstitioÌ„ and with a contrary testimony in flatt termes conuince the insolency and audaciousnes of your false asseueration Touching the second if it were yet being an humane ordinance c. your two reasons because it is an humane ordinance abused and because it is now also become an Idoll are answered before And it hath oftentimes bin said that those pollutions how abhominable soeuer doe extend them selues no farther then to the Persons that are polluted with them Jndifferent things cannot defile them that vse them with a sincere minde and pure conscience how soeuer they be abused by others And therfore you might wel haue spared your huge words Execrable abhominable Idoll filth no water caÌ„ clense it nor any pretext purifie it c. except you had brought other arguments then these the weaknes wher of doth most manifestly appeare Al the bigg words that you can bring wil not make the vncleannes you speake of defiâ—e the Innocent nor the pollution and abhomination of Popish Idolatry cleaue vnto the true ProtestaÌ„t that with a good conscience vseth the Ceremony and with hart and soule abhorreth the superstition And thus much to the second part of your answere Your third followeth now to be considered Treatise 10. Sect. But in very deed to speake as the truth is the Crosse is retained among vs Canon 30. with opinion very superstitious erroneous For in the late Canons it is saide that the Childe is thereby dedicated vnto the service of him that died on the Crosse what is this but to equal mans ordinance with Gods And to ascribe that vnto the Crosse which is due vnto Baptisme A conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists then learned Christians to assent vnto Neither do we vse it as the Ancients did for Cyprian Augustine Chrysostome and others as is apparant at those times did consecrate the elements therewith and did not crosse the childes forehead at all but referred that vnto the Bishops confirmation So that our crossing the Infants forehead not the element of Baptisme is a meere novelty without any warrant of that antiquitie Neither will that place of Tertullian de resurrectione carnis proue the contrary The flesh is washed that the soule may bee purged the flesh is annointed that the soule may be consecrated the flesh is signed that the soule may be garded the flesh is shaddowed by the imposition of hands that the soule may be by the spirit enlightned the flesh doth feede on the body bloud of Christ that the soule may be filled and fatted of God In which words he ioining togither divers Ceremonies of the Christians doth indeed meÌ„tioÌ„ the signing of the faithfull but it may as well be referred to confirmatioÌ„ expressed by imposition of hands as to Baptisme vnderstoode by the washing of the body that on better reason for it is more then probable that the signe of the Crosse was not yet vsed in Baptisme seeing Just Martyr in defens ad Antoninum Tertull. de Baptismo de corona militis doe describe the forme of Baptisme vsed in those times and yet make no mention of the Crosse therein which in all likelyhood they would not haue omitted if it had bin vsed therein Especially Tertullian who in that very place speaketh of the Crosse as vsed out of Baptisme in the ordinary blessing of themselues Replie to the third part of the Treatisers answere to the first obiection This tenth Section containeth two grievous accusations wherewith the Treatiser doth charge our Church and the governors thereof The first That the signe of the Crosse is retained among vs with opinion very superstitious and erroneous The second That we doe not vse it as the Ancients did Grievous crimes no doubt if they be iustly laid vpon vs But if vniustly then meere reproaches and slanders of the Treatiser Touching the first S. Hierome saith In causa haereseos nemixem decetesse patientem Jt becommeth no ma to hold patience when he is accused of heresie The Treatiser belike meant to trie our patience when he burdened vs with opinion of the Crosse both erroneous and superstitious Jf he had accused vs of error only the matter had not bin so very great For homines sumus errare possumus we are men and therefore subiect vnto errour And yet here also he might haue remembred that the companie of those lâ—arned men that made the Canon was as vnlikely to erre as either the Treatiser or his adherents But wheÌ„ vnto his accusation of error he addeth the most heinous crime of superstition this is such an imputation as whereof by all good meanes we are bound to cleare our selues But he proveth it for in the late Canons it is said that the child is therby dedicated vnto the service of him that died on the Crosse what is this but to equall mans ordinaÌ„ce with Gods And to ascribe that vnto the Crosse which is due vnto Baptisme A conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists then learned Christians to assent vnto If wee assented either to the one or to the other it were indeede not onlie a conceipt fitter for ignorant Papists then learned Christians but also an opinion erroneous and superstitious and which is more prowd insolent and presumptious too But how doth the word dedicated inforce thus much namely because the Sacrament which is Gods ordinance can doe no more but Dedicate the Infant to the service of him that died on the Crosse And therefore when wee saie the signe of the Crosse which is but mans invention doeth Dedicate doe we not equallmans ordinance with Gods ascribe that vnto the Crosse which is due vnto the Sacrament J answere no For first the Sacrament doth more then dedicate only for it really giueth that which it promiseth is to the child that which it doth signifie

CoÌ„trariwise the Crosse neither giueth any thing to the child nor promiseth nor is any other thing then an outward Ceremony only signifying that the child hereafter should not be ashamed to confesse the faith of Christ crucified c. Secondly the word Dedicate doth not alwaies signifie to sanctifie or to Consecrate but somtimes to appropriate to appoint to some special vse to declare and testifie that the thing is assigned addicted and called out to such for such a seueral purpose office person or seruice And this is most manifest by that vse of this word which is most ordinary and common in our speach As namely to dedicate a book to a great personage is not in in our language to consecrate sanctifie it vnto him but by that word of Dedication we testifie and declare our loue duty affection towards him appoint the book so dedicated to be a manifest signe token proofe argument and declaration of our loue The word Dedicated therfore being Ecclesiasticall and very frequent in this signification it was thought fitt to be retained in this matter rather then to take in a word more strang nothing so significant Especially considering that ther are many words and sentences in that Canon both affirmatiue and negatiue very sufficient to declare and make manifest vnto al reasonable men that the Church of England doeth not attribute any sanctifiing or consecrating of the child to the seruice of Christ vnto any vertue grace or power of or in the signe of the Crosse Thirdly though both the Sacrament and the signe of the Crosse may be said to dedicate yet they doe not both dedicate after the same sort for the Sacrament doth dedicate as a signe and as a Sacrament too the Crosse as a signe or ceremony only the Sacrament doth dedicate as a cause efficient instrumentall working inwardly by the operation of Gods spirite the Crosse doth dedicate as a cause declaratory testimonial witnessing outwardly to the Church and to the partie that is baptized And so much the very wordes of the Canon woulde haue taught you but that you would not learne when it saith Accounting it a lawfull outward Ceremony and honorable badge wherby the Infant is dedicated c. The wearing of a badge or cognizance of some noble man or the colours of some Captaine doth not J hope in your apprehension make the servant or souldior that weareth it to be of such a noble mans retinew or such a captaines regiment But because he is of that retinewe he weareth that badge or cognizance and because hee is of that regimeÌ„t he weareth those colours And yet both the one and the other doth make other men to know withall doth put himselfe in remembrance that such a noble mans man or such a captaines souldior hee is and such he ought to shew himselfe to be Even so it is in the matter of the Crosse The signe of the Crosse maketh not the childe to be the servant or souldior of Christ but because by Baptisme he is so made therfore he is signed with that honorable badge that thereby both other meÌ„ may know that he is the servant and souldiour of Christ Declaratorie quoad alios memorativÃ¨ et monitoriÃ¨ quoad scipsum and himselfe may be remembred and admonised that he is in al his life to shew himselfe as the faithfull servant of such a master and the couragious souldiour of such a captaine Which our Communion book most wisely beyond all exception of malice setteth downe in these religious tearmes In token that he shall not be ashamed to confesse the faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight vnder his banner against sin the world and the Divel and to continue his faithfull souldiour and servant vnto his liues end Lastly if the Canon should haue said sanctified or coÌ„secrated I perceiue we should haue had much a do with the Treatiser And yet al Antiquity as afterwards I shal haue better occasion to declare Aug. de peccat meritis remissione lib. 2. cap. 26. and specially St. Augustine teacheth vs so to say Catechumenos saith he secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi orationeÌ„ manus impositionis puto sanctificari J thinke the Catechumeni are sanctified after a certaine manner of theirs by the signe of Christ and praier of laying on of handes But what neede J alleadge St. Augustine our owne men vse the word consecrare to signifie to allot or appoint for some vse as I told you before the word dedicare did signifie As may appeare at large by the testimony of Goulartius Consecrare panem vinum Goulart Cap. ep 63. num 39. est ea divinis ac sacris vsibus destinare c. But our Canon of purpose declined those words which might any waies breed offeÌ„ce vnto the weake brethren and made choice of this harmlesse and innocent word Dedicated which favorably vnderstood giueth no offence and is farr from al such danger of error superstition as the Treatiser woulde make the ignorant reader to beleeue Your second accusation laieth two greiuous Corruptions to our charge as namely 1 That in the sign of the Crosse we doe not that which the Auntients did For Cyprian Augustine Chrysostome and others as is apparant at those times did consecrate the elements therewith which wee doe not 2 That we doe that which the Auntients did not For they did not crosse the childs forhead at all but referred that vnto the Bishopps confirmation So that our crossing the Infants forehead not the element of Baptisme is a meere nouelty of some 600. yeares standing as you say in the Margent without any warrant of that antiquity For answer to the first That we do not al that the Antients did that is not vse the signe of the Crosse to so many purposes as they did we do easily acknowledge But this is nothing to the point in question For what if this particular you alleadge of consecrating the Element with the sign of the Crosse were one of those Naeui of the Ancients What if they haply did amisse in so doing as you say afterwards they did Or what if they did well in so doing the superstitioÌ„ was brought in afterwards Will you haue vs to imbrace their vices as well as their vertues Or wil you take away the liberty of our Church in making choice of her Ceremonies Or will you hence conclude that we may not retaine their good things for the which they are worthely commended except we also receiue those defectes and imperfections which succeeding ages brought in afterwardes But this is no way agreeable to reasoÌ„ I rather think it better to follow that couÌ„sel that St. Hierom giueth of reading Origens works Hieron ad TraÌ„ qutll l. 1. ep 54. and to apply it to this matter of the Ceremonies of the Auntients Vt bona eorum eligamus vitemusque coÌ„traria iuxta Apostolum dicentem omnia probate quod bonum est

Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Text snippets containing the quad