For full access to this item, please  Login

Add to bookbag
Author: Parker, Robert, 1564-1614.
Title: A scholasticall discourse against symbolizing with Antichrist in ceremonies: especially in the signe of the crosse.
Publication info: Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Digital Library Production Service
2011 December (TCP phase 2)

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at for further information or permissions.

Print source: A scholasticall discourse against symbolizing with Antichrist in ceremonies: especially in the signe of the crosse.
Parker, Robert, 1564-1614.

[Middelburg: Printed by Richard Schilders], Anno Domini, 1607.
Alternate titles: Second part of this treatise.
Anonymous. By Robert Parker.
Printer's name from STC.
Includes indexes.
Reproduction of the original in the British Library.
Subject terms:
Church of England -- Controversial literature -- Puritan authors -- Early works to 1800.
Cross, Sign of the -- Early works to 1800.

title page
To the Reader.
A protestation of the Authour.
A Scholastical discourse against Symbolizing with Antichrist in ceremonies: especially in the signe of the Crosse.
The Idolatrie of the Crosse. CHAP. I.
#Sect. 2. The doctrine of the Crosse teacheth merite, satis∣faction and pardon for sinne.
#Sect. 3. The effects of the Crosse Spirituall great and marueilous. Two obiections to the same answered.
#Sect. 4. In grace giuen and receiued by men, as also in formes of Oathes, the Crosse is not on∣lie ioyned and matched with Christ, but sometime ouermatcheth him as being more effectuall then bee.
#Sect. 5. The signe of the Crosse, a part of the deuils worship: A Character to effect things supernaturall and deuilish miracles. An instrument of witchcraft: an inchaunting rod, a magicall signe.
#Sect. 6. The Surplice as a Priestly and holy vestiment, is to be adored.
#Sect. 7. The Crosse, Surplice, &c. incurable and inerecouerable Idolothites. The Crosse no creature of God, therefore vtterly to be abolished.
#Sect. 8. Two seuerall sinnes committed in retaining the Crosse: The first reseruing it as a speciall and scandalous Monument of Idolatrie past: with sixe reasons against the retaining of it.
#Sect. 9. The second sinne committed in retaining the Crosse, is the danger of Idolatrie in it for time to come.
#Sect. 10. How some contrarie to the Papists meaning and writings denie adoration to be giuen to the aëreall Crosse.
#Sect. 11. How the ayrye signe of the Crosse is Idolized and worshipped tho transcant.
#Sect. 12. Reasons with obiections answered, why the Crosse may not bee entertayned by vs, &c.
#Sect. 13. Wee commit Idolatry in receiuing the Crosse, because wee doe not Zealously banish it.
#Sect. 14. The second kinde of participation with Idolatrie is when wee may hinder it, and doe not.
#Sect. 15. Three obiections fully answered, whereby the opposite endeuoreth to proue that to communicate with our Crosse, is no Idolatrie.
#Sect. 16. An obiection of the Opposites answered, saying, they may vse the Crosse, because they haue chaunged the Crosse. Though there be foure sorts of things that may be chaunged, yet the Crosse is none of them.
#Sect. 17. An enlargement and continuance of the matter contained in the former Section.
#Sect. 18. Our Crosse not chaunged from the Papisticall Crosse, whilst ours as also theirs resemble Christs death: and whilest the old peece of his figure and forme remaineth.
#Sect. 19. The Opposites first difference, why our Crosse not the same with the Papists sz. because not the same Numero.
#Sect. 20. Our second Opposite different why our Crosse not the same with the Papists, sʐ. because ours is made at the fount only: theirs at the Church doore also.
#Sect. 21. The Opposites third difference of our Crosse and theirs, is in the meaning, end and vse.
#Sect. 22. Our vse of the Crosse, the same with the Papist in senen respects. The Opposites distinction of effectiuè and significatiue in defence of it aunswered.
#Sect. 23. Euils occasioned by the Crosse in regard of the Crosse it selfe, people, Minister and Gouernours that vrge it.
#Sect. 24. Fiue defences of the Crosse obiected by the Opposites: The first whereof is aunswered in this Section, and that which followeth.
section 25
#Sect. 26. Obiections of the Opposits for the Crosse confuted in this Sect. and 27. following. Ceremo∣nies honorable in their auncient beginning must be corrected, not remooued.
section 27
#Sect. 28. The abuse of the Crosse cannot be remoued the Crosse it selfe remaining.
#Sect. 29. Preaching as it is now in England is not sufficient to remoue the abuses of the Crosse, the Crosse it selfe remayning.
#Sect. 30.
#Sect. 31. Opposits obiection aunswered, which is, the abuses of the Crosse are sufficiently refor∣med, because the Altars Shrynes, Images, &c. be vtterly remoued, &c.
#Sect. 32. Reasons why the aereall Crosse ought rather to bee abolisht then the materiall.
#Sect. 33. It auailes nothing to remooue the materiall Crosse, retayning the mysticall.
#Sect. 34. Another Opposites obiection aunswered: which is, we vse it as a ciuill ceremonie, not religious.
#Sect. 35. Pretence of a ciuill end of the Crosse excuses not the Crosse, vsed in the worship of God.
#Sect. 36. The vse of the Crosse is religious not ciuill as the opposites proued in this Section, and that which followeth.
section 37
section 38
#Sect. 39. The fift obiection of the Opposites answered: which is, he is not worshipped in the sacrament, but is onely an attendant vpon the sacrament.
The Superstition of the Crosse. CHAP. II.
The Crosse is an Image flatly forbidden by the second Commaundement.
#Sect. 2. The Crosse is directly an Image.
#Sect. 3. The Opposites saying, the second Commandement forbiddeth only mate∣riall Images, are confuted. The Crosse now vsed is not simply aereall.
#Sect. 4. The Opposites saying our Crosse is no Image, because they in∣tend no expression, are confuted.
#Sect. 5. The opinion confuted, which not able to deny the Crosse to bee an Image, affirme Images to be lawfull in case the Magistrate command them, &c. And the aereall Crosse is worst of all Images.
#Sect. 6. The aereall Crosse is a new signe directly against the entendment and rule of Gods worship. The danger of retayning old po∣pish Ceremonies.
#Sect. 7. The Crosse sinneth against this maine principle of the word, he that addeth or taketh from it, &c. Popish Ceremo∣nies worse then Iewish.
#Sect. 8. The Opposites that affirme their Ceremonies to come from the pri∣mitiue Church immediatlie, and not from poperie, are confused.
#Sect. 10. The second defence of the Crosse confuted: that is, we receiue it not as supersti∣tiouslie abused by the papistes, but as first vsed by the Fathers.
#Sect. 11. Its no good defence of the Crosse to say we haue it from our Fathers not from the papistes, because the Fathers also abused both, the simple vse of it and as its mixt with oyle.
#Sect. 12. The Crosse is condemned as a superstitious ceremonie: as superstitious wil-wor∣ship, and for a superstitious Ceremonie, and wil-worship Sacramentall.
#Sect. 13. The Crosse is a Wil-woship, prooued by three reasons.
#Sect. 14. The holines and necessitie of the Crosse, cause it to smell very ranckely of superstition.
#Sect. 15. The Opposites first reply answered: which is, that the law commaunds not the Crosse as an holy worship like the Papistes.
#Sect. 16. The second pretence for defence of the Crosse, is necessitie.
#Sect. 17. We can hardly accuse the Papistes of any abuse of the Crosse, because wee abuse it almost as much as they.
#Sect. 18. The third abuse of the confuted: which is, that the Crosse is vrged of necessitie without omission, euen as with the Papistes.
#Sect. 19. The pressing of the Crosse confirmes popish principles. The vrging of the Crosse, establish a popish necessitie, ex consequenti.
#Sect. 20. The Crosse as the Opposites, vse it, is prooued to bee Sacramentall.
#Sect. 21. The Opposites saying the Crosse is Sacramentale, is foure wayes faulty.
#Sect. 22. The Fathers vrge a necessitie of the Crosse very superstitiously. The Papists more indifferent then they, therefore their authoritie of no value for the Crosse.
#Sect. 23. The Opposites giue that to the signe of the Crosse, which is onely pro∣per to an essentiall part of the Sacrament.
#Sect. 24. The Opposites obiection saying the Crosse in Baptisme is inferior to the water, because it comes after, confuted.
#Sect. 25. A third fault wherein th'Opposite vsurpeth vpon Sacra∣mentall offices.
#Sect. 26. Though the devising of new signes corrupt the simplicitie of Sacraments ordained by Christ: yet it hindreth not but something is left to the Church concerning circumstances, as time, place, order, &c.
#Sect. 27. Though it were lawfull for the Church to denise new signes, yet not for religious vse, especially where God hath ordained signes for the same purpose already.
#Sect. 28. And though it were lawfull there to ordaine new signes where God hath already ordained, yet is it not lawfull to annex them to the holy signes of God, as with vs the Crosse is.
#Sect. 29. No outward signe ought to be added by the Church to Christes institution.
#Sect. 30. Though it were lawful to deuise new symbolicall signes in the Sacrament where God hath ordayned alreadie, yet not to take a Crosse frō the brothelhouse of superstition.
#Sect. 31. Obiections of the Opposites: The Crosse is sooner to be vsed in that it teacheth good things, and hath a profitable signification: therefore euery ceremonie is significant, or els vayne: that the Lord delighted much in signes which the woman shewed, and blamed Si∣mon for not shewing the like, &c.
#Sect. 32. The second obiection of the Opposites, There be many similitudes in scripture drawne from Gods creatures, which imploy so many signes, &c.
#Sect. 33. The third obiection of the Opposites: There be diuers signes added in the scripture by man lawfully as the knife of stone, &c.
#Sect. 34. The 4. signe alleadged for the defence of the Crosse, is the imposition of hands: and why should not the signe of the Crosse be as lawfull as it.
#Sect. 35. Foure offices which the Crosse performeth in Baptisme.
#Sect. 36. The fourth sinne that maketh this Crosse Sacramentale in these words, we receiue this child into the congregation of Christes flocke.
#Sect. 37. It followeth not because we vse the Lords praier & Creede in Baptisme, that therfore we may vse the Crosse. For the word Crosse implyeth 3. senses contrary to the word.
#Sect. 38. The Opposites saying that the Crosse is the signe of Christ crucified, confuted.
#Sect. 39. Though Tau were in the text, yet cannot a Crosse be colleleth from it, vnles we ground doctrine vpon the mysteries of Letters, which the Gnostickes, Valentinians, and the Cabalistes vse.
#Sect. 40. That the signe of the Crosse, is not the signe of the Sonne of man.
#Sect. 41. An answere to the argument of the Opposites which is taken from Visions and Apparitions.
#Sect. 42. Answers to the arguments, which the Opposites take from miracles.
#Sect. 43. The refuge which the Opposites seeke to haue by the Fathers, removed, both because they passed measure herein, as also, that the case and time is now farre chaunged.
The hipocrisie of the Crosse. Cap. 3.
#Sect. 2. That the vsing of the Crosse is but an idle apishe roye, and lighter then the Surplice, which is also too light.
#Sect. 3. That the Crosse is vnprofitable, fleshlie, smelling of Idolatrie, and of too light a colour.
#Sect. 4. The profits alledged to accompanie the crosse, for cōmendation thereof, as to keepe from sinne, confusion, cause zeale, and to helpe in the instant of temptation, are refuted.
#Sect. 5. That the Crosse is now not onely vnprofitable, but also verie hurtfull.
#Sect. 6. The second excuse, that the crosse is imposed by Christian Magistrates, is taken away, in diverse respectes, especially because it is taken as a consenting in a part to the ceremonies of the Church of Rome.
#Sect. 7. That the Crosse fostereth hypocrisie in the middes of our Church, and hindereth spirituall worship.
#Sect. 8. The hipocrisie of the crosse in preposterating, evacuating, and polluting the vnder∣standing, which is the first part of the soule reasonable, is proved.
#Sect. 9. That the Crosse is not a monitorium to the memorie, but defileth it with the hipocrisie of preposteration, with vacuitie of the remēbrance preten∣ded, and with forgetfulnes of God, and of his word.
#Sect. 10. That the Crosse occasioneth, and breedeth a canker in the conscience, and that which the Opposites alleadge, that conscience is but a pretence, is anticipat.
#Sect. 11. The hypocrisie and preposteration of the Crosse, in the Will, in respect of the meanes for cayning to the right end, is proved.
#Sect. 12. Howe the Crosse is vrged by our Opposites for sinister ende and not in synceritie.
#Sect. 13. That the Crosse preposterateth, evacuateth, and polluteth the affection of feare.
#Sect. 14. Howe the signe of the Crosse is an enemie to our affiance in the merites of Christ.
#Sect. 15. That the Crosse evacuateth and polluteth Faith.
#Sect. 16. That the Crosse evacuateth and polluteth loue and zeale, both for matter, and measure.
#Sect. 17. The hypocrisie of the Crosse in prayer, is proued in respect it is thought to be operatine, sanctificatiue, and helpfull therto.
#Sect. 18. The speciall hypocrisie of the Crosse is evidently declared in the lyfe and conversation of those that did beare it.
The impietie of the Crosse. Chap. 4.
#Sect. 2. That the Crosse mocketh the Lor. Sabboths, in darkning them: guiding the popish processions, and with whorish braverie, in the worship of God.
#Sect. 3. That the Crosse corrupteth the simplicitie of the Sabboth.
#Sect. 4. That the signe of the Crosse defyleth the sanctitie of the Sabboth.
#Sect. 5. That the Ceremonies, and the Crosse in speciall, steale away true devotion from the hart, and are occasions of irreuerence.
#Sect. 6. That the ceremonies controversed, not only defile but hinder the worship of the Sabboth.
#Sect. 7. The Ceremonies hinder the preaching of the Sabboth, both in part and in whole.
#Sect. 8. That the Ceremonies controversed, hinder the word in whole.
#Sect. 9. That the Ceremonies with their subscription, shut out good sheepheardes, suffers and foster byrelings, ignorance, pluralitie, and nonresidencie.
#Sect. 10. That the ceremonies controversed, hinder preaching, shutting out the Preachers, and putting the light vnder a bushell.
#Sect. 11. An answere to there proche of the Opposites, which is, that these who stand for Discipline, are vnlearned.
#Sect. 12. That the fault why faithfull Ministers are cast out of their Ministrie, lyeth not vpon them selves.
#Sect. 13. The calumnie of peeuishnes and foolishnes imputed to the Ministers, for not receyuing Capp and Surplice, is answered.
#Sect. 14. The calumnie of leauing the ministrie, is answered, & the ignorants and others, who subscribe, to abide in the ministrie, are by the way, chalenged & convicted.
#Sect. 15. That the losse of the ministrie, vnto the faithfull Ministers rather then to approue the Ceremonies, shall be the Lords gaine also, as the iudgement of our best diuines, is so to doe.
#Sect. 16. That the small estimation of preaching, vnder pretence to care for praying, as the Opposites alleadge, is the abaddone or murthering sinne of these dayes, and takes away the right vse of the Saboth.
A Table of the contents of the severall Chapters, and Sections of this booke.
An Alphabeticall Table of some speciall pointes interlaced here and there in this Booke.
The Names of the Authours, Treatises, and Councels cited in this Discourse.
To the Reader.
Faults escaped in the printing of the first part.
The second part of this Treatise.
Of the Iniustice of the Crosse. Chap. 5.
#Sect. 2. Obiection answered: If our Church were now in her first constitution; it were fit to remooue the Ceremonies: but being established, they are to bee let alone.
#Sect. 3. Answere to this Obiection: There is difficultie in the Remo∣vall of Ceremonies, Therefore they are rather to bee let alone.
#Sect. 4. Answere to this Obiection, The change of a law bringeth dishonour of an Innovation, and extenuates the lawes authoritie.
#Sect. 5. Second suit, that Ceremonies may neither be iudged good or indifferent in regard of circumstances being hurtfull.
#Sect. 6. 3. Suit, that practised commaunding of Ceremonies be reformed for time to come, and the Church freed from divers gree∣vances: As that there be 2. Gods. &c.
#Sect. 7. Divers instances wherein the imposing and defence of Cere∣monies, are founde greevous.
#Sect. 8. The warrant of Ceremonies ought to be Rerson and Edification, neither Will nor Authoritie.
#Sect. 9. 4. Suite, beseecheth that they may not be thought to offend against a law, who observe the intention of it.
#Sect. 10. The Opposites in defence of Ceremonies, offende against ordinarium jus.
#Sect. 11. Thirdly, Iustice borrowed temper from Equinanimitie which dispenseth on iust cause. Fourtly, from forbearance, which passeth by a ceremoniall transgression.
#Sect. 12. Imposition of Ceremon, as now vrged, take away Christian libertie.
#Sect. 13. Ceremonies as nowe vrged, take away libertie of Conscience.
#Sect. 14. Non-Conformitie is neither contempt nor scandall.
#Sect. 15. They that disobey or displease in vnlawfull Ceremonies, doe not scandalize.
#Sect. 16. The punishments inflicteth for not conformitie, are greater then the faultes committed.
#Sect. 17. The jus of the law of the land whether comprehensiue or extensiue, doth not iustifie our Opposites rigour against vs.
The murther of the Crosse: Chapter 6.
#Sect. 2. The soule murther of the Crosse.
#Sect. 3. Ceremonies may not be vsed in Relatione nor in Comparison.
#Sect. 4. Present Necessitie pretended by the Opposites, makes not the Crosse convenient.
#Sect. 5. Inexpediencie of Ceremo. makes not them guilty that only tollerate them, confuted.
#Sect. 6. The second sorte of Opposites confuted, affirming no inconvenience in Cerem. nor any aptnes to breede scandall or offence.
#Sect. 7. The Opposites confuted: confessing hurt to follow of the Ceremonies, yet without their fault.
#Sect. 8. The Crosse is scandalum datum, notwithstanding there be no intent to drawe any sinne thereby.
#Sect. 9. The second exception of elevating the scandall, confuted.
#Sect. 10. The third exception answered, viz. That lawes must not be chaunged for that a fewe are scandalized.
#Sect. 11. The Opposites opinion thinking greater scandalls would come vpon the Remoovall of Ceremonies, confuted.
#Sect. 12. A scandall of the papistes removed, saying, If Ceremo be removed, it will harden them against vs, and breed an hostile alienation of their mindes frō our religion.
#Sect. 13. The defence of tolleration of ceremonies from Act. 15. confuted.
#Sect. 14. The argument of tollerating Ceremonies drawen from Paules purisying, and the Iewish observation of Penticost, confuted.
#Sect. 15. The practise of the prime Church retayning Rites to winne them that were with∣out, and to content them that were lately converted, confuted.
#Sect. 16. The second sort of men whom Cerem offend, are Separistes, of whom more regard ought to be had then of a Turke or Iewe.
#Sect. 17. The third scandall given by Ceremonies, is to the Members within the Church.
#Sect. 18. The 4. scandall of the Cerem. is that they offende all sortes of men among the people.
#Sect. 19. The fift scandall that Ceremo. giue, is against the whole Church and Gospell which it professeth.
#Sect. 20. The third murther of the Crosse is thorough home contention.
#Sect. 21. The obiection of the Opposites, that inferiours not yeelding in small matters be guilty of contention against Superiours, answered.
#Sect. 22. Ceremonies not onely make the contention of the Church, but also nourish it: neither will the Church be quiet, so longe as they continew.
#Sect. 23. Conformitie in Ceremon. ought not to hinder peace, though with diversitie of Ceremonie.
#Sect. 24.
#Sect. 25. An exact vniformitie in Ceremonies, hath ever disquieted the Church and hindered the growth of it.
The Adulterie of the Crosse. Chap. 7.
The wrong of the Crosse. Chap. 8.
#Sect. 2. Vniust manner of proceeding and oath ex officio. &c. iust causes of complaint.
#Sect. 3. The violence of subscription iustly complayned off as most vniust.
The Slaunder of the Crosse. Chap. 9.
#Sect. 2. Seekers of Reformation, neither Donatistes, nor Anabaptistes, with neither of whom they haue any thing to doe.
#Sect. 3. Defence of the Ministers against the imputation of schisme, shewing what schisme is.
#Sect. 4. Defence of the Ministers against the imputation of sedition and faction.
#Sect. 5. Seekers of Reformation no Newfangelistes, no haters of Antiquitie, nor delighters in Noveltie. &c.
#Sect. 6. Aiust excuse both in regarde of the matter and manner of the Crosse.
#Sect. 7. The second exception proveth that the Crosse is neither truelie, nor soundlie auncient.
#Sect. 8. The second Exception against the Antiquitie of the Crosse.
#Sect. 9. The third Exception against the Antiquitie of the Crosse.
#Sect. 10. The 4. Exception against the Antiquitie of the Crosse, proving the crosse now vsed, not to be that the Fathers vsed.
#Sect. 11. The third Apologie against the slaunder of Newfanglednes in denyall of the Crosse.
The concupiscence of the Crosse. Chapter 10.
#Sect. 2. Three replyes against the evidences of the Crosses Concupiscence.
#Sect. 3. The second temptation the crosse giveth, is, that it maketh men to think it is the same in our vse with the popish and superstitious crosse.
#sect. 4. The third temptation of the crosse is by renewing the spirituall fornication and popish delight which it bred in former times of darknes.
#Sect. 5. The crosse tempteth alike to spirituall fornication as the presence of a woman to bodily fornication.
A Table of the contents of the severall Chapters and sections of this second part.
An Alphabeticall Table of some of the princi∣pall matters conteined in the second part of this Treatise.
Faults escaped in the printing of the second part.