A01760:551
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our own arguments [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the answers and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Morton ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.
Leiden: printed by W. Christiaens, 1637
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But the use of the sign of the Cross pretended by Formalists, is not to separate us in the time of Judgement, but to teach that at no time we ought to be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ.
But the use of the signe of the Crosse pretended by Formalists, is not to separate us in the time of Iudgement, but to teach that at no time we ought to be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ.
Shortly, the sign wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for preservation from Judgement, but the sign of the Cross is used for preservation from sin. Thus we see, that neither the sign nor the use of it, had any affinity with the Cross. Now, the surest interpretation of that place Ezech. 9 4. is to take Tau for an appellative noun, signifying generally and indefinitely a Mark or a Sign, so that there is no make determined by this word: only there was a commandment given to set a certain mark, some sign or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have our English Translators taken the place.
Shortly, the signe wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for preservation from Iudgement, but the signe of the Crosse is used for preservation from sinne. Thus we see, that neither the signe nor the use of it, had any affinity with the Crosse. Now, the surest interpreation of that place Ezech. 9 4. is to take Tau for an apellative noune, signifying generally and indefinitly a Marke or a Signe, so that there is no make determined by this word: only there was a commandemēt given te set a certaine marke, some signe or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have our English Translatours taken the place.