Two Popish Heretics Confuted, Rejoinder · Article 2
The second Article.
That the crosse of Christ was prefigured in the law of nature,Martial. foreshewen by the figures of Moses lawe, denounced by the prophetes, and shewed from heauen in the time of grace.
Maister Calfhil saide,Fulke. that the signe of the crosse was neither prefigured in the lawe of nature, nor foreshewed by the figures of Moses law, nor denounced by the prophetes, nor shewed from heauen in the time of grace, but the passion of Christ & manner of his death. Against whom commeth forth Martiall and offereth to prooue, that the crosse whereon Christe died, was prefigured, &c. which is no contradiction of M. Calfhils assertion. Although the fathers rather dallie in trifling allegories, then soundly to prooue that the crosse was prefigured in those places which he alledgeth: as August. Contra Faust. lib. 12. cap. 34. that the two stickes which the widowe of Sarepta gathered, did prefigure the crosse whereon Christ died, not only by the name of wood, but by the number of the stickes, Et de 5. heres. ad quod vult de. cap. 2. that Moses lifting vp his handes to heauen, did prefigure the crosse whereby Christ should redeeme the worlde: So saith Tertullian and Augustine in diuers places. All which proue not that the image or signe of the crosse, but that ye crosse it selfe, whereon Christ died, was prefigured, whereof we make no question, but it might be, seeing it was in Gods determination that Christe should die on the crosse: although we would wish sounder proofes then these, for such prefiguration. Here would Martiall excuse his ridiculous argument, because it is not in mode and figure, but in deede it fayleth both in forme and matter, for his minor is false, yt the signe of ye crosse was prefigured by ye hands of Moses. As though there were no difference between the crosse on which Christ suffered, & a superstitious signe of the crosse yt a Papist maketh: Concerning the signe Thau in Ezechiel cap. 9. I hauehave spoken sufficiently in the first article, that it was not the figure of any letter like a crosse, but a marke vnnamed, or described as Apo. 7. And wheras Hierome saith, that the Samaritanes had a letter somewhat like a crosse, it is not to be throught yt the Samaritanes had the true forme of letters, and the Iewes lost it. Chrysostome draweth it to the Greeke letter, and trifleth of the number which the letter Tau signifieth: Tertulliā is indifferent betweene the Latine latter and ye Greeke, & setteth this T for the marke of his forehead, differing somewhat from our Popishe ✚,In Mark. H 14. adver. Mar. li. 30. for which cause Martiall calleth the character of the Latine letter, Tau saying Our Tau is a signe of the crosse. But of this marke more. Art. 1. and in my answere to D. Sanders booke of Images Cap. 13. or 12. Concerning the figure of ye crosse, that was in the olde time in the idol Serapis, wherunto he thinketh scorne to be sent for the antiquity of that signe, he answereth out of Socrates, that it was there set by the prouidence of God, as the inscription of the altar in Athens, and among the Hyeroglyphical letters of the Aegyptian priestes, signified life to come. But this proueth no more ye superstitious vse therof, then ye alter in Athens proueth, that we should set vp such altars, and dedicate them to the vnknowen God. Next followeth the brawle about the story of Constantines crosse, which should be the figure of the crosse shewed from heauen in the time of grace, wherein Martial noteth no lesse then sixe contradictions & foure lyes in, in M. Calfhil, but of them let the reader iudge.
The signe shewed, I hauehave prooued before, not to hauehave bene Martials crosse, but the Character of the name of Christ, and so doth Constantinus himselfe cal it, speaking to Christe, foreign, &c. Holding forth thy Character I hauehave ouercome, &c. meaning the standerd in which that Character was imbrodered. But of this I hauehave spoken sufficient Art. 1. and against D. Sanders booke of images cap. 13. Ar. or after the errour of his print. After much wrangling and brabbling about M. Calfhils principles, wherein it were easie to displaye Martials follie, but that I hauehave professed to omit such by matters, he cōmeth to the signe of the crosse shewed to Iulian, & marked in his souldiers apparell: which if it were true, as Sozomenus reporteth it, yet proueth it not yt the signe of the crosse was shewed from heauen that it should be vsed of Christians: and the lesse, because it was shewed to none but Iewes, and forsakers of Christian religion, as Maister Calfhill noteth: which might probably be thought to be the marke of persecuters, rather then of Christians. But seeing the Signe of the crosse hath very often times appeared not onelyonly in cloudes, but also on mennes apparell, with diuers other sightes, as Conradus Lycosthenes in his booke De Prodigijs obserueth, whether the cause of those apparitions be naturall, or supernaturall, or sometime perhaps artificiall, the appearing of that signe from heauen doeth no more argue an allowance of the Popish ceremonie of crossing in religion, then the appearing of other shapes and sightes in heauen, doe teache vsus to frame ceremonies of armour, of horsemen, of beastes, of trees, of pillers, of circles, and such like, because the figures of them hauehave ben shewed from heauē. So that hitherto the signe of the crosse hath not bene prooued to hauehave bene prefigured in the lawe of nature, nor of Moses, neither denounced by the prophetes, nor vsed by the Apostles, nor shewed from heauen to be a pattern of ye allowance of superstitious crossing among ye Papistes.