Sect._ 6. Hooker muttereth some such matter as a commendation of the sign
of the cross from these two places, Ezek. ix. 4; Rev. vii. 3; alleging,
that because in the forehead nothing is more plain to be seen than the
fear of contumely and disgrace, therefore the Scripture describeth them
marked of God in the forehead, whom his mercy hath undertaken to keep from
final confusion and shame.(833) Bellarmine allegeth for the cross the same
two places.(834) But for answer to the first, we say, that neither the
sign whereof we read in that place, nor yet the use of it can make aught
for them. As for the sign itself; albeit the ancients did interpret the
sign of the letter _Tau_, to have been the sign of the cross, yet saith
Junius, _Bona illorum venia; Tquidem Graecorum, Latinorumque majusculum,
crucis quodam modo signum videtur effingere, verum hoc ad literam
Haebreorum_ Tau _non potest pertinere. Deinde ne ipsum quidem Grcaecorum
Latinorumque T, formam crucis quae apud veteres in usu erat quum
sumebantur supplicia, representat._(835)

Whereupon dissenting from the ancients, he delivers his own judgment, that
_tau_ in this place is taken _technicos_, for that sign or mark of the
letter wherewith the Lord commanded to mark the elect for their safety and
preservation. And so there was no mystery to be sought in that letter more
than in any other. As for the use of that mark wherewith the elect in
Jerusalem were at that time sealed, it was only for distinction and
separation. It had the same use which that sprinkling of the posts of the
doors had, Exod. xii. 7, only the foreheads of men and women, and not the
posts of doors were here marked, because only the remnant according to
election, and not whole families promiscuously, were at this time to be
spared, as Junius noteth.

But the use of the sign of the cross pretended by Formalists, is not to
separate us in the time of judgment, 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 judgment; 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, Ezek. ix. 4, is to take _Tau_ for an appellative noun,
signifying generally and indefinitely a mark or sign, so that there is no
mark determined by this word; only there was a commandmen