"History of the Cross" Important Quotations

The following extracts come from an extremely old book, yet extremely valuable book:

Ward, H.D. History of the Cross. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871.

The PDF of the book was retrieved from Prof. Robinson's website: www.quotedstatements.com

And while it is true that the author can at times be overly vocal in his criticisms of Catholicism on theological grounds, that should be kept separate, and should not detract from the hard historical evidence and background given by Ward (which is what the following quotes focus on).



History of the Cross foreword by Paul Tice

Certain pagans, however, who already accepted a cross within their beliefs, would be more inclined to embrace Christianity if a cross was suddenly adopted into it. Adding a cross, as with other pagan ideals, created a far smoother transition or “crossing over” (if you’ll excuse the pun) into Christianity for pagans. It was a rather convenient arrangement for those in power at the time, because Christianity had been struggling for its survival for centuries and was making an effort to bring everyone together using pagan ideas.

History of the Cross foreword by Paul Tice

The Bogomils clearly considered the cross not as an item to be worshipped, but one to be despised. They posed the problem in the form of a rhetorical question, asking, “If someone killed the king’s son with a piece of wood, do you think the king would regard that weapon as holy?” It was what killed the savior Christ, so there was certainly no need to worship it. They called it the “adversary of God” and considered it of the devil. In fact, all icons were taboo to the Bogomils, as they were to the early Christians.

Page 3

Israel sacrificed, feasted, danced before the golden calf, and shouted, “These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt!” They knew there was no divinity or power in the golden image; but they worshipped before it in honour of the invisible God whose presence the idol was made to represent. All the heathen confess that their idols are only types of the divinities which they represent, while the deities themselves dwell in heave. They think, however, in common with our brethren of Trent, that the images, pictures, and altars before which they worship with sacrifices, incense, prayers, and praise, are objects of humble reverence, and that the image is especially dear to the invisible spirit represented, whether a demon or a saint; and they worship it accordingly.

Pages 4, 5

It is a lifeless, senseless, and yet deceitful vanity. “It suggests nothing of sacrifice and self-denial; nothing of conflict with the forces of evil; nothing of the painful and lingering death of sinful passions in the natural heart.” On the contrary, it is the banner of Papal tyranny, and the sign of this world’s conversion into a blissful kingdom of millennial or of eternal life and glory!

Page 5

The bearer of a shining cross in gold, or pearl, or precious stones, a follower of Jesus, whose murderers compelled a man passing by to bear His stauros for Him, faint and exhausted, to Calvary! The wearer of this image never faints under the burden. A glittering cross is oftener borne in pride of circumstance than in poverty of spirit and in heaviness of heart. It is put on in the love of admiration and in reverence of the image; and not for humiliation and renunciation of the pomp and glory of this world.

Pages 16, 17

Crosses must have been commonly of the simplest form, “because they were used in such marvelous numbers. Of Jews alone, Alexander Janneus crucified 800, Varus, 2000, Hadrian, 500 a day; and the gentle Titus that there was no room for the crosses, nor the crosses for the bodies.”—Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Alexander the Great crucified 2000 Tyrians, and both the Sogdian king and people, for their brave defence of their several countries. And Augustus crucified 600 Sicilians. Under such circumstances, men could not be particular about the form of the stauros, or the manner of applying it.

Page 19

“The Buddhists of Tartary reverence the form of the cross in many ways, and use the sign of the cross as a charm to dispel invisible dangers, proving the Babylonian origin of their system. The mystic “T”, the initial of Tammuz, was variously written. It was marked on the forehead of the worshippers when they were admitted to the mysteries.”—Ilus. His. Ind. vol. i. ch. ii. p. 50.

Page 20

“One of Cortex lieutenants passed over from the island of Cosumel to the continent, and coasted the peninsula of Yucatan as far as Campeachy. Everywhere he was struck with the evidences of a higher civilization. He was astonished at the sight of large stone crosses, evidently objects of worship, which he met with in various places. It is a curious fact, that the cross was consecrated as the object of religious worship, both in the New World, and in regions of the Old, where the light of Christianity had never come.”—Hist. Mex. i. 225, 268.

Page 21

For though Aaron and all Israel made of their ornaments the golden calf, and danced, feasted, and shouted before it, “Behold, these be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt;” and though the chief Pontiff and all Christendom make an ornament of the image of the cross, and lift it in reverence and worship, on their person, on the church spire, and on the communion-table in the house of God, and say, “Behold the cross of thy Lord and Saviour! Behold, these be thy Saviour, O Israel, which redeemed thee from the bondage of corruption!” the images alike are idols—the image of the calf and the image of the cross, both are a pretence and an abomination, supplanting, with a dumb show, the presence of the Living God, and closing the heart against Jesus Christ crucified: “Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. i.24).

Pages 29, 30

In the early ages, many half-converted heathen readily received these wonders [discussing apocryphal writings such as the books of Barnabas and Nicodemas] in the names of the apostles, and mingled them with the fables of their own superstition. Thus the wonder grew, until all Christendom has bowed to the power of the sing and image of the cross, promptly as the angel-guard did at the gate of Beelzebub’s dominions.

Page 30

The total silence of the apostles, and of their immediate successors, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, with regard to the wood, and the form, and the sign of the cross, contrasts well with the swelling words of het pretended Barnabas and Nicodemus. And the same silence is noticeable in the “Shepherd of Hermas”—a work of the imagination, belonging to the fore part of the second century. This work occupies eighty pages of the apocryphal Testament, full of Scripture doctrine and of saintly imagination, in which one looks in vain for any reference to the wood, image, sign, or power of the wooden cross.

Page 31

Through this cloud of symbolism, fiction, and superstition, one thing is clear—the glory of the image of the cross! However difficult for a naturalist to understand Justin’s unicorn, no mortal can mistake his glorifying the form of the cross in the spit of the Paschal lamb, and in the horns of the unicorn, and in the posture of Moses. The very extravagance of the ideas interests some minds, like Munchausen stories, professing even the deluge to by typical of our salvation, “by water, and faith, and wood.”—Justin, p. 239

Page 37

He [Cyprian], was an admirer of the works of his countryman Tertullian, and followed him, as Tertullian did Justin and Barnabas, in the matter of Joshua’s victory over Amalek, with this difference: they impute the victory to the power in the form and sign of the cross, but Cyprian imputes it to the suffering and sign of Christ. “In the passion and the sign of the cross,” he says, “is all virtue and power. In the sign of the cross is salvation to all who are marked in their foreheads.” The passion and suffering was on the wood; but the sign and the mark were the initial of Christ, as Cyprian explained it. For the custom of marking the baptized on the forehead with “the sign of Christ”—X—is primitive: not with the murderous stauros, not with the stauros of agony and death; but with the initial of “Christ and of God,” says Cyprian. As it is written: “Having His own and His Father’s Name written in their foreheads” (Rev. xiv. 1, and xxii. 3). “Muniatur frons, ut signum Dei incolume servetur.” Signum Dei—the sign of God;--not of the arboris infelicis—accursed tree. Again, Cyprian says, “They only escape who are born again, and signed with the sign of Christ—signo Christi signati fuerint,”—which is the initial of the owners name, X; a cross truly, not of shame and death, but of eternal life and glory. Signum Dei, Christi signum—the mark of Christ, which his servants put upon the lambs received into Christ’s flock.—Bingham’s Ant. B. xi. C. 9, sec. 5 note.

Page 38

That the mark of Christ’s name, and not of the wood of His cross, was used in baptism, St Augustine declares, saying, “How many have the mark of Christ on their forehead who have not the doctrine of Christ in their heart! Quam multi habent in fronte signum Christi, et in corde non recipient verbum Christi.”—Aug. Tract 50, on John xi. 55. Quoted by Elliott’s Horb Apoc.

Page 39

“that Gregory Thaumaturgus, the bishop of Great Armenia, first of all commanded the wooden crosses which were set up by him in certain places, to be adored: ante omnes cruces ligneas, quibusdam in locis a se collocates, adoari.”—Bar. Ann., A.D. 311., sec. 23

Page 39

Of all Bishops, this wonder worker is declared, on the highest Roman authority, to be the first to introduce the worship of wooden crosses by his own command. Gregory Nyssen, a century later, celebrating the memory of his great namesake, tells how he brought about that conversion of the heathen which followed. To save his life in the Decian persecution, this Bishop Gegory fled the country. After the persecution had spent itself, he returned home, and instituted festal days commemorating the martyrs, and commanded the worship of the wooden crosses. And says Nyssen, “When he saw how the simple and illiterate multitude persisted in their false esteem of images, in order that he might by all means perfect what is most excellent in them, to whit: that forsaking vain superstitions, they should turn unto God, he permitted them to make merry, solace themselves, and riot in joy, in honour of the holy martyrs!” “And why not?” asks Cardinal Baronius on a like occasion. “Is it not lawful to transfer to pious uses things consecrated by a sacred rite, which things were impiously used by the pagans in superstition worship; that by a high contempt of the devil, in the very way he delights to be worshipped, Christ may be honoured of all”—Ann. Vol. i. p. 198.

Pages 40-41

which the Cardinal [Baronius] graces with words of Theodoret, triumphing over the fallen gods of the heathen, and saying: “Our Lord brought His own dead into the temples of your gods, which gods, vain indeed, and stript of their glory, He dismissed: but gave honour to His martyrs. Instead of feasts of Pan, of Jupiter, and of Bacchus, solemnities, with a fast, are performed in honour of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Sergius, and other holy martyrs. So what was done in heathen superstition, the same having been sanctified for the worship of the true God, might be done in the service of the true religion.”—Bar. Ann. Vol. i. p. 198. This language allows the removal of the image of Jupiter, that once stood in the ancient capital, to a high place in St Peter’s of Rome, equally with the conversion of the Mexican’s from worshipping the symbol of the rain-god to the worship of the same image for the sign of salvation. So Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and Milcom, and the rest, lying vanities of the heathen, having been once consecrated by a sacred rite, might be dedicated to Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or evn to Christ, and “worshipped with a high contempt of the devil, in the very way he delights to be worshipped,” with honour to the saints, and glory to Him, who says, “Thou shalt have no other gods but me.” Thus it came to pass, in the fifth and sixth centuries, that pagan temples, by the sprinkling with holy water, were converted into places of Christian worship, and were made receptacles for fragments of the cross, and the relics of martyrs; and the more readily to gain the attendance of the people at the house of worship, eminent bishops suffered the old idols and altars to remain, under the name of the patron saint, the Virgin, or the Apostles, and to receive the honours supposed to be due to their images and likenesses. Such is the fruit of symbolism, which man invents for the honour of God, and plants for cultivation among the sacred rites of our holy religion; as may be seen in all Continental Europe at this day, where the walls of Roman Catholic Churches are furnished with numerous altars for the worship of favourite saints, and above each altar is a picture or likeness of the saint.

Page 44

”Let us not be ashamed of the cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou seal it on thy brow, that the devil, beholding that princely sign, may flee far away, trembling. But make thon this sign, when though eatest and drunkest, sittest or liest down; risest up, speakest, walkest; in a word, on every occasion” (p. 40 of “Library of the Fathers,” quoting Cyril). This “princely sign” was the sign of God, the initial of Christ, not the ignominious sign of the accursed tree. It was Christi signum, X, the same handed down to this day in the customs of the Latin clergy, who cross themselves on all occasions, not with the sign of the murderous wood, but with “the princely sign” of the King of glory.

Page 49, 50

“That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of those initiated in the mysteries, and was used in every variety of way, as a most sacred symbol.” (Crabb’s Mythology p. 193)—Hislop’s Two Babylons, pp. 288-294.

Page 51

“Egypt, which was never thoroughly evangelical, appears to have taken the lead in bringing in this pagan symbol. The first form of that which is called the Christian Cross, found there on Christian monuments, is the unequivocal pagan Tau, or Egyptian ‘sign of life.’ The design of its first employment on their sepulchers, therefore, could have no reference to the crucifixion, but was simply the result of the attachment to old and long-cherished pagan symbols, still strong in those who adopt the Christian name, while largely pagan in heart and feeling. This, and this only, is the origin of the worship of the cross” (Wilkinson, vol. 5 pp. 283, 284).—Hislop’s Two Babylons, pp. 288-294.

Page 53

Inquiring about this image, three things surprise us:--

I. The fact that a great variety of wholly unlike forms are, by the common and universal consent of the learned, called by the same name, “the cross,” and are understood to mean the cross or stauros of our Lord Jesus Christ.

II. That the figure of the cross, used among the primitive Christians, was X (ki), the Greek initial of Christ, for a sign of Christ, as authors to this day make in their manuscripts X for Christ, and Xmas for Christmas, and Xian for Christian.

III. The third thing that exceedingly surprises us is, to find that this sign and image, commonly called the cross, was a profane symbol in heathen mysteries, exalted and honoured from Babylon to Jerusalem, from the Nile to the Gangres, and from Syria to Britain many centuries before our era. These are facts fully established, but not generally known.

Pages 53, 54

For no writer of the age and the school of the apostles ever mentions, or alludes to any sign, image, or form of the stauros, other than its name implies, one pale or stake, except a certain man under the assumed name of “Barnabas, the companion in labour of Paul, the apostle.” The counterfeit Nicodemus follows in the same path, setting forth the power of the sign of the wood in Hades. Minutius Felix and Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century, follow, coyly teaching that it is no worse for Christians to worship the wooden cross, than for the pagans to worship their wooden gods and trophies and eagles. Cyprian, A.D. 250-8, acknowledges the sign in the form of the initial of Christ—not the pagan image, but “Christi signum, signum Dei—the symbol of Christ and of God.” And finally, we learn that Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, A.D. 350, comes boldy forth for the sign of the wood, and for the wood of the stauros, without saying ever a word about the form f the image of the stauros, or about worshipping it. He neither made nor vended images; but he pretended to have the original wood, with portions of which he parted, as a special favour to them that were worth; and the wood grew in his keeping, so as, in his own words, “to fill the whole world,” which many believed, if he did not.

Page 59

This shows unerringly the character of the vision, dream, or sign seen of Constantine in heaven, and marked on his helmet and the shields of his soldiers. It was X (ki) for Christ, not “T” (tau) for his cross.

Page 59

This testimony of the Emperor Julian confirms the fact that in the fourth century the sign of the cross, universally recognized for the mark of a Christian, was X for Christ, and not “T” for the instrument of his most cruel death.

Page 64

No reader would suspect, from Gibbon’s description, that the stauros, the monogram, and the Latin cross, are symbols wholly different in shape and in sense. No one would suppose that the historian, by the cross, intends the monogram. The error is palpable and universal: every eye detects it in a moment, yet the ear accepts the error in one word—“the cross”—for the name of the many differing symbols, of which the meaning is infinitely more unlike than the form.

Pages 68, 69

The tombs in the catacombs under the city of Rome number above six millions, ranged on each side of galleries not always connected, which would, if extended in one line, reach above seven hundred miles, according to Louis Perret, who spent fourteen years in exploring them and copying their inscriptions. The French Government, at their expense, published his work in five folio volumes, thus giving it the sanction of the best Roman Catholic authority on such a subject in Christendom. This work, with that of Cav. De Rossi, the head commissioner appointed by Pius IX. For the preservation of the monuments of Christian art in Rome, furnish ample testimony to the correctness of our views. The sepulchral inscriptions of Christians in Rome from A.D. 71 to 600, amount to about 11,000; 6000 of which are from the catacombs, the others from monuments above ground. Of those from the catacombs, 4000 are believed to ante-date the Council of Nice, A.D. 325. Of this 6000, only 1250 are dated, leaving the age of the others to be inferred on a comparison of the likeness in the form and character of the letters with those which are dated. From A.D. 71 to 300, not thirty of these inscriptions bear dates. From A.D. 325 to 410, when Alaric took Rome, every ear has dated inscriptions, in all not less than 500; but that year had none. From that to the end of the fifth century, are 500 dated inscriptions; in the former half of the sixth century are about 200, and in the latter half 50. Only seven belong to the seventh century. Not until the latter years of the fourth century does the sign of the cross of wood appear. The Greek contraction for the name of Christ was exclusively in favour from the earliest date, concealed in the device of the monogram [see below image]

Page 70

“In our walks through the catacombs,” says Mons. Perret, “we were struck with the absence of all representations of martyrdom. One does not meet there with an image of Jesus on the cross.” (vol. iii. p. 72) If an image appear, M. Perret is careful to testify that it does not belong to that age: “For it is noticeable that in the primitive age they did not place before the yes of the faithful any image of Jesus Christ on the cross. They were content, out of regard to feeble souls, to paint the cross at first naked, but oftener concealed in the monogram; next, adorned with flowers, precious stones, and crowns; afterwards it was associated with a lamb lying beneath it. It was in the sixth century they began to delineate the bust of the Saviour, as one may see it in the Vatican cross; and even the whole body, with the hands and feet pierced with nails.” (vol. iii., 91. See also Schaff’s Hist., vol. iii., 561)

Pages 71, 72

The tau sign of the cross began to appear among the symbols of the Roman church in the pontificate of Damascus , whose bloody strife with Ursinus for the episcopate makes his reign famous, A.D. 367 to 385. It was nearly three centuries later before the public heart became so hardened as to allow an image of our Saviour suspended on the cross. The Council of Trullo, A.D. 692, in canon 82, first decreed, “That Christ, represented at the cross by a lamb, should, for the future, be imaged under His human form” (Rock’s Hierurg., 356).

Page 73

Three things visibly conspired to work this change of the sign of Christ:—

I. The forged testimony of Barnabas and of Nicodemus.

II. The natural disposition of the Pagans in adopting their Emperor’s new religion, to keep the old symbols, forms and festivals, under new names. The ignorant, who were accustomed to worship Ashtoreth, or Astarte, by the symbol of Tammuz, learned readily by the same sign to worship after their manner the crucified Christ.

III. Three trumpet-tongued wonders of the middle of the fourth century: First, Helena’s find the wood of our Saviour’s cross. Second, The multiplication of that wood in all lands. Third, the vision of the monogram, called the cross, said to have been seen in heaven at midday above the brightness of the sun, by Constantine and his whole army!