Part 12 (1/2)

and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? and what agreement hath the temple of G.o.d with idols,” &c.

”Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing,” 2 Cor. vi. 14-17. ”If any man wors.h.i.+p the beast, and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of G.o.d,” Rev. xiv. 9.

And the apostle Jude ver. 12, will have us to hate the very garment spotted with the flesh, importing, that as under the law men were made unclean not only by leprosy, but by the garments, vessels and houses of leprous men, so do we contract the contagion of idolatry, by communicating with the unclean things of idolaters.

_Sect._ 3. Before we go further, we will see what our opposites have said to those Scriptures which we allege. Hooker saith,(574) that the reason why G.o.d forbade his people Israel the use of such rites and customs as were among the Egyptians and the Canaanites, was not because it behoved his people to be framed of set purpose to an utter dissimilitude with those nations, but his meaning was to bar Israel from similitude with those nations in such things as were repugnant to his ordinances and laws.

_Ans._ 1. Let it be so, he has said enough against himself. For we have the same reason to make us abstain from all the rites and customs of idolaters, that we may be barred from similitude with them in such things as are flatly repugnant to G.o.d's word, because dissimilitude in ceremonies is a bar to stop similitude in substance, and, on the contrary, similitude in ceremonies openeth a way to similitude in greater substance. 2. His answer is but a begging of that which is in question, forasmuch as we allege those laws and prohibitions to prove that all the rites and customs of those nations were repugnant to the ordinances and laws of G.o.d, and that Israel was simply forbidden to use them. 3. Yet this was not a framing of Israel of set purpose to an utter dissimilitude with those nations, for Israel used food and raiment, sowing and reaping, sitting, standing, lying, walking, talking, trading, laws, government, &c., notwithstanding that the Egyptians and Canaanites used so. They were only forbidden to be like those nations in such unnecessary rites and customs as had neither inst.i.tution from G.o.d nor nature, but were the inventions and devices of men only. In things and rites of this kind alone it is that we plead for dissimilitude with the idolatrous Papists; for the ceremonies in controversy are not only proved to be under the compa.s.s of such, but are, besides, made by the Papists badges and marks of their religion, as we shall see afterwards.

_Sect._ 4. To that place, 2 Cor. vi., Paybody answereth,(575) that nothing else is there meant, than that we must beware and separate ourselves from the communion of their sins and idolatries. _Ans._ 1. When the Apostle there forbiddeth the Corinthians to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, or to have any communion or fellows.h.i.+p with idolaters, and requireth them so to come out from among them, that they touch none of their unclean things, why may we not understand his meaning to be, that not only they should not partake with pagans in their idolatries, but that they should not marry with them, nor frequent their feasts, nor go to the theatre to behold their plays, nor go to law before their judges, nor use any of their rites? For with such idolaters we ought not to have any fellows.h.i.+p, as Zanchius resolves,(576) but only in so far as necessity compelleth, and charity requireth. 2. All the rites and customs of idolaters, which have neither inst.i.tution from G.o.d nor nature, are to be reckoned among those sins wherein we may not partake with them, for they are the unprofitable works of darkness, all which Calvin judgeth to be in that place generally forbidden,(577) before the Apostle descend particularly to forbid partaking with them in their idolatry. As for the prohibition of diverse mixtures, Paybody saith,(578) the Jews were taught thereby to make no mixture of true and false wors.h.i.+p. _Ans._ 1. According to his tenets, it followeth upon this answer, that no mixture is to be made betwixt holy and idolatrous ceremonies, for he calleth kneeling a _bodily wors.h.i.+p_, and a _wors.h.i.+p gesture_, more than once or twice. And we have seen before, how Dr Burges calleth the ceremonies _wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d_. 2. If mixture of true and false wors.h.i.+p be not lawful, then forasmuch as the ceremonies of G.o.d's ordinance, namely, the sacraments of the New Testament are true wors.h.i.+p; and the ceremonies of Popery, namely, cross, kneeling, holidays, &c., are false wors.h.i.+p; therefore, there ought to be no mixture of them together.

3. If the Jews were taught to make no mixture of true and false wors.h.i.+p, then by the self-same instruction, if there had been no more, they were taught also to shun all such occasions as might any ways produce such a mixture, and by consequence all symbolising with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies.

_Sect._ 5. As touching those laws which forbade the Israelites to make round the corners of their heads, or to mar the corners of their beards, or to make any cuttings in their flesh, or to make any baldness between their eyes, Hooker answereth,(579) that the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the tearing off the tufts of the beard, howbeit they were in themselves indifferent, yet they are not indifferent being used as signs of immoderate and hopeless lamentation for the dead; in which sense it is, that the law forbiddeth them. To the same purpose saith Paybody,(580) that the Lord did not forbid his people to mar and abuse their heads and beards for the dead, because the heathen did so, but because the practice doth not agree to the faith and hope of a Christian, if the heathen had never used it. _Ans._ 1. How much surer and sounder is Calvin's judgment,(581) _non aliud fuisse Dei consilium, quam ut interposito obstaculo populum suum a prophanis Gentibus dirimiret_? For albeit the cutting the hair be a thing in itself indifferent, yet because the Gentiles did use it superst.i.tiously, therefore, saith Calvin, albeit it was _per se medium, Deus tamen noluit populo suo liberum esse, ut tanquam pueri discerent ex parvis rudimentis, se non aliter Deo fore gratos, nisi exteris et proeputiatis essent prorsus dissimiles, ac longissime abessent ab eorum exemplis, praesertim vero ritus omnes fugerent, quibus testata fuerit religio_. So that from this law it doth most manifestly appear, that we may not be like idolaters, no not in things which are in themselves indifferent, when we know they do use them superst.i.tiously. 2. What warrant is there for this gloss, that the law forbiddeth the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the matting of the corners of the beard, to be used as signs of immoderate and hopeless lamentation for the dead, and that in no other sense they are forbidden? Albeit the cutting of the flesh may be expounded to proceed from immoderate grief, and to be a sign of hopeless lamentation; yet this cannot be said of rounding the hair, marring the beard, and making of baldness, which might have been used in moderate and hopeful lamentation, as well as our putting on of mourning apparel for the dead. The law saith nothing of the immoderate use of these things, but simply forbiddeth to round the head, or mar the beard for the dead; and that because this was one of the rites which the idolatrous and superst.i.tious Gentiles did use, concerning whom the Lord commanded his people, that they should not do like them, because he had chosen them to be a holy and peculiar people, above all people upon the earth. So that the thing which was forbidden, if the Gentiles had not used it, should have been otherwise lawful enough to G.o.d's people, as we have seen out of Calvin's commentary.

_Sect._ 6. Secondly, We have reason for that which we say; for by partaking with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we are made to partake with them in their religion too. For, _ceremonioe omnes sun quoedam protestationes fidei_, saith Aquinas.(582) Therefore _communio rituum est quasi symbolum communionis in religione_, saith Balduine.(583) They who did eat of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the altar, 1 Cor. x. 18, that is, saith Pareus,(584) _socios Judaicae religionis et cultus se profitebantur_. For the Jews by their sacrifices _mutuam in una eademque religione copulationem sanciunt_, saith Beza.(585) Whereupon Dr Fulk noteth,(586) that the Apostle in that place doth compare our sacraments with the altars, hosts, sacrifices or immolations of the Jews and Gentiles, ”in that point which is common to all ceremonies, to declare them that use them to be partakers of that religion whereof they be ceremonies.” If then Isidore thought it unlawful for Christians to take pleasure in the fables of heathen poets,(587) because _non solum thura offerendo daemonibus immolatur, sed etiam eorum dicta libentius capiendo_; much more have we reason to think that, by taking part in the ceremonies of idolaters, we do but offer to devils, and join ourselves to the service of idols.

_Sect._ 7. Thirdly, As by Scripture and reason, so by antiquity, we strengthen our argument. Of old, Christians did so shun to be like the pagans, that in the days of Tertullian it was thought they might not wear garlands, because thereby they had been made conform to the pagans. Hence Tertullian justifieth the soldier who refused to wear a garland as the pagans did.(588) Dr Mortoune himself allegeth another case out of Tertullian,(589) which maketh to this purpose, namely, that Christian proselytes did distinguish themselves from Roman pagans, by casting away their gowns and wearing of cloaks. But these things we are not to urge, because we plead not for dissimilitude with the Papists in civil fas.h.i.+ons, but in sacred and religious ceremonies. For this point then at which we hold us, we allege that which is marked in the third century out of Origen,(590) namely, that it was held unlawful for Christians to observe the feasts and solemnities, either of the Jews or of the Gentiles. Now we find a whole council determining thus,(591) _Non oportet a Judoeis vel h.o.e.reticis, feriatica quoe mittuntur accipere, nec c.u.m cis dies agere feriatos._ The council of Nice also condemned those who kept Easter upon the fourteenth day of the month. That which made them p.r.o.nounce so (as is clear from Constantine's epistle to the churches(592)) was, because they held it unbeseeming for Christians to have anything common with the Jews in their rites and observances. Augustine condemneth fasting upon the Sabbath day as scandalous, because the Manichees used so, and fasting upon that day had been a conformity with them;(593) and wherefore did Gregory advise Leander to abolish the ceremony of trim-immersion? His words are plain:(594) _Quia nunc huc usque ab h.o.e.reticis infans in baptismate tertio mergebatur, fiendum apud vos esse non censeo._ Why doth Epiphanius,(595) in the end of his books _contra haereses_, rehea.r.s.e all the ceremonies of the church, as marks whereby the church is discerned from all other sects?

If the church did symbolise in ceremonies with other sects, he could not have done so. And, moreover, find we not in the canons of the ancient councils,(596) that Christians were forbidden to deck their houses with green boughs and bay leaves, to observe the calends of January, to keep the first day of every month, &c., because the pagans used to do so? Last of all, read we not in the fourth century of the ecclesiastical history,(597) that the frame of Christians in that age was such, that _nec c.u.m haereticis commune quicquam habere voluerunt_?

_Sect._ 8. One would think that nothing could be answered to any of these things, by such as pretend no less than that they have devoted themselves to bend all their wishes and labours for procuring the imitation of venerable antiquity. Yet Hooker can coin a conjecture to frustrate all which we allege.(598) ”In things (saith he) of their own nature indifferent, if either councils or particular men have at any time with sound judgment misliked conformity between the church of G.o.d and infidels, the cause thereof hath not been affectation of dissimilitude, but some special accident which the church, not being always subject unto, hath not still cause to do the like. For example (saith he), in the dangerous days of trial, wherein there was no way for the truth of Jesus Christ to triumph over infidelity but through the constancy of his saints, whom yet a natural desire to save themselves from the flame might, peradventure, cause to join with the pagans in external customs, too far using the same as a cloak to conceal themselves in, and a mist to darken the eyes of infidels withal; for remedy hereof, it might be, those laws were provided.” _Ans._ 1. This answer is altogether doubtful and conjectural, made up of _if_, and _peradventure_, and _it might be_. Neither is anything found which can make such a conjecture probable. 2. The true reason why Christians were forbidden to use the rites and customs of pagans, was neither a bare affectation of dissimilitude, nor yet any special accident which the church is not always subject unto, but because it was held unlawful to symbolise with idolaters in the use of such rites as they placed any religion in. For in the fathers and councils which we have cited to this purpose, there is no other reason mentioned why it behoved Christians to abstain from those forbidden customs, but only because the pagans and infidels used so. 3. And what if Hooker's divination shall have place? Doth it not agree to us, so as it should make us mislike the Papists? Yes, sure, and more properly. For put the case, that those ancient Christians had not avoided conformity with pagans in those rites and customs which we read to have been forbidden them, yet for all that, there had been remaining betwixt them and the pagans a great deal more difference than will remain betwixt us and the Papists, if we avoid not conformity with them in the controverted ceremonies; for the pagans had not the word, sacraments, &c., which the Papists do retain, so that we may far more easily use the ceremonies as a mist to darken the eyes of the Papists, than they could have used those forbidden rites as a mist to darken the eyes of pagans. Much more, then, Protestants should not be permitted to conform themselves unto Papists in rites and ceremonies, lest, in the dangerous days of trial (which some reformed churches in Europe do presently feel, and which seem to be faster approaching to ourselves than the most part are aware of), they join themselves to Papists in these external things, too far using the same as a cloak to conceal themselves in, &c. 4. We find that the reason why the fourth council of Toledo forbade the ceremony of thrice dipping in water to be used in baptism, was,(599) lest Christians should seem to a.s.sent to heretics who divide the Trinity. And the reason why the same council forbade the clergymen to conform themselves unto the custom of heretics,(600) in the shaving off the hair of their head, is mentioned to have been the removing of conformity with the custom of heretics from the churches of Spain, as being a great dishonour unto the same. And we have heard before, that Augustine condemneth conformity with the Manichees, in fasting upon the Lord's day, as scandalous. And whereas afterwards the council of Caesar-Augusta forbade fasting upon the Lord's day, a grave writer layeth out the reason of this prohibition thus:(601) ”It would appear that this council had a desire to abolish the rites and customs of the Manichean heretics, who were accustomed to fast upon the Lord's day.”

Lastly, we have seen from Constantine's epistle to the churches, that dissimilitude with the Jews was one (though not the only one) reason why it was not thought beseeming to keep Easter upon the fourteenth day of the month. Who then can think that any special accident, as Hooker imagineth, was the reason why the rites and customs of pagans were forbidden to Christians? Were not the customs of the pagans to be held unbeseeming for Christians, as well as the customs of the Jews? Nay, if conformity with heretics (whom Hooker acknowledgeth to be a part of the visible church(602)), in their customs and ceremonies, was condemned as a scandal, a dishonour to the church, and an a.s.senting unto their heresies, might he not have much more thought that conformity with the customs of pagans was forbidden as a greater scandal and dishonour to the church, and as an a.s.senting to the paganism and idolatry of those that were without?

_Sect._ 9. But to proceed. In the fourth place, the canon law itself speaketh for the argument which we have in hand: _Non licet iniquas observationes agere calendarum, et otiis vacare Gentilibus, neque lauro, aut viriditate arborum, cingere domos: omnis enim haec observatio paganismi est._(603) And again: _Anathema sit qui ritum paganorum et calendarum observat._(604) And after: _Dies Aegyptiaci et Januarii calendae non sunt observandae._(605)

Fifthly, Our a.s.sertion will find place in the school too, which holdeth that Jews are forbidden to wear a garment of diverse sorts,(606) as of linen and woollen together, and that their women were forbidden to wear men's clothes, or their men women's clothes, because the Gentiles used so in the wors.h.i.+pping of their G.o.ds. In like manner, that the priests were forbidden to round their heads,(607) or mar their beards, or make incision in their flesh, because the idolatrous priests did so.(608) And that the prohibition which forbade the commixtion of beasts of diverse kinds among the Jews hath a figurative sense,(609) in that we are forbidden to make people of one kind of religion, to have any conjunction with those of another kind.

Sixthly, Papists themselves teach,(610) that it is generally forbidden to communicate with infidels and heretics, but especially in any act of religion. Yea, they think,(611) that Christian men are bound to abhor the very phrases and words of heretics, which they use. Yea, they condemn the very heathenish names of the days of the week imposed after the names of the planets,(612) Sunday, Monday, &c. They hold it altogether a great and d.a.m.nable sin to deal with heretics in matter of religion,(613) or any way to communicate with them in spiritual things. Bellarmine is plain,(614) who will have catholics to be discerned from heretics, and other sects of all sorts, even by ceremonies, because as heretics have hated the ceremonies of the church, so the church hath ever abstained from the observances of heretics.

_Sect._ 10. Seventhly, Our own writers do sufficiently confirm us in this argument. The bringing of heathenish or Jewish rites into the church is altogether condemned by them,(615) yea, though the customs and rites of the heathen(616) be received into the church for gaining them, and drawing them to the true religion, yet is it condemned as proceeding _ex ?a?a?????

seu prava Ethnicorum imitatione_. J. Rainolds(617) rejecteth the popish ceremonies, partly because they are Jewish, and partly because they are heathenish. The same argument Beza(618) useth against them. In the second command, as Zanchius(619) expoundeth it, we are forbidden to borrow anything, _ex ritibus idololatrarum Gentium_. _Fidelibus_ (saith Calvin(620)) _fas non est ullo symbolo ostendere, sibi c.u.m superst.i.tiosis esse consensum_. To conclude, then, since not only idolatry is forbidden, but also, as Pareus noteth,(621) every sort of communicating with the occasion, appearances, or instruments of the same; and since, as our divines have declared,(622) the Papists are in many respects gross idolaters, let us choose to have the commendation which was given to the ancient Britons for being enemies to the Roman customs,(623) rather than, as Pope Pius V. was forced to say of Rome,(624) that it did more _Gentilizare, quam Christianizare_; so they who would gladly wish they could give a better commendation to our church, be forced to say, that it doth not only more _Anglizare, quam Scotizare_, but also more _Romanizare, quam Evangelizare_.

_Sect._ 11. But our argument is made by a great deal more strong, if yet further we consider, that by the controverted ceremonies, we are not only made like the idolatrous Papists, in such rites of man's devising as they place some religion in, but we are made likewise to take upon us those signs and symbols which Papists account to be special badges of Popery, and which also, in the account of many of our own reverend divines, are to be so thought of. In the oath ordained by Pius IV., to be taken of bishops at their creation (as Onuphrius writeth(625)), they are appointed to swear, _Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejusdem ecclesiae observationes et const.i.tutiones firmissime admitto et amplector_; and after, _Receptos quoque ac approbatos ecclesiae Catholicae ritus, in supra dictorum sacramentorum solemni administratione, recipio, et admitto_. We see bishops are not created by this ordinance, except they not only believe with the church of Rome, but also receive her ceremonies, by which, as by the badges of her faith and religion, cognizance may be had that they are indeed her children. And farther, Papists give it forth plainly,(626) that as the church hath ever abstained from the observances of heretics, so now also catholics (they mean Romanists) are very well distinguished from heretics (they mean those of the reformed religion) by the sign of the cross, abstinence from flesh on Friday, &c. And how do our divines understand the mark of the beast, spoken of Rev. xiii. 16, 17?

Junius(627) comprehendeth confirmation under this mark. Cartwright(628) also referreth the sign of the cross to the mark of the beast. Pareus(629) approveth the Bishop of Salisbury's exposition, and placeth the common mark of the beast the observation of antichrist's festival days, and the rest of his ceremonies, which are not commanded by G.o.d. It seems this much has been plain to Joseph Hall, so that he could not deny it; for whereas the Brownists allege, that not only after their separation, but before they separated also, they were, and are verily persuaded that the ceremonies are but the badges and liveries of that man of sin whereof the Pope is the head and the prelates the shoulders,-he, in this _Apology_(630) against them, saith nothing to this point.

_Sect._ 12. As for any other of our opposites, who have made such answers as they could to the argument in hand, I hope the strength and force of the same hath been demonstrated to be such that their poor s.h.i.+fts are too weak for gain-standing it. Some of them (as I touched before) are not ashamed to profess that we should come as near to the Papists as we can, and therefore should conform ourselves to them in their ceremonies (only purging away the superst.i.tion), because if we do otherwise, we exasperate the Papists, and alienate them the more from our religion and reformation.

_Ans._ 1. Bastwick,(631) propounding the same objection, _Si quis objiciat nos ipsos pertinaci ceremoniarum papalium contemptu, Papistis offendiculum posuisse, quo minus se nostris ecclesiis a.s.socient_, he answereth out of the Apostle, Rom. xv. 2, that we are to please every one his neighbour only in good things to edification, and that we may not wink at absurd or wicked things, nor at anything in G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p which is not found in Scripture. 2. I have showed(632) that Papists are but more and more hardened in evil by this our conformity with them in ceremonies. 3. I have showed also,(633) the superst.i.tion of the ceremonies, even as they are retained by us, and that it is as impossible to purge the ceremonies from superst.i.tion, as to purge superst.i.tion from itself.

There are others, who go about to sew a cloak of fig leaves, to hide their conformity with Papists, and to find out some difference betwixt the English ceremonies and those of the Papists; so say some, that by the sign of the cross they are not ranked with Papists, because they use not the material cross, which is the popish one, but the aerial only. But it is known well enough that Papists do idolatrise the very aerial cross; for Bellarmine holds,(634) _venerabile esse signum crucis, quod effingitur in fronte, aere, &c._ And though they did not make an idol of it, yet forasmuch as Papists put it to a religious use, and make it one of the marks of Roman Catholics (as we have seen before), we may not be conformed to them in the use of the same. The fathers of such a difference between the popish cross and the English have not succeeded in this their way, yet their posterity approve their sayings, and follow their footsteps. Bishop Lindsey(635) by name will trade in the same way, and will have us to think that kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, and keeping of holidays, do not sort us with Papists; for that, as touching the former, there is a disconformity in the object, because they kneel to the sign, we to the thing signified. And as for the latter, the difference is in the employing of the time, and in the exercise and wors.h.i.+p for which the cessation is commanded. What is his verdict, then, wherewith he sends us away? Verily, that people should be taught that the disconformity between the Papists and us is not so much in any external use of ceremonies, as in the substance of the service and object whereunto they are applied. But, good man, he seeks a knot in the bulrush; for, 1, There is no such difference betwixt our ceremonies and those of the Papists, in respect of the object and wors.h.i.+p whereunto the same is applied, as he pretendeth; for, as touching the exercise and wors.h.i.+p whereunto holidays are applied, Papists tell us,(636) that they keep Pasche and Pentecost yearly for memory of Christ's resurrection, and the sending down of the Holy Ghost; and, I pray, to what other employment do Formalists profess that they apply these feasts, but to the commemoration of the same benefits? And as touching kneeling in the sacrament, it shall be proved in the next chapter, that they do kneel to the sign, even as the Papists do. In the meanwhile, it may be questioned whether the Bishop meant some such matter, even here where professedly he maketh a difference betwixt the Papists'

kneeling and ours. His words, wherein I apprehend this much, are these: ”The Papists in prayer kneel to an idol, and in the sacrament they kneel to the sign: we kneel in our prayer to G.o.d, and by the sacrament to the thing signified.” The a.n.a.logy of the ant.i.thesis required him to say, that we kneel ”in the sacrament” to the thing signified; but changing his phrase, he saith, that we kneel ”by the sacrament” to the thing signified.

Now, if we kneel ”by the sacrament to Christ,” then we adore the sacrament as _objectum materiale_, and Christ as _objectum formale_. Just so the Papists adore their images; because _per imaginem_, they adore _prototypon_. 2. What if we should yield to the Bishop that kneeling and holidays are with us applied to another service, and used with another meaning than they are with the Papists? Doth that excuse our conformity with Papists in the external use of these ceremonies? If so, J. Hart(637) did rightly argument out of Pope Innocentius, that the church doth not Judaise by the sacrament of unction or anointing, because it doth figure and work another thing in the New Testament than it did in the Old.

Rainold answereth, that though it were so, yet is the ceremony Jewish; and mark his reason (which carrieth a fit proportion to our present purpose), ”I trust (saith he) you will not maintain but it were Judaism for your church to sacrifice a lamb in burnt-offering, though you did it to signify, not Christ that was to come, as the Jews did, but that Christ is come,” &c. ”St. Peter did constrain the Gentiles to Judaise, when they were induced by his example and authority to follow the Jewish rite in choice of meats; yet neither he nor they allowed it in that meaning which it was given to the Jews in; for it was given them to betoken that holiness, and train them up into it, which Christ by his grace should bring to the faithful. And Peter knew that Christ had done this in truth, and taken away that figure, yea the whole yoke of the law of Moses; which point he taught the Gentiles also. Wherefore, although your church do keep the Jewish rites with another meaning than G.o.d ordained them for the Jews, &c., yet this of Peter showeth that the thing is Jewish, and you to Judaise who keep them.” By the very same reasons prove we that Formalists do Romanise by keeping the popish ceremonies, though with another meaning, and to another use, than the Romanists do. The very external use, therefore, of any sacred ceremony of human inst.i.tution, is not to be suffered in the matter of wors.h.i.+p, when in respect of this external use we are sorted with idolaters. 3. If conformity with idolaters in the external use of their ceremonies be lawful, if so be there be a difference in the substance of the wors.h.i.+p and object whereunto they are applied, then why were Christians forbidden of old (as we have heard before) to keep the calends of January, and the first day of every month, forasmuch as the pagans used so? Why was trin-immersion in baptism, and fasting upon the Lord's day forbidden, for that the heretics did so? Why did the Nicene fathers inhibit the keeping of Easter upon the fourteenth day of the month,(638) so much the rather because the Jews kept it on that day? The Bishop must say there was no need of shunning conformity with pagans, Jews, heretics, in the external use of their rites and customs, and that a difference ought to have been made only in the object and use whereunto the same was applied. Nay, why did G.o.d forbid Israel to cut their hair as the Gentiles did? Had it not been enough not to apply this rite to a superst.i.tious use, as Aquinas showeth(639) the Gentiles did? Why was the very external use of it forbidden?