IV.11. Their exception against such ceremonies as we have received from the church of Rome, that church having taken them from the Jews.

XI. Against such ceremonies generally as are the same in the church of England and of Rome, we see what hath been hitherto alleged. Albeit therefore we do not find the one church’s having of such things to be sufficient cause why the other should not have them: nevertheless, in case it may be proved, that amongst the number of rites and orders common unto both, there are particulars, the use whereof is utterly unlawful in regard of some special bad and noisome quality; there is no doubt but we ought to relinquish such rites and orders, what freedom soever we have to retain the other still. As therefore we have heard their general exception against all those things, which being not commanded in the word of God, were first received in the church of Rome, and from thence have been derived into ours; so it followeth that now we proceed unto certain kinds of them, as being excepted against not only for that they are in the church of Rome, but are besides either Jewish, or abused unto idolatry, and so grown scandalous.

The church of Rome, they say, being ashamed of the simplicity of the gospel, did almost out of all religions take whatsoever had any fair and gorgeous show¹, borrowing in that respect from the Jews sundry of their abolished ceremonies. Thus by foolish and ridiculous imitation, all their massing furniture almost they took from the Law, lest having an altar and a priest, they should want vestments for their stage²; so that whatsoever we have in common with the church of Rome, if the same be of this kind we ought to remove it. “Constantine the emperor speaking of the keeping of the feast of Easter, saith, ‘That it is an unworthy thing to have any thing common with that most spiteful company of the Jews³.’ And a little after he saith, ‘That it is most absurd and against reason, that the Jews should vaunt and glory that the Christians could not keep those things without their doctrine.’ And in another place it is said after this sort; ‘It is convenient so to order the matter, that we have nothing common with that nation⁴.’ The council of Laodicea, which was afterwards confirmed by the sixth general council⁵, decreed ‘that the Christians should not take unleavened bread of the Jews, or communicate with their impiety⁶.’ ”

For the easier manifestation of truth in this point, two things there are which must be considered: namely, the causes wherefore the Church should decline from Jewish ceremonies; and how far it ought so to do. One cause is that the Jews were the deadliest and spitefullest enemies of Christianity that were in the world, and in this respect their orders so far forth to be shunned, as we have already set down in handling the matter of heathenish ceremonies. For no enemies being so venomous against Christ as Jews, they were of all other most odious, and by that mean least to be used as fit church-patterns for imitation. Another cause is the solemn abrogation of the Jews’ ordinances; which ordinances for us to resume, were to check our Lord himself which hath disannulled them. But how far this second cause doth extend, it is not on all sides fully agreed upon. And touching those things whereunto it reacheth not, although there be small cause wherefore the Church should frame itself to the Jews’ example in respect of their persons which are most hateful; yet God himself having been the author of their laws, herein they are (notwithstanding the former consideration) still worthy to be honoured, and to be followed above others, as much as the state of things will bear.

Jewish ordinances had some things natural, and of the perpetuity of those things no man doubteth. That which was positive we likewise know to have been by the coming of Christ partly necessary not to be kept, and partly indifferent to be kept or not. Of the former kind circumcision and sacrifice were. For this point Stephen was accused, and the evidence which his accusers brought against him in judgment was, “This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the Law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the ordinances that Moses gave us⁷.” True it is that this doctrine was then taught, which unbelievers condemning for blasphemy did therein commit that which they did condemn. The Apostles notwithstanding from whom Stephen had received it, did not so teach the abrogation, no not of those things which were necessarily to cease, but that even the Jews being Christian, might for a time continue in them. And therefore in Jerusalem the first Christian bishop not circumcised was Mark; and he not bishop till the days of Adrian the emperor, after the overthrow of Jerusalem: there having been fifteen bishops before him which were all of the circumcision⁸.

The Christian Jews did think at the first not only themselves but the Christian Gentiles also bound, and that necessarily, to observe the whole Law. There went forth certain of the sect of Pharisees which did believe, and they coming unto Antioch, taught that it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised, and to keep the Law of Moses⁹. Whereupon there grew dissension, Paul and Barnabas disputing against them. The determination of the council held at Jerusalem concerning this matter was finally this; “Touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and determined that they observe no such thing¹⁰.” Their protestation by letters is, “Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which departed from us have troubled you with words, and cumbered your minds, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the Law; know that we gave them no such commandment¹¹.” Paul therefore continued still teaching the Gentiles, not only that they were not bound to observe the laws of Moses, but that the observation of those laws which were necessarily to be abrogated, was in them altogether unlawful. In which point his doctrine was misreported, as though he had every where preached this, not only concerning the Gentiles, but also touching the Jews. Wherefore coming unto James and the rest of the clergy at Jerusalem, they told him plainly of it, saying, “Thou seest, brother, how many thousand Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law. Now they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are amongst the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and sayest that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to live after the customs¹².” And hereupon they give him counsel to make it apparent in the eyes of all men, that those flying reports were untrue, and that himself being a Jew kept the Law even as they did.

In some things therefore we see the Apostles did teach, that there ought not to be conformity between the Christian Jews and Gentiles. How many things this law of inconformity did comprehend, there is no need we should stand to examine. This general is true, that the Gentiles were not made conformable unto the Jews, in that which was necessarily to cease at the coming of Christ.

Touching things positive, which might either cease or continue as occasion should require, the Apostles tendering the zeal of the Jews, thought it necessary to bind even the Gentiles for a time to abstain as the Jews did, “from things offered unto idols, from blood, from strangled¹³.” These decrees were every where delivered unto the Gentiles to be straitly observed and kept¹⁴. In the other matters, where the Gentiles were free, and the Jews in their own opinion still tied, the Apostles’ doctrine unto the Jew was, “condemn not the Gentile;” unto the Gentile, “despise not the Jew¹⁵.” The one sort they warned to take heed, that scrupulosity did not make them rigorous, in giving unadvised sentence against their brethren which were free; the other, that they did not become scandalous, by abusing their liberty and freedom to the offence of their weak brethren which were scrupulous. From hence therefore two conclusions there are which may evidently be drawn; the first, that whatsoever conformity of positive laws the Apostles did bring in between the churches of Jews and Gentiles, it was in those things only which might either cease or continue a shorter or a longer time, as occasion did most require; the second, that they did not impose upon the churches of the Gentiles any part of the Jews’ ordinances with bond of necessary and perpetual observation, (as we all both by doctrine and practice acknowledge,) but only in respect of the conveniency and fitness for the present state of the Church as then it stood. The words of the council’s decree concerning the Gentiles are, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no more burden saving only those things of necessity, abstinence from idol-offerings, from strangled and blood, and from fornication¹⁶.” So that in other things positive, which the coming of Christ did not necessarily extinguish, the Gentiles were left altogether free.

Neither ought it to seem unreasonable that the Gentiles should necessarily be bound and tied to Jewish ordinances, so far forth as that decree importeth. For to the Jew, who knew that their difference from other nations which were aliens and strangers from God, did especially consist in this, that God’s people had positive ordinances given to them of God himself, it seemed marvellous hard, that the Christian Gentiles should be incorporated into the same commonwealth with God’s own chosen people, and be subject to no part of his statutes, more than only the law of nature, which heathens count themselves bound unto. It was an opinion constantly received amongst the Jews, that God did deliver unto the sons of Noah seven precepts: namely, first, to live in some form of regiment under public laws; secondly, to serve and call upon the name of God; thirdly, to shun idolatry; fourthly, not to suffer effusion of blood; fifthly, to abhor all unclean knowledge in the flesh; sixthly, to commit no rapine; seventhly, and finally, not to eat of any living creature whereof the blood was not first let out¹⁷. If therefore the Gentiles would be exempt from the law of Moses, yet it might seem hard they should also cast off even those things positive which were observed before Moses, and which were not of the same kind with laws that were necessarily to cease. And peradventure hereupon the council saw it expedient to determine, that the Gentiles should, according unto the third, the seventh, and the fifth, of those precepts, abstain from things sacrificed unto idols, from strangled and blood, and from fornication. The rest the Gentiles did of their own accord observe, nature leading them thereto.

And did not nature also teach them to abstain from fornication? No doubt it did. Neither can we with reason think, that as the former two are positive, so likewise this, being meant as the Apostle doth otherwise usually understand it¹⁸. But very marriage within a number of degrees being not only by the law of Moses, but also by the law of the sons of Noah (for so they took it) an unlawful discovery of nakedness; this discovery of nakedness by unlawful marriages such as Moses in the law reckoneth up¹⁹, I think it for mine own part more probable to have been meant in the words of that canon, than fornication according unto the sense of the law of nature. Words must be taken according to the matter whereof they are uttered. The Apostles command to abstain from blood. Construe this meaning according to the law of nature, and it will seem that homicide only is forbidden. But construe it in reference to the law of the Jews about which the question was, and it shall easily appear to have a clean other sense, and in any man’s judgment a truer, when we expound it of eating and not of shedding blood. So if we speak of fornication, he that knoweth no law but only the law of nature must needs make thereof a narrower construction, than he which measureth the same by a law, wherein sundry kinds even of conjugal copulation are prohibited as impure, unclean, unhonest. St. Paul himself doth term incestuous marriage fornication²⁰. If any do rather think that the Christian Gentiles themselves, through the loose and corrupt custom of those times, took simple fornication for no sin, and were in that respect offensive unto believing Jews, which by the Law had been better taught; our proposing of another conjecture is unto theirs no prejudice²¹.

Some things therefore we see there were, wherein the Gentiles were forbidden to be like unto the Jews; some things wherein they were commanded not to be unlike. Again, some things also there were, wherein no law of God did let but that they might be either like or unlike, as occasion should require. And unto this purpose Leo saith²², “Apostolical ordinance (beloved,) knowing that our Lord Jesus Christ came not into this world to undo the law, hath in such sort distinguished the mysteries of the Old Testament, that certain of them it hath chosen out to benefit evangelical knowledge withal, and for that purpose appointed that those things which before were Jewish might now be Christian customs.” The cause why the Apostles did thus conform the Christians as much as might be according to the pattern of the Jews, was to rein them in by this mean the more, and to make them cleave the better.

The Church of Christ hath had in no one thing so many and so contrary occasions of dealing as about Judaism: some having thought the whole Jewish Law wicked and damnable in itself; some not condemning it as the former sort absolutely, have notwithstanding judged it either sooner necessary to be abrogated, or further unlawful to be observed than truth can bear: some of scrupulous simplicity urging perpetual and universal observation of the law of Moses necessary, as the Christian Jews at the first in the Apostles’ times; some as heretics, holding the same no less even after the contrary determination set down by consent of the Church at Jerusalem; finally some being herein resolute through mere infidelity, and with open professed enmity against Christ, as unbelieving Jews.

To control slanderers of the Law and Prophets, such as Marcionites and Manichees were, the Church in her liturgies hath intermingled with readings out of the New Testament lessons taken out of the Law and Prophets; whereunto Tertullian alluding, saith of the Church of Christ²³, “It intermingleth with evangelical and apostolical writings the Law and the Prophets; and from thence it drinketh in that faith, which with water it sealeth, clotheth with the Spirit, nourisheth with the Eucharist, with martyrdom setteth forward.” They would have wondered in those times to hear, that any man being not a favourer of heresy should term this by way of disdain, “mangling of the Gospels and Epistles²⁴.”

They which honour the Law as an image of the wisdom of God himself, are notwithstanding to know that the same had an end in Christ. But what? Was the Law so abolished with Christ, that after his ascension the office of Priests became immediately wicked, and the very name hateful, as importing the exercise of an ungodly function²⁵? No, as long as the glory of the Temple continued, and till the time of that final desolation was accomplished, the very Christian Jews did continue with their sacrifices and other parts of legal service. That very Law therefore which our Saviour was to abolish, did not so soon become unlawful to be observed as some imagine; nor was it afterwards unlawful so far, that the very name of Altar, of Priest, of Sacrifice itself, should be banished out of the world. For though God do now hate sacrifice, whether it be heathenish or Jewish, so that we cannot have the same things which they had but with impiety; yet unless there be some greater let than the only evacuation of the Law of Moses, the names themselves may (I hope) be retained without sin, in respect of that proportion which things established by our Saviour have unto them which by him are abrogated. And so throughout all the writings of the ancient Fathers we see that the words which were do continue; the only difference is, that whereas before they had a literal, they now have a metaphorical use, and are as so many notes of remembrance unto us, that what they did signify in the letter is accomplished in the truth. And as no man can deprive the Church of this liberty, to use names whereunto the Law was accustomed, so neither are we generally forbidden the use of things which the Law hath; though it neither command us any particular rite, as it did the Jews a number, and the weightiest which it did command them are unto us in the Gospel prohibited.

Touching such as through simplicity of error did urge universal and perpetual observation of the Law of Moses at the first, we have spoken already. Against Jewish heretics and false apostles teaching afterwards the selfsame, St. Paul in every epistle commonly either disputeth or giveth warning. Jews that were zealous for the Law, but withal infidels in respect of Christianity, and to the name of Jesus Christ most spiteful enemies, did while they flourished no less persecute the Church than heathens. After their estate was overthrown, they were not that way so much to be feared. Howbeit, because they had their synagogues in every famous city almost throughout the world, and by that means great opportunity to withdraw from the Christian faith, which to do they spared no labour; this gave the church occasion to make sundry laws against them. As in the council of Laodicea²⁶ “The festival presents which Jews or heretics use to send must not be received, nor Holidays solemnized in their company.” Again, “from the Jews men ought not to receive their unleavened, nor to communicate with their impieties.” Which council was afterwards indeed confirmed by the sixth general council. But what was the true sense or meaning both of the one and the other? Were Christians here forbidden to communicate in unleavened bread because the Jews did so being enemies of the Church²⁷? He which attentively shall weigh the words will suspect, that they rather forbid communion with Jews, than imitation of them: much more, if with these two decrees be compared a third in the Council of Constantinople, “Let no man either of the clergy or laity eat the unleavened of the Jews, nor enter into any familiarity with them, nor send for them in sickness, nor take physic at their hands, nor as much as go into the bath with them. If any do otherwise being a clergyman, let him be deposed; if being a lay person, let excommunication be his punishment²⁸.”

If these canons were any argument, that they which made them did utterly condemn similitude between the Christians and Jews in things indifferent appertaining unto religion, either because the Jews were enemies unto the Church, or else for that their ceremonies were abrogated; these reasons had been as strong and effectual against their keeping the feast of Easter on the same day the Jews kept theirs, and not according to the custom of the West church. For so they did from the first beginning till Constantine’s time. For in these two things the East and West churches did interchangeably both confront the Jews and concur with them: the West church using unleavened bread, as the Jews in their passover did, but differing from them in the day whereon they kept the feast of Easter; contrariwise the East church celebrating the feast of Easter on the same day with the Jews, but not using the same kind of bread which they did. Now if so be the East church in using leavened bread had done ill²⁹, either for that the Jews were enemies to the Church, or because Jewish ceremonies were abrogated; how should we think but that Victor the bishop of Rome (whom all judicious men do in that behalf disallow) did well to be so vehement and fierce in drawing them to the like dissimilitude for the feast of Easter³⁰? Again, if the West churches had in either of those two respects affected dissimilitude with the Jews in the feast of Easter, what reason had they to draw the Eastern church herein unto them, which reason did not enforce them to frame themselves unto it in the ceremony of leavened bread? Difference in rites should breed no controversy between one church and another; but if controversy be once bred, it must be ended. The feast of Easter being therefore litigious in the days of Constantine, who honoured of all other churches most the church of Rome, which church was the mother from whose breasts he had drawn that food, which gave him nourishment to eternal life; sith agreement was necessary, and yet impossible unless the one part were yielded unto; his desire was that of the two the Eastern church should rather yield. And to this end he useth sundry persuasive speeches.

When Stephen the Bishop of Rome going about to shew what the Catholic Church should do, had alleged what the heretics themselves did, namely, that they received such as came unto them, and offered not to baptize them anew; St. Cyprian being of a contrary mind to him about the matter at that time in question, which was, “Whether heretics converted ought to be rebaptized, yea or no?” answered the allegation of Pope Stephen with exceeding great stomach, saying, “To this degree of wretchedness the church of God and Spouse of Christ is now come, that her ways she frameth to the example of heretics; that to celebrate the Sacraments which heavenly instruction hath delivered, light itself doth borrow from darkness, and Christians do that which Antichrists do³¹.”

Now albeit Constantine have done that to further a better cause, which Cyprian did to countenance a worse, namely the rebaptization of heretics, and have taken advantage at the odiousness of the Jews, as Cyprian of heretics, because the Eastern church kept their feast of Easter always the fourteenth day of the month, as the Jews did, what day of the week soever it fell; or howsoever Constantine did take occasion in the handling of that cause to say, “It is unworthy to have any thing common with that spiteful nation of the Jews³²:” shall every motive argument used in such kind of conferences be made a rule for others still to conclude the like by, concerning all things of like nature, when as probable inducements may lead them to the contrary? Let both this and other allegations suitable unto it cease to bark any longer idly against that truth, the course and passage whereof it is not in them to hinder.

---

← The grief which they say godly brethren conc · Contents · Their exception against such ceremonies as h →

Footnotes

1. Eccles. Disc. fol. 98. [in T. C.’s transl. p. 131, 2.] and T. C. lib. iii. p. 181. “Many of these popish ceremonies faulty by reason of the pomp in them; where they should be agreeable to the simplicity of the gospel of Christ crucified.” ↩

2. [Eccl. Disc. ibid.] ↩

3. T. C. lib. i. p. 132. [103.] Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. iii. c. 18. [Μηδὲν τοίνυν ἔστω ἡμι̑ν κοινὸν μετὰ του̑ ἐχθίστου τω̑ν Ἰουδαίων ὄχλου … ἔστι γὰρ ὡς ἀληθω̑ς ἀτοπώτατον, ἐκείνους αὐχει̑ν ὡς ἄρα παρεκτὸς τη̑ς αὐτω̑ν διδασκαλίας ταυ̑τα ϕυλάττειν οὐκ εἴημεν ἱκανοί.] ↩

4. Socrat. lib. i. c. 9. [Του̑το οὕτως ἐπανορθου̑σθαι προση̑κεν, ὡς μηδὲν μετὰ του̑ τω̑ν πατροκτόνων τε καὶ κυριοκτόνων ἐκείνων ἔθνους εἰ̑ναι κοινόν.] ↩

5. [Or rather by the council called Quinisextum. vid. Labb. Conc. vi. 1124, 1146.] ↩

6. Tom. i. Concil. Laod. Can. 38. [i. 1503. οὐ δει̑ παρὰ τω̑ν Ἰουδαίων ἄζυμα λαμβάνειν, ἢ κοινωνει̑ν ται̑ς ἀσεβείαις αὐτω̑ν.] ↩

7. Acts vi. 13, 14. ↩

8. Vide Niceph. lib. iii. cap. 25. [Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις Ἰούδας πεντεκαιδέκατος· οὓς ἐξ ἐθνω̑ν μετὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν διαδέχεται Μάρκος· τοσου̑τοι μὲν ἀπὸ τω̑ν Ἀποστόλων ἐς τὸν εἰρημένον Ἰούδαν ἐπίσκοποι ἐκ περιτομη̑ς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις γεγόνασιν.] et Sulpit. Sever. p. 149. in edit. Plant. [“Tum Hierosolymæ non nisi ex circumcisione habebat Ecclesia Sacerdotem,” p. 364. ed. Horn. 1665.] ↩

9. Acts xv. ↩

10. Acts xxi. 25. ↩

11. Acts xv. 24. ↩

12. Acts xxi. 20. ↩

13. Acts xv. 28, 29. ↩

14. Acts xvi. 4. ↩

15. Rom. xiv. 10. ↩

16. [Acts xv. 28.] ↩

17. Lib. qui Seder Olam inscribitur. [Or “The World’s Order,” being a summary of events and dates from the creation to the War of Bar Cochab, supposed to have been written about ad 130. Wolf. Bibl. Hebr. i. 491. ed. 1715. The passage cited is cap. 5, p. 16. ed. Meyer. Amstelæd. 1699. “From the Red sea they journied unto Marah … There were given unto Israel ten precepts; [Exod. xv. 23, 25.] seven of them, concerning which commandment had been given to the sons of Noah.] 1. יניז [the judgments]: 2. ברכח חשם [the malediction of the name (of God)]: 3. עבורח אלילים] ע״א,” (more usually עבורח זרה “strange worship,”) “the worship of idols]: 4. שםיבוח דמים [the shedding of blood]: 5. גילוי עריוח [the discovery of nakedness]: 6. הנזל [rapine]: 7. אבר מן ההי [partaking of any member of a living creature.] Israel added unto these at that time the Sabbath, and (רינין) judgments,” (on the difference between this and the first precept see Selden, de Jure Nat. et Gent. ap. Heb. vii. 5. p. 809.) “and the honouring of parents.” The whole passage is quoted and illustrated by Selden, lib. i. c. 10. p. 123.] ↩

18. Heb. xiii. 4; 1 Cor. v. 11; Gal. v. 19. ↩

19. Lev. xviii. ↩

20. 1 Cor. v. 1. ↩

21. [Selden in the work above cited (which is throughout an elaborate commentary on the seven Noachical precepts) approves this construction of the word πορνεία: though he does not think that the council of Jerusalem was referring to those precepts: lib. vii. c. 12, p. 845.] ↩

22. Leo in Jejun. Mens. Sept. Ser. 9. [vii. c. 1. “Apostolica institutio, dilectissimi, quæ Dom. Jesum Christum ad hoc venisse in hunc mundum noverat, ut legem non solveret sed impleret, ita Veteris Testamenti decreta distinxit, ut quædam ex eis, sicut erant condita, evangelicæ eruditioni profutura decerperet, et quæ dudum fuerant consuetudinis Judaicæ fierent observantiæ Christianæ.”] ↩

23. Tertull. de Præscript. advers. Hæret. [c. 36. “Unum Deum novit Creatorem universitatis, et Christum Jesum ex Virgine Maria Filium Dei Creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem: legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis literis miscet, et inde potat fidem: eam aqua signat, Sancto Spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrio exhortatur.”] ↩

24. T. C. lib. iii. p. 171. “What an abusing also is it to affirm the mangling of the Gospels and Epistles to have been brought into the Church by godly and learned men!” ↩

25. T. C. lib. i. p. 216. “Seeing that the office and function of priests was after our Saviour Christ’s ascension naught and ungodly; the name whereby they were called, which did exercise that ungodly function, cannot be otherwise taken than in the evil part.” ↩

26. Conc. Laod. Can. 37, 38. [“Non oportet a Judæis vel hæreticis feriatica quæ mittuntur accipere, nec cum eis dies agere festos. Non oportet a Judæis azyma accipere, aut communicare impietatibus eorum.” Conc. Reg. II. 116.] T. C. lib. i. p. 132. [103.] ↩

27. T. C. lib. iii. p. 176. [“What can be in itself more indifferent than these two, forbidden the Christians for that they were used of the enemies of the Church!”] ↩

28. Conc. Constantinop. vi. cap. 11. [Μηδεὶς τω̑ν ἐν ἱερατικῳ̑ τάγματι ἢ λαϊκὸς τὰ παρὰ τω̑ν Ἰουδαίων ἄζυμα ἐσθιέτω, ἢ τοιούτοις προσοικειούσθω, καὶ ἰατρείας παρ’ αὐτω̑ν λαμβανέτω, ἢ ἐν βαλανείῳ παντελω̑ς τούτοις συλλουέσθω. Εἰ δέ τις του̑το πρα̑ξαι ἐπιχειροίη, εἰ μὲν κληρικὸς εἴη, καθαιρείσθω· εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἀϕοριζέσθω. xvi. 618.] ↩

29. [So it stands in the original edition, p. 194. But it is most likely an oversight, the sense requiring “not done ill,” or “done well:” which reading has been followed by all the editors except Mr. Hanbury. The correction appears to have been Spenser’s: at least it occurs in the reprint of his edition, 1622.] ↩

30. [Euseb. v. 24.] ↩

31. Cypr. ad Pomp. cont. Stephan. [Ep. 74. § 2. “Ad hoc enim malorum devoluta est Ecclesia Dei et sponsa Christi, ut hæreticorum exempla sectetur, ut ad celebranda sacramenta cœlestis disciplinæ lux de tenebris mutuetur, et id faciant Christiani, quod Antichristi faciunt.”] ↩

32. Socrat. Ecclesiast. Hist. lib. v. c. 22. “Plerique in Asia minore antiquitus 14 die mensis, nulla ratione diei Sabbati habita, hoc festum observarunt. Quod dum faciebant, cum aliis, qui aliam rationem in eodem festo agendo sequebantur, usque eo nequaquam dissenserunt, quoad Victor episcopus Romanus, supra modum iracundia inflammatus, omnes in Asia qui erant τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτηται appellati excommunicaverit. Ob quod factum Irenæus episcopus Lugduni in Victorem per epistolam graviter invectus est.” Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. iii. cap. 18. “Quid præstabilius, quidve augustius esse poterat, quam ut hoc festum, per quod spem immortalitatis nobis ostentatam habemus, uno modo et ratione apud omnes integre sincereque observaretur? Ac primum omnium indignum plane videbatur, ut ritum et consuetudinem imitantes Judæorum (qui, quoniam suas ipsorum manus immani scelere polluerunt, merito, ut scelestos decet, cæco animorum errore tenentur irretiti) istud festum sanctissimum ageremus. In nostra enim situm est potestate, ut, illorum more rejecto, veriore ac magis sincero instituto (quod quidem usque a prima passionis die hactenus recoluimus) hujus festi celebrationem ad posterorum seculorum memoriam propagemus. Nihil igitur sit nobis cum Judæorum turba, omnium odiosa maxime.” ↩