things which are observed throughout the world," says he, "we may understand to have been ordained, either by the apostles themselves, or by general councils, whose authority is very useful in the Church: as that the sufferings, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are celebrated by solemn anniversaries; and if there be any thing else of a similar kind observed by the universal Church wherever it has extended itself." When he enumerates so few examples, who does not see that he intended to attribute to authors worthy of credit and reverence the observances which were then in use, and none but those simple, rare, and sober ones which are useful in preserving the order of the Church? But how distant is this passage from the conclusion the Roman doctors would extort from it, that there is not the most insignificant ceremony among them which ought not to be considered as resting on the authority of the apostles?

XX. Not to be too tedious, I will produce only one example. If any one inquire whence they have their holy water, they immediately answer, From the apostles. As if the histories did not attribute this invention to a bishop of Rome, who if he had taken counsel of the apostles, would certainly never have contaminated baptism by a strange and unseasonable symbol. Though it does not appear to me probable that the origin of that consecration was so ancient as those histories state. For the observation of Augustine, that some Churches in his time rejected the custom of washing the feet as a solemn imitation of Christ, lest that ceremony might be supposed to have any reference to baptism, implies that there was no other kind of washing then practised which bore any resemblance to baptism. Be this as it may, I shall never admit it to have been a dictate of the spirit of the apostles, that baptism should be recalled to the memory by a daily ablution, which would be little else than a repetition of it. It is of no consequence that Augustine elsewhere ascribes other things also to the apostles; for as he has nothing but conjectures, no conclusion ought to be drawn from them on such an important subject. Lastly, though we should even grant, that those things which he mentions

had been transmitted from the time of the apostles, yet there is a wide difference between instituting some pious exercise which the faithful may use with a free conscience, or if they find not profitable, may abstain from the use of it; and making laws to entangle their consciences with bondage. But whoever was their author, since we see that they have fallen into so great an abuse, nothing prevents our abolishing them without any disrespect to him; because they were never instituted in order to be perpetual and unalterable.

XXI. Nor does the cause of our adversaries derive much advantage from their attempt to excuse their own tyranny by alleging the example of the apostles. The apostles, they say, and elders of the primitive Church, passed a decree without the command of Christ, enjoining all the Gentiles to "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled." (s) If this was lawful for them, why may it not be lawful for their successors, whenever circumstances require, to imitate their conduct? I sincerely wish they would imitate them in other things as well as in this. For I deny that the apostles on that occasion instituted or decreed any thing new, as it is easy to prove by a sufficient reason. For when Peter had declared in that assembly that to" put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples," would be to tempt God," (t) he would have contradicted his own opinion, if he had afterwards consented to the imposition of any yoke. Yet there was a yoke imposed, if the apostles decreed from their own authority, that the Gentiles should be prohibited "from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled." There still remains some difficulty, that nevertheless they seem to prohibit them. But this will be easily solved, if we more closely examine the meaning of the decree itself; of which the first point in order, and principal in importance, is, that the gentiles were to be left in possession of their liberty, and not to be disturbed or troubled about the observance of the law. So far it is completely. in our favour. The exception which immediately follows, is not a new law made by the apostles, but the divine and (t) Acts xv. 10.

(e) Acts xv. 29.

eternal command for the preservation of charity inviolate, nor does it diminish a tittle of that liberty; it only admonishes the gentiles how they ought to accommodate themselves to their brethren, to avoid offending them by an abuse of their liberty. The second point therefore is, that the gentiles were to use a harmless liberty and without offence to their brethren. If it be still objected, that they prescribe a certain direction, I reply, that as far as was expedient for that period, they point out and specify the things in which the gentiles were liable to give offence to their brethren, that they might refrain from them; yet they add nothing new of their own to the eternal law of God, by which offences against our brethren are prohibited.

XXII. As if any faithful pastors who preside over Churches not yet well regulated, were to recommend all their people not to eat meat openly on Fridays, or to labour publicly on festivals, or the like, till their weaker neighbours should be more established. For though, setting aside superstition, these things are in themselves indifferent, yet when they are attended with offences to brethren, they cannot be performed without sin: and the times are such, that the faithful could not do these things in the presence of their weak brethren, without most grievously wounding their consciences. Who but a caviller would say that in this instance they made a new law, whereas it would evidently appear that their sole object was to guard against offences which are most expressly forbidden by the Lord? No more can it be said of the apostles, who had no other design in removing the occasion of offences, than to urge the Divine law respecting the avoidance of offence: as though they had said; It is the command of the Lord, that you hurt not your weak brother; you cannot eat meats offered to idols, or blood, or things strangled, without your weak brethren being offended; therefore we command you by the word of the Lord, not to eat with offence. And that such was the intention of the apostles, Paul himself is an unexceptionable witness, who, certainly in consistence with their sentence, writes in the following manner. "As concerning the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an

idol is nothing. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol, eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak." (v) He who shall have duly considered these things, will not afterwards be deceived by the fallacy of those who attempt to justify their tyranny by the example of the apostles, as if they had begun to infringe the liberty of the Church by their decree. But that they may not be able to avoid confirming this solution by their own confession, let them tell me by what right they have dared to abrogate that decree. They can only reply, Because there was no more danger from those offences and dissentions which the apostles intended to guard against, and they knew that a law was to be judged of by the end for which it was made. As this law therefore is admitted to have been made from a consideration of charity, there is nothing prescribed in it any further than charity is concerned. When they confess that the transgression of this law is no other than a violation of charity, do they not thereby acknowledge that it is not a novel addition to the law of God, but a genuine and simple application of it to the times and manners for which it was designed?

XXIII. But it is contended, that though the ecclesiastical laws should in a hundred instances be unjust and injurious to us, yet they ought all to be obeyed without any exception; for that the point here is not that we should consent to errors, but that we who are subjects should fulfil even the severe commands of our governors, which we are not at liberty to reject. But here likewise the Lord most happily interposes with the truth of his word, delivers us from such bondage, and establishes us in the liberty, which he hath procured for us by his sacred blood, the benefit of which he hath repeatedly confirmed by his word. For the question here is not, as they fallaciously pretend, merely whether we shall endure some grievous oppression in our bodies; but whether our consciences shall be deprived of their liberty, that is, of the

(v) 1 Cor. viii. 4, 7, 9.

benefit of the blood of Christ, and shall be tormented with a wretched bondage. Let us however pass over this also, as if it were matter of little importance. But do we think it a matter of little importance to deprive the Lord of his kingdom, which he claims to himself in such a peremptory manner? And it is taken away from him, whenever he is worshipped with laws of human invention, whereas he requires himself to be honoured as the sole legislator of his own worship. And that no one may suppose it to be a thing of trivial importance, let us hear in what estimation it is held by the Lord. "Forasmuch," he says, "as this people draw near me with their mouth, but their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men; therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." (w) Again, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (x) When the children polluted themselves by various idolatries, the cause of all the evil is attributed to the impure mixture which they made by devising new modes of worship in violation of the commands of God. Therefore the sacred history relates that the strangers who had been transplanted by the king of Babylon from other countries to inhabit Samaria, were torn in pieces and devoured by wild beasts, "because they knew not the statutes or ordinances of the God of the land." Though they had committed no fault in the ceremonies, yet vain pomp would not have been approved by God; but he did not fail to punish the violation of his worship, when men introduced new inventions inconsistent with his word. Hence it is afterwards stated, that being terrified with that punishment, they received rites prescribed in the law, yet because they did not yet worship the true God aright, it is twice repeated that "they feared the Lord," and at the same time that "they feared not the Lord." (y) Whence we conclude, that part of the reverence which is paid to him consists in our worshipping him in a simple adherence

(w) Isaiah xxix. 13, 14. (x) Matt. xv. 9.

(y) 2 Kings xvii. 24—34