CHAPTER X.

THE POWER OF LEGISLATION, IN WHICH THE POPE AND HIS ADHERENTS HAVE MOST

CRUELLY TYRANNIZED OVER THE MINDS, AND TORTURED THE BODIES, OF MEN.

We now proceed to the second branch of the power of the Church, which

the Romanists represent as consisting in legislation—a source from which

have issued innumerable human traditions, the most pestilent and fatal

to wretched souls. For they have made no more scruple than the scribes

and Pharisees to “lay on other men’s shoulders burdens which they

themselves would not touch with one of their fingers.”[973] I have shown

in another place the extreme cruelty of their injunctions concerning

auricular confession. None of their other laws discover such enormous

violence; but those which appear the most tolerable of them all, are

tyrannically oppressive to the conscience. I forbear to remark how they

adulterate the worship of God, and despoil God himself, who is the sole

Legislator, of the right which belongs to him. This power is now to be

examined—whether the Church has authority to make laws which shall bind

the consciences of men. This question has nothing to do with political

order; the only objects of our present attention are, that God may be

rightly worshipped according to the rule he has prescribed, and that our

spiritual liberty which relates to God may be preserved entire. Whatever

edicts have been issued by men respecting the worship of God,

independently of his word, it has been customary to call _human

traditions_. Against such laws we contend, and not against the holy and

useful constitutions of the Church, which contribute to the preservation

of discipline, or integrity, or peace. The object for which we contend,

is, to restrain that overgrown and barbarous empire, which is usurped

over men’s souls by those who wish to be accounted the pastors of the

Church, but who in reality are its most savage butchers. For they say

that the laws which they make are spiritual, pertaining to the soul, and

they affirm them to be necessary to eternal life. Thus, as I have lately

hinted, the kingdom of Christ is invaded; thus the liberty given by him

to the consciences of believers is altogether subverted and destroyed. I

forbear to remark at present with what great impiety they enforce the

observance of their laws, while they teach men to seek the pardon of

their sins and righteousness and salvation from it, and while they make

the whole of religion and piety to consist in it. I only contend for

this one point, that no necessity ought to be imposed upon consciences

in things in which they have been set at liberty by Christ; and without

this liberty, as I have before observed, they can have no peace with

God. They must acknowledge Christ their Deliverer as their only King,

and must be governed by one law of liberty, even the sacred word of the

gospel, if they wish to retain the grace which they have once obtained

in Christ; they must submit to no slavery; they must be fettered by no

bonds.

II. These sapient legislators, indeed, pretend that their constitutions

are laws of liberty, an easy yoke, a light burden. But who does not see

that these are gross falsehoods? The hardship of their laws is not at

all felt by themselves, who have rejected the fear of God, and securely

and boldly disregard all laws, human and divine. But persons who are

impressed with any concern for their salvation, are far from considering

themselves at liberty as long as they are entangled in these snares. We

see what great caution Paul used in this respect, to avoid “casting a

snare upon” men in a single instance;[974] and that not without cause;

for he saw what a deep wound would be made in their consciences, by the

imposition of any necessity upon them in those things in which the Lord

had left them at liberty. On the contrary, it is scarcely possible to

enumerate the constitutions, which these men have most rigorously

enforced with the denunciation of eternal death, and which they require

to be most minutely observed as necessary to salvation. Among these,

there are many exceedingly difficult to be fulfilled; but when they are

all collected together in one body, so immense is the accumulation, the

observance of the whole is utterly impracticable. How, then, can it be

possible for those who are loaded with such a vast weight of difficulty,

not to be perplexed and tortured with extreme anxiety and terror? My

design at present, then, is, to oppose constitutions of this kind, which

tend to bind souls internally before God, and to fill them with

scruples, as if they enjoined things necessary to salvation.

III. The generality of men, therefore, are embarrassed with this

question, for want of distinguishing with sufficient exactness between

the outward judgment of men and the court of conscience. The difficulty

is increased by the injunction of Paul, that the magistrate is to be

obeyed, “not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake;”[975] whence

it follows, that consciences are bound by political laws. If this were

the case, all that we said in the last chapter, and are about to say in

this, on the subject of spiritual government, would fall to the ground.

To solve this difficulty, it is first of all necessary to understand

what is conscience. The definition may be derived from the etymology of

the word. _Science_, or _knowledge_, is the apprehension which men have

of things in their mind and understanding. So, when they have an

apprehension of the judgment of God, as a witness that suffers them not

to conceal their sins, but forces them as criminals before the tribunal

of the judge, this apprehension is called _conscience_. For it is

something between God and man, which permits not a man to suppress what

he knows within himself, but pursues him till it brings him to a sense

of his guilt. This is what Paul means, when he speaks of men’s

“conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while

accusing, or else excusing, one another”[976] before God. A simple

knowledge might remain in man, as it were, in a state of concealment.

Therefore this sentiment, which places men before the tribunal of God,

is like a keeper appointed over man to watch and observe all his

secrets, that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence that old

proverb, that conscience is equal to a thousand witnesses. For the same

reason, Peter speaks of “the answer of a good conscience towards

God,”[977] to denote our tranquillity of mind, when, persuaded of the

grace of Christ, we present ourselves before God without fear. And the

author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of persons “having no more

conscience of sins,”[978] to signify their being liberated, or absolved,

so as to feel no more remorse or compunction for sin.

IV. Therefore, as works have respect to man, so the conscience is

referred to God. A good conscience is no other than an internal purity

of heart. In this sense Paul says that “the end of the commandment is

charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith

unfeigned.”[979] In a subsequent part of the same chapter, he shows how

widely it differs from simple knowledge, when he says, that “some having

put away a good conscience, concerning faith have made shipwreck.”[980]

For in these words he implies that it is a lively zeal for the worship

of God, and a sincere desire and endeavour to live a pious and holy

life. Sometimes, indeed, it is likewise extended to men, as when Luke

states Paul to have made this declaration—“I exercise myself, to have

always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men.”[981] The

apostle expressed himself in this manner, because the benefits

proceeding from a good conscience do reach even to man. But strictly

speaking, the conscience has respect to God alone, as I have already

observed. Hence it is, that a law is said to bind the conscience, which

simply binds a man without any observation or consideration of other

men. For example, God not only commands the heart to be preserved chaste

and pure from every libidinous desire, but prohibits all obscenity of

language and external lasciviousness. My conscience is bound to observe

this law, even though not another man existed in the world. The person,

therefore, who commits any breach of chastity, not only sins by setting

a bad example to his brethren, but brings his conscience into a state of

guilt before God. The case of things, in themselves indifferent, stands

not on the same ground; for we ought to abstain from whatever is likely

to give offence, but with a free conscience. Thus Paul speaks of meat

consecrated to idols: “If any man say unto you, This is offered in

sacrifice to idols, eat not for his sake, and for conscience’ sake.

Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.”[982] A faithful

man, who, after previous admonition, should eat such meat, would be

guilty of sin. But though such abstinence is enjoined on him by God as

necessary on account of his brother, he still retains his liberty of

conscience. We see how this law, while it binds the external act, leaves

the conscience free.

V. Let us now return to human laws. If they are designed to introduce

any scruple into our minds, as though the observance of them were

essentially necessary, we assert, that they are unreasonable impositions

on the conscience. For our consciences have to do, not with men, but

with God alone. And this is the meaning of the well known distinction,

maintained in the schools, between a human tribunal and the court of

conscience. When the whole world was enveloped in the thickest shades of

ignorance, this little spark of light still remained unextinguished, so

that they acknowledged the conscience of man to be superior to all human

judgments. It is true that what they confessed in one word, they

afterwards overturned in fact; yet it was the will of God that even at

that time there should remain some testimony in favour of Christian

liberty, to rescue the conscience from the tyranny of men. But we have

not yet solved the difficulty which arises from the language of Paul.

For if princes are to be obeyed, “not only for wrath, but also for

conscience’ sake,”[983] it seems to follow, that the laws of princes

have dominion over the conscience. If this be true, the same must be

affirmed of the laws of the Church. I reply, In the first place, it is

necessary to distinguish between the _genus_ and the _species_. For the

conscience is not affected by every particular law; yet we are bound by

the general command of God, which establishes the authority of

magistrates. And this is the hinge upon which Paul’s argument turns,

that magistrates are to be honoured because they are “ordained of

God.”[984] At the same time he is far from insinuating that the laws

enacted by them have any thing to do with the internal government of the

soul; for he every where extols the service of God and the spiritual

rule of a holy life, above all the statutes and decrees of men. A second

consideration worthy of notice, which is a consequence of the first, is,

that human laws,—I mean such as are good and just, whether enacted by

magistrates or by the Church,—though they are necessary to be observed,

are not on this account binding on the conscience; because all the

necessity of observing them has reference to the general object of laws,

but does not consist in the particular things which are commanded. There

is an immense distance between laws of this description, and those which

prescribe any new form for the worship of God, and impose a necessity in

things that were left free and indifferent.

VI. Such are the _Ecclesiastical Constitutions_, as they are now called,

in the Papacy, which are obtruded as necessary to the true worship of

God; and as they are innumerable, they are so many bonds to entrap and

insnare souls. Though we have touched on them a little in the exposition

of the law, yet as this is a more suitable place to discuss them at

large, I shall now endeavour to collect a summary of the whole, in the

best order I can. And as we have already said what appeared sufficient

respecting the tyrannical power, which the false bishops arrogate to

themselves, of teaching whatever doctrines they please, I shall at

present pass over all that subject, and confine myself to a discussion

of the power which they say they have, to make laws. Our false bishops,

therefore, burden men’s consciences with new laws under this

pretext—that the Lord has constituted them spiritual legislators, by

committing to them the government of the Church. Wherefore they contend,

that all the commands and ordinances ought of necessity to be observed

by all Christian people, and that whoever violates them is guilty of

double disobedience, because he is a rebel both against God and the

Church. Certainly, if they were true bishops, I would allow them some

authority of this kind; not all that they demand, but all that is

requisite to the maintenance of good order in the Church. But as they

bear no resemblance of the character to which they pretend, the least

they can possibly assume is more than their right. Yet as this has been

already proved, let us admit the supposition at present, that whatever

power true bishops are entitled to, belongs to them. Still I deny that

they are therefore appointed as legislators over believers, with power

to prescribe a rule of life according to their own pleasure, or to

constrain the people committed to them to submit to their decrees. By

this observation I mean, that they have no authority to enjoin upon the

observance of the Church any thing that they may have invented

themselves, independently of the word of God. As this power was unknown

to the apostles, and was so frequently interdicted to the ministers of

the Church by the mouth of the Lord, I wonder how they have dared to

usurp it, and still dare to maintain it contrary to the example of the

apostles, and in defiance of the express prohibition of God.

VII. Every thing pertaining to the perfect rule of a holy life, the Lord

has comprehended in his law, so that there remains nothing for men to

add to that summary. And he has done this, first, that, since all

rectitude of life consists in the conformity of all our actions to his

will, as their standard, we might consider him as the sole Master and

Director of our conduct; and secondly, to show that he requires of us

nothing more than obedience. For this reason, James says, “He that

judgeth his brother, judgeth the law; but if thou judge the law, thou

art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is

able to save and to destroy.”[985] We hear that God asserts this as his

peculiar and exclusive prerogative; to govern us by the empire and laws

of his word. And the same sentiment had before been expressed by Isaiah,

though in terms not quite so explicit: “The Lord is our Judge, the Lord

is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King, he will save us.”[986] Both

passages imply, that he who has authority over the soul, is the Arbiter

of life and death; and James even clearly expresses it. No man can

assume this to himself. It follows therefore, that God ought to be

acknowledged as the only King of souls, who alone has power to save and

to destroy, or, in the language of Isaiah, as the King, Judge,

Legislator, and Saviour. Wherefore Peter, when he admonishes pastors of

their duty, exhorts them “to feed the flock, not as being lords over

God’s heritage,”[987] or the company of believers. If we duly consider

this point, that it is not lawful to transfer to man that which God

appropriates solely to himself, we shall understand that this cuts off

all the power which is claimed by those who wish to exalt themselves to

command any thing in the Church, unsanctioned by the word of God.

VIII. Now, as the whole argument rests here, that, if God is the sole

legislator, it is not lawful for men to assume this honour to

themselves,—we ought also to bear in mind the two reasons which we have

stated, why God asserts this exclusively to himself. The first is, that

his will may be received as the perfect rule of all righteousness and

holiness, and so that an acquaintance with it may be all the knowledge

necessary to a good life. The second is, that with respect to the mode

of worshipping him aright, he may exercise the sole empire over our

souls, to whom we are under the strongest obligation to obey his

authority and await his commands. When these two reasons are kept in

view, it will be easy to judge what constitutions of men are contrary to

the word of God. Now, of this description are all those which are

pretended to belong to the true worship of God, and to be obligatory on

men’s consciences as necessary to be observed. Let us remember,

therefore, that all human laws are to be weighed in this balance, if we

would have a certain and infallible test. The first of these reasons is

urged by Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, in opposition to the

false apostles, who endeavoured to oppress the Churches with fresh

burdens. In a similar argument, in the Epistle to the Galatians, he

insists more on the second reason. In the Epistle to the Colossians, he

contends that the doctrine of the true worship of God is not to be

sought from men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us

how we ought to worship him. To prove this, in the first chapter he

states that all the wisdom by which the man of God is made perfect in

Christ is contained in the gospel. In the beginning of the second

chapter, he declares that “in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom

and knowledge;” from which he concludes that believers should “beware

lest any man spoil them through philosophy and vain deceit, after the

tradition of men.” At the end of the chapter, he still more confidently

condemns all “will worship;”[988] this includes all those fictitious

services which men either invent for themselves or receive from others,

together with all the precepts by which they presume to regulate the

worship of God. Thus we have ascertained the impiety of all those

constitutions, in the observance of which the worship of God is

pretended to consist. The passages in the Epistle to the Galatians, in

which he argues that snares ought not to be imposed on consciences,

which are subject to the government of God alone, are too plain to be

mistaken; especially in the fifth chapter.[989] It will therefore be

sufficient to have mentioned them.

IX. But as the whole of this subject will be better elucidated by

examples, before I proceed any further, it will be useful to apply this

doctrine to our own times. We affirm that the Ecclesiastical

Constitutions, with which the pope and his satellites oppress the

Church, are pernicious and impious; our adversaries assert them to be

holy and useful. Now, they are of two classes: some regard rites and

ceremonies, others have more relation to discipline. Is there just

cause, then, to induce us to reject both? There certainly is juster

cause than we would desire. In the first place, do not the authors of

them explicitly declare that the very essence of the worship of God

consists in them? To what end do they refer their ceremonies, but that

God may be worshipped through them? And this arises not from the mere

error of the uninformed multitude, but from the approbation of those who

sustain the office of teachers. I am not yet referring to the gross

abominations by which they have attempted to overturn all piety; but

they would never pretend a failure in any one of the most insignificant

traditions to be such an atrocious crime, unless they made the worship

of God subject to their inventions. Wherein are we guilty of any

offence, then, if we cannot bear in our day what was declared to be

intolerable by Paul: namely, that the legitimate mode of worshipping God

should be regulated by the will of men; especially when they enjoin a

worship “after the rudiments of the world,” which Paul asserts to be

“not after Christ.”[990] It is well known also, with what rigorous

necessity they bind men’s consciences to observe every thing that they

command. In our opposition to this, we unite in a common cause with

Paul, who would by no means allow the consciences of believers to be

subjected to the bondage of men.[991]

X. Moreover, this worst of consequences ensues; that when men have begun

to place religion in such vain figments, that perversion is immediately

followed by another execrable corruption, with which Christ reproached

the Pharisees. “Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by

your tradition.”[992] I will not combat our modern legislators with my

own words; I will grant them the victory, if they can vindicate

themselves from this accusation of Christ. But how can they vindicate

themselves, while they esteem it infinitely more criminal, to have

omitted auricular confession at a stated time of the year, than to have

lived a most iniquitous life for a whole year together; to have infected

the tongue with the least taste of animal food on a Friday, than to have

polluted the whole body by committing fornication every day; to have put

a hand to any honest labour on a day consecrated to any pretended saint,

than to have continually employed all the members in the most flagitious

actions; for a priest to be connected in one lawful marriage, than to be

defiled with a thousand adulteries; to have failed of performing one vow

of pilgrimage, than to violate every other promise; not to have lavished

any thing on the enormous, superfluous, and useless magnificence of

Churches, than to have failed of relieving the most pressing necessities

of the poor; to have passed by an idol without some token of honour,

than to have insulted all the men in the world; not to have muttered

over, at certain seasons, a multitude of words without any meaning, than

to have never offered a genuine prayer from the heart? What is it for

men to make the commandment of God of none effect by their traditions,

if this be not? When coldly and carelessly recommending the observance

of the commandments of God, they insist on an exact obedience to their

own, with as much zeal and anxiety as if the whole essence of piety

consisted in them; when avenging the violation of the Divine law with

slight penalties of satisfactions, they punish the smallest

transgression of one of their decrees with nothing less than

imprisonment, banishment, fire, or sword; when less severe and

inexorable against the despisers of God, they persecute the despisers of

themselves with implacable hatred even to death; and when they instruct

all those whom they hold in the chains of ignorance in such a manner,

that they would feel less concern at seeing the subversion of the whole

law of God, than the violation of the smallest tittle of the commands of

the Church? In the first place, here is a grievous error, that on

account of things of no importance in themselves, and left free by God,

one man despises, condemns, and rejects another. Now, as if this were

not bad enough, “the beggarly elements of the world,”[993] as Paul calls

them, are esteemed of more force than the celestial oracles of God. He

who is absolved in adultery, is condemned in meat; he who is allowed a

harlot, is interdicted from a wife. This is the fruit of that

prevaricating obedience, which recedes from God in proportion as it

inclines to men.

XI. There are also two other faults, far from small ones, which we

charge on these Constitutions. The first is, that they prescribe for the

most part useless, and sometimes even foolish observances. The second

is, that pious consciences are oppressed with the immense number of

them, and being carried back to a species of Judaism, are so occupied

with shadows as to be prevented from coming to Christ. When I call these

observances useless and foolish, I know this will not be admitted by the

wisdom of the flesh, which is so pleased with them, as to consider the

Church altogether deformed where they are abolished. But these are the

things which Paul describes as “having a show of wisdom in will-worship,

and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the

satisfying of the flesh.”[994] This is certainly a most salutary

admonition, which ought never to be forgotten by us. Human traditions,

he says, deceive under a show of wisdom. Is it inquired whence they have

this appearance? I reply, that being contrived by man, the human mind

recognizes them as its own, and recognizing them, embraces them with

greater pleasure than it would any thing of the greatest excellence, but

less agreeable to its vanity. A further recommendation of them is, that

as they keep the minds of men depressed to the ground under their yoke,

they appear well adapted to promote humility. Lastly, they are regarded

as the expedients of prudence, from their supposed tendency to restrain

corporeal indulgence, and to subdue sensuality by the rigour of

abstinence. But what does Paul say to these things? Does he strip off

such disguises, that the simple may not be deluded by false pretences?

Satisfied that he had said enough to refute them, when he had called

them “the commandments and doctrines of men,”[995] he passes over all

these things as undeserving of any particular refutation. And knowing

that all services of human invention are condemned in the Church, and

ought to excite the suspicion of believers in proportion to the pleasure

they afford to the minds of men; knowing that false appearance of

external humility to be at such an immense distance from true humility,

that it might be easily distinguished from it; knowing that discipline

to be entitled to no other consideration than as a mere exercise of the

body,—he intended these very things, by which the traditions of men are

recommended to the ignorant, to serve as their refutation with

believers.

XII. So, at the present day, not only the unlearned vulgar, but those

who are most inflated with worldly wisdom, are universally and

wonderfully captivated with the pomp of ceremonies. Hypocrites and silly

women think it impossible to imagine any thing more beautiful or

excellent. But those who examine more minutely, and judge with more

accuracy, according to the rule of piety, respecting the real value of

those numerous ceremonies, perceive, in the first place, that they are

frivolous, because they have no utility; and in the next place, that

they are delusive, because they deceive the eyes of the spectators with

empty pomp. I speak of those ceremonies under which, the Roman doctors

contend, are concealed great mysteries, but which, on examination, we

find to be mere mockeries. And it is not to be wondered at, that the

authors and advocates of them have fallen into such folly as to delude

both themselves and others with contemptible absurdities; because they

have taken their model in some things from the reveries of the heathen,

and in others, without any judgment, have imitated the ancient rites of

the Mosaic law, which were no more applicable to us than the sacrifices

of animals and other similar ceremonies. Indeed, if there were no

argument besides, yet no man in his senses would expect any thing good

from such a heterogeneous compound. And the fact itself plainly

demonstrates, that numerous ceremonies have no other use than to stupefy

the people, instead of instructing them. So hypocrites attach great

importance to those novel canons, which overturn discipline rather than

preserve it; for on a more accurate investigation, they will be found a

mere shadow of discipline, without any reality.

XIII. Now, to proceed to the other fault which I have mentioned, who

does not see that traditions, by the continual accumulation of one upon

another, have grown to such an immense number, that they are altogether

intolerable to the Christian Church? Hence it is, that the ceremonies

discover a kind of Judaism, and other observances inflict grievous

tortures on pious souls. Augustine complained that, in his time, the

commands of God were neglected, and every thing was so full of

presumption, that a person was more severely censured for having touched

the ground with his bare feet within eight days of his baptism, than for

having drowned his senses in intoxication. He complained that the

Church, which the mercy of God intended to place in a state of liberty,

was so grievously oppressed, that the condition of the Jews was more

tolerable. If that holy man had lived in our day, with what lamentations

would he have deplored the present state of bondage? For the number of

ordinances is ten times greater, and every tittle is enforced with a

hundred times more rigour, than in his time. Such is the general

consequence, when these corrupt legislators have seized the dominion,

they make no end of commands and prohibitions, till they arrive at such

an extreme that obedience is scarcely if at all practicable. This is

finely expressed by Paul, when he says, “If ye be dead from the

rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye

subject to ordinances? Eat not, taste not, handle not.”[996] The word

ἁψη, signifying both to _eat_ and to _handle_, requires here to be

understood in the former sense, to avoid an unnecessary repetition.

Here, then, he most beautifully describes the progress of the false

apostles. They begin with superstition, forbidding to eat not only a

large quantity, but even a little; when they have carried this point,

they next forbid to taste; and after this is submitted to them, they

pronounce it unlawful even to touch with a finger.

XIV. In the present age, we justly censure this tyranny in human

constitutions, which astonishingly torments miserable consciences with

innumerable edicts, and the extreme rigour with which they are enforced.

The canons relating to discipline have been already considered. What

shall I say of the ceremonies, which have half buried Christ, and caused

us to return to Jewish figures? “Christ our Lord,” says Augustine, “has

connected together the society of the new people with sacraments, very

few in number, most excellent in signification, and very easy to

observe.” The immense distance of this simplicity from the multitude and

variety of rites in which we see the Church now involved, can hardly be

stated in terms sufficiently strong. I know with what artifice some

ingenious men apologize for this corruption. They say, that there are

great numbers among us as ignorant as there were among the Israelites;

that for their sakes such discipline was instituted, which those who are

stronger, though they do not find it necessary, ought not to neglect,

when they perceive it to be useful to their weak brethren. I reply, that

we are not ignorant of what is due from every Christian to the infirmity

of his brethren; but, on the other hand, we reply, that this is not the

way to benefit the weak, by oppressing them with heavy loads of

ceremonies. It was not without cause that the Lord has made this

difference between his ancient people and us; that he chose to instruct

them, like children, with emblems and figures, but has been pleased to

teach us in a more simple manner, without such a large external

apparatus. As “a child,” says Paul, “is under tutors and governors until

the time appointed of the father,”[997] so the Jews were under the

instruction and government of the law. But we resemble adults, who,

having left a state of tuition and guardianship, have no need of puerile

discipline. Surely the Lord foresaw what sort of common people there

would be in his Church, and in what manner they would require to be

governed. Yet he made the difference we have mentioned between us and

the Jews. It is a foolish way, therefore, to pretend to benefit the

ignorant by reviving Judaism, which has been abrogated by Christ. This

diversity, between the people under the old dispensation and the new,

was signified by Christ, when he said to the woman of Samaria, “The hour

cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father

in spirit and in truth.”[998] This, indeed, had always been the case;

but the new worshippers differ from the ancient in this respect, that

under Moses the spiritual adoration of God was concealed, and in some

degree embarrassed with many ceremonies, which being now abolished, he

is worshipped with greater simplicity. Wherefore those who confound this

difference, subvert the order instituted and established by Christ.

Shall no ceremonies, then, it will be asked, be given to the ignorant,

to assist their weakness? I say no such thing; for I think some

assistance of this kind very useful to them. I only contend that such

means should be employed as would tend to make known Christ, not to

conceal him. God has, therefore, given us few ceremonies, and those by

no means laborious, to exhibit Christ to us as present; the Jews had a

greater number, to represent him as absent. He was then absent, I say,

not as to his power, but with respect to the manner of representing him.

Therefore, to observe proper bounds, it is necessary to retain that

paucity in number, that facility in observance, that dignity in

signification, which consists in simplicity. That this has not been

done, it is scarcely necessary to mention. The fact is visible to all.

XV. Here I forbear to remark the pernicious opinions with which the

minds of men are impressed, that these ceremonies of human invention are

sacrifices by which God is justly appeased, by which sins are expiated,

by which righteousness and salvation are procured. It will be denied

that things intrinsically good are corrupted by such adventitious

errors, since equal guilt of this kind may be incurred in the

performance of works commanded by God. But it is more intolerable to

attribute so much honour to works presumptuously devised by the will of

men, as to believe them to be meritorious of eternal life. For works

commanded by God obtain a reward, because the Legislator himself accepts

them as acts of obedience. They derive their value, therefore, not from

their own dignity or intrinsic merit, but from God’s estimation of our

obedience to him. I speak here of that perfection of works which God

commands, but which men never attain. For the works of the law which we

perform, are only accepted through the gratuitous goodness of God, our

obedience in them being weak and imperfect. But as we are not here

discussing the value of works independent of Christ, let us drop this

question. With regard to the present argument, I again repeat, that

whatever value is attributed to works, they derive from the

consideration of the obedience, which is alone regarded by God, as he

declares by the prophet: “I commanded not concerning burnt-offerings or

sacrifices, but this thing I commanded, saying, Obey my voice.”[999] Of

works of human device, he speaks in another place. “Wherefore do ye

spend money for that which is not bread?”[1000] Again: “In vain do they

worship me by the precepts of men.”[1001] Our adversaries, therefore,

can never excuse themselves for suffering the unhappy people to seek in

those external fooleries a righteousness to present before God, and to

support them at the heavenly tribunal. Besides, is it not a fault

deserving of severe reprehension, that they exhibit ceremonies not

understood, like the scenery of a stage or a magical incantation? For it

is certain that all ceremonies are corrupt and pernicious, unless they

direct men to Christ. Now, the ceremonies practised in the Papacy have

no connection with doctrine: they confine men to mere signs, destitute

of all signification. Lastly, so ingenious is cupidity, it is evident

that many of them have been invented by avaricious priests, merely as

contrivances for the extortion of money. But whatever be their origin,

they are all so prostituted to the acquisition of gain, that it is

necessary to abolish the principal part of them, if we wish to prevent a

profane and sacrilegious traffic from being carried on in the Church.

XVI. Though I may be considered as not delivering a doctrine of

perpetual application respecting human constitutions, because the

preceding observations have been wholly directed to the present age, yet

nothing has been advanced which would not be useful in all ages. For

wherever this superstition intrudes, that men are determined to worship

God with their own inventions, all the laws made for this purpose

presently degenerate into such gross abuses as we have described. It is

a curse which God denounces, not against any particular age, but against

all ages, that he will strike with blindness and stupidity all those who

worship him with the doctrines of men.[1002] The invariable effect of

this blindness is, that no absurdity is too great to be embraced by

persons who, in contempt of so many warnings from God, wilfully entangle

themselves in such fatal snares. But if, irrespective of peculiar

circumstances, any one wish to have a simple statement, what are the

human traditions of all ages, which ought to be rejected and reprobated

by the Church and all pious persons, the direction we have already given

is clear and certain—that they are all laws made by men without the word

of God, for the purpose, either of prescribing any method for the

worship of God, or of laying the conscience under a religious

obligation, as if they enjoined things necessary to salvation. If either

or both of these be accompanied with other faults, such as, that the

ceremonies, by their multitude, obscure the simplicity of the gospel;

that they tend to no edification, but are useless and ridiculous

occupations rather than real exercises of piety; that they are employed

for the sordid purposes of dishonest gain; that they are too difficult

to be observed; that they are polluted with impious superstitions;—these

things will further assist us in discovering the vast evil which they

contain.

XVII. I hear the answer which they make—that their traditions are not

from themselves, but from God; for that the Church is directed by the

Holy Spirit, so that it cannot err; and that they are in possession of

his authority. When this point is gained, it immediately follows, that

their traditions are the revelations of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be

despised without impiety and contempt of God. That they may not appear

to attempt any thing without high authorities, they wish it to be

believed that the greatest part of their observances have descended from

the apostles; and they contend that one example sufficiently shows what

was the conduct of the apostles in other cases; when, being assembled

together in a council, they determined and announced to all Gentiles,

that they should “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,

and from things strangled.”[1003] We have already exposed the falsehood

of their pretensions in arrogating to themselves the title of the

Church. With regard to the present argument, if, stripping off all false

disguises, we confine our attention to what ought to be our chief

concern, and involves our highest interests, namely, what kind of a

Church Christ requires, in order that we may conform ourselves to its

standard,—it will be sufficiently evident to us, that the name of the

Church does not belong to those who overleap all the limits of the word

of God, and exercise an unbounded license of enacting new laws. For does

not that law, which was once given to the Church, remain forever in

force? “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt

not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”[1004] And again: “Add not thou

unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”[1005]

Since they cannot deny these things to have been spoken to the Church,

do they not declare the rebellion of the Church, when they pretend that,

notwithstanding such prohibitions, it has dared to mingle additions of

its own with the doctrine of God? Far be it from us, however, to

countenance their falsehoods, by which they do so great an injury to the

Church; let us know that the assumption of the name of the Church is a

false pretence in all who are so carried away by the violence of human

presumption, as to disregard all the restraints of the word of God, and

to introduce a torrent of their own inventions. There is nothing

involved, nothing intricate, nothing ambiguous in these words, by which

the whole Church is forbidden to add any thing to the word, or to

diminish any thing from it, in any question relating to the worship of

God and his salutary precepts. But it will be alleged, that this was

spoken exclusively of the law, which has been succeeded by the

prophecies and the whole dispensation of the gospel. This I certainly

admit, and at the same time assert, that these were accomplishments of

the law, rather than additions to it, or retrenchments of it. But if the

Lord suffered no enlargement or diminution of the ministry of Moses,

notwithstanding it was enveloped in such great obscurity, till he

dispensed a clearer doctrine by his servants the prophets, and finally

by his beloved Son,—why do not we consider ourselves far more severely

prohibited from making any addition to the law, the prophets, the

psalms, and the gospel? No change has taken place in the Lord, who long

ago declared that nothing was so highly offensive to him, as to attempt

to worship him with the inventions of men. Hence those striking

declarations in the prophets, which ought to be continually sounding in

our ears: “I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day

that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings

or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice,

and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all

the ways that I have commanded you.”[1006] Again: “I earnestly protested

unto your fathers, saying, Obey my voice.”[1007] There are many other

similar passages, but the most remarkable of all is the following: “Hath

the Lord,” says Samuel, “as great delight in burnt-offerings and

sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is

better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For

rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity

and idolatry.”[1008] Therefore, whatever human inventions relating to

the worship of God, may be defended by the authority of the Church,

since it is impossible to vindicate them from impiety, it is easy to

infer that the imputation of them to the Church has no foundation in

truth.

XVIII. For this reason we freely censure that tyranny of human

traditions, which is imposed upon the world under the name of the

Church. Nor do we hold the Church in contempt, as our adversaries, in

order to render us obnoxious, falsely assert. We allow it the praise of

obedience, than which no higher praise can be given. On the contrary,

they are themselves the most outrageous violators of the Church, which

they represent as guilty of rebellion against the Lord, when they

pretend that it has gone beyond what was permitted by the word of God;

to say nothing of the combination of impudence and wickedness discovered

in their incessant vociferations respecting the authority of the Church,

while they take no notice of the command of the Lord, or of the

obedience due from the Church to that command. But if we desire, as we

ought, to agree with the Church, it will be best for us to observe and

remember what commands are given by the Lord, equally to us and to the

whole Church, that we may all obey him with one consent. For there is no

doubt that we shall fully agree with the Church, if we show ourselves in

all things obedient to the Lord. Now, to attribute to the apostles the

origin of the traditions which have hitherto oppressed the Church, is a

mere imposture; for the whole tendency of the doctrine of the apostles

was, that men’s consciences should not be burdened with new observances,

or the worship of God contaminated with human inventions. Besides, if

there be any credit due to ancient histories and records, the apostles

not only never knew, but never even heard of that which is ascribed to

them. Nor let it be pretended, that the greatest part of their

Constitutions were received in use and commonly practised, which were

never committed to writing; namely, those things which, during the life

of Christ, they were not able to understand, but which after his

ascension, they learned from the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The

meaning of that passage we have already examined. With respect to the

present subject, we may observe, they make themselves truly ridiculous

by maintaining that those great mysteries, which were so long unknown to

the apostles, consisted partly of Jewish or heathen ceremonies, of which

the former had long before been promulgated among the Jews, and the

latter among the heathen, and partly of foolish gesticulations and

unmeaning rites, which stupid priests, who scarcely know how to walk or

speak, perform with the greatest exactness, and which even infants and

fools counterfeit so well, that it might be thought there were no more

suitable ministers of such solemnities. If there were no histories, yet

men of sound judgment would conclude from the thing itself, that such a

vast multitude of rites and observances did not break into the Church

all on a sudden, but that they must have been introduced by degrees. For

when those holy bishops, who were the immediate successors of the

apostles, had made some appointments relating to order and discipline,

they were followed by a series of others, who had too little

consideration, and too much curiosity and cupidity, of whom every one in

succession vied with his predecessors, from a foolish emulation to excel

them in the invention of new observances. And because there was danger

that their inventions, by which they desired to obtain the praises of

posterity, might in a short time be disused, they were the more rigid in

enforcing the observance of them. This foolish and perverse imitation

has been the source of most of those rites which the Romanists urge upon

us as apostolic. And this is also attested by various histories.

XIX. To avoid too much prolixity in composing a catalogue of them all,

we shall content ourselves with one example. In the administration of

the Lord’s supper, the apostles used great simplicity. Their immediate

successors, to adorn the dignity of the mystery, added some forms which

were not to be altogether condemned. Afterwards followed those foolish

imitators, who, by adding various fragments from time to time, at length

formed those vestments of the priests, those ornaments of the altar,

those gesticulations, and all that apparatus of useless things, which we

see in the mass. But they object that it was an ancient opinion, that

whatever was done with the common consent of the universal Church, had

originated from the apostles. In proof of this, they cite the testimony

of Augustine. I shall give them no other answer than in the words of

Augustine himself. “Those 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 believers 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.”[1009] 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,”[1010] 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 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 believers 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.”[1011] 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 dissensions 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 has procured for us by his sacred

blood, the benefit of which he has 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 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 honored 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.”[1012] Again: “In vain do they worship me,

teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”[1013] When the children

of Israel 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 Assyria from Babylon 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

adopted 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.”[1014]

Whence we conclude, that part of the reverence which is paid to him

consists in our worshipping him in a simple adherence to his commands,

without the admixture of any inventions of our own. Hence the frequent

commendations of pious kings, that they “walked in all his commandments,

and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.”[1015] I go still

further: though in some services of human invention there appears no

manifest impiety, yet as soon as ever men have departed from the command

of God, it is severely condemned by the Holy Spirit. The altar of Ahaz,

the model of which was brought from Damascus, might seem to be an

addition to the ornaments of the temple, because his design was to offer

sacrifices upon it to God alone, with a view to perform these services

in a more splendid manner than upon the ancient and original altar; yet

we see how the Holy Spirit detests such audacity, for no other reason

than because all the inventions of men in the worship of God are impure

corruptions.[1016] And the more clearly the will of God is revealed to

us, the more inexcusable is our presumption in making any such attempt.

Wherefore the guilt of Manasseh is justly aggravated by the circumstance

of his having “built” new “altars in the house of the Lord, of which the

Lord said, In Jerusalem will I put my name;”[1017] because such conduct

was like an avowed rejection of the authority of God.

XXIV. Many persons wonder why the Lord so severely threatens that he

would “do a marvellous work among the people,” whose “fear toward him”

was “taught by the precepts of men,” and pronounces that he is

“worshipped in vain” by “the commandments of men.” But if such persons

would consider what it is to follow the word of God alone in matters of

religion, that is, of heavenly wisdom, they would immediately perceive

it to be for no trivial reason that the Lord abominates such corrupt

services, which are rendered to him according to the caprice of the

human mind. For, though persons who obey such laws for the worship of

God, have a certain appearance of humility in this their obedience, yet

they are very far from being humble before God, to whom they prescribe

the same laws which they observe themselves. This is the reason why Paul

requires us to be so particularly cautious against being deceived by the

traditions of men, and will-worship, that is, voluntary worship,

invented by men, without the word of God.[1018] And so indeed it is,

that our own wisdom, and that of all other men, must become folly in our

esteem, that we may allow God alone to be truly wise. This is very far

from being the case with those who study to render themselves acceptable

to him by petty observances of human contrivance, and obtrude upon him,

in opposition to his commands, a hypocritical obedience, which in

reality is rendered to men. This was the conduct of men in former ages;

the same has happened within our own remembrance, and still happens in

those places where the authority of the creature is more regarded than

that of the Creator; where religion, if religion it deserves to be

called, is polluted with more numerous and senseless superstitions than

ever disgraced the worship of paganism. For what could proceed from the

minds of men but things carnal, foolish, and truly expressive of their

authors?

XXV. When the advocates of superstition allege, that Samuel sacrificed

in Ramah, that there this was done without the direction of the law, yet

it was acceptable to God,[1019] the answer is easy—that this was not the

erection of a second altar, in opposition to one already erected, and

appointed by the Divine command to supersede every other; but as there

had yet been no fixed place assigned for the ark of the covenant, he

appointed the town which he inhabited for the oblation of sacrifices, as

the most convenient place. It certainly was not the intention of the

holy prophet to make any innovation in religious worship, in which God

had so strictly forbidden any thing to be added or diminished. The

example of Manoah I consider as an extraordinary and singular case.

Though a private man, he offered a sacrifice to God, yet not without the

Divine approbation; because he did it not from the hasty impulse of his

own mind, but in consequence of the secret inspiration of Heaven.[1020]

But of the Lord’s utter abomination of all the contrivances of mortals

in his worship, we have a memorable example in another person, not

inferior to Manoah—I mean Gideon, whose ephod produced fatal

consequences, not only to himself and his family, but to all the

people.[1021] In short, every additional invention by which men pretend

to serve God is nothing but a pollution of true holiness.

XXVI. Why, then, it is inquired, was it the will of Christ that men

should submit to those intolerable burdens which were imposed upon them

by the scribes and Pharisees?[1022] I ask, on the other hand, Why did

Christ, in another place, direct men to “beware of the leaven of the

Pharisees and of the Sadducees?”[1023] by _leaven_, according to the

interpretation given us by the evangelist, intending every doctrine of

their own that they mixed with the pure word of God. What can we wish

for plainer, than when he commands us to avoid and beware of all their

doctrine? Hence it is very evident to us, that in the other passage our

Lord did not intend that the consciences of his disciples should be

harassed with the traditions of the Pharisees; and the words themselves,

if they are not perverted, convey no such meaning. For, being about to

deliver a severe invective against the conduct of the Pharisees, our

Lord only prefaced it by instructing his hearers, that though they would

see nothing in their lives worthy of imitation, yet they should continue

to practise those things which were taught by them in their discourses,

when they were sitting in the chair of Moses, that is to say, when they

were expounding the law. His only design, therefore, was to guard the

people against being induced to despise the doctrine by the bad examples

of those who taught it. But, as some persons are never affected by

arguments, but always require authority, I will subjoin the words of

Augustine, who gives exactly the same interpretation: “The Lord’s fold

has pastors, some faithful, some hirelings. Those who are faithful are

true shepherds; yet hear how the hirelings also are necessary. For many

in the Church, pursuing worldly advantages, preach Christ, and the voice

of Christ is heard through them; and the sheep follow not the hireling,

but the Shepherd by means of the hireling. Hear how the hirelings are

pointed out by the Lord himself. He says, The scribes and Pharisees sit

in Moses’ chair; what they say, do; but what they do, imitate not. Is

not this equivalent to saying, Hear the voice of the Shepherd through

the hirelings; for, sitting in the chair of Moses, they teach the law of

God; therefore, God teaches by them; but if they choose to teach any

thing of their own, neither attend to it, nor practise it?”

XXVII. But, as many ignorant persons, when they hear that the

consciences of men ought not to be bound by human traditions, and that

it is in vain to worship God by such services, immediately conclude the

same rule to be applicable to all the laws which regulate the order of

the Church, we must also refute their error. It is easy, indeed, to be

deceived in this point, because it does not immediately appear, at the

first glance, what a difference there is between the one and the other;

but I will place the whole subject in such a clear light, in a few

words, that no one may be misled by the resemblance. In the first place,

let us consider that if, in every society of men, we see the necessity

of some polity in order to preserve the common peace, and to maintain

concord; if in the transaction of business there is always some order,

which the interest of public virtue, and even of humanity itself,

forbids to be rejected; the same ought particularly to be observed in

Churches, which are best supported by a well-ordered regulation of all

their affairs and which without concord are no Churches at all.

Wherefore, if we would make a proper provision for the safety of the

Church, we ought to pay the strictest attention to the injunction of

Paul, that “all things be done decently and in order.”[1024] But as

there is such great diversity in the manners of men, so great a variety

in their minds, and so much contrariety in their judgments and

inclinations, no polity will be sufficiently steady unless it be

established by certain laws; nor can any order be preserved without some

settled form. The laws, therefore, which promote this end, we are so far

from condemning, that, we contend, their abolition would be followed by

a disruption of the bands of union, and the total disorganization and

dispersion of the Churches. For it is impossible to attain what Paul

requires, that “all things be done decently and in order,” unless order

and decorum be supported by additional regulations. But in regard to

such regulations, care must always be taken, that they be not considered

necessary to salvation, and so imposing a religious obligation on the

conscience, or applied to the worship of God, and so represented as

essential to piety.

XXVIII. We have an excellent and most certain mark, therefore, which

distinguishes those impious constitutions, by which it has been stated

that true religion is obscured and men’s consciences subverted, and the

legitimate regulations of the Church, which are always directed to one

of these two ends, or to both together; that, in the holy assembly of

believers, all things may be conducted with suitable decorum and

dignity, that the community may be kept in order by the firm bonds of

courtesy and moderation. For when it is once understood that a law is

made for the sake of public order, this removes the superstition

embraced by them who place the worship of God in human inventions.

Moreover, when it is known that it only refers to matters of common

practice, this overturns all that false notion of obligation and

necessity, which filled men’s consciences with great terror, when

traditions were thought necessary to salvation. For here nothing is

required but the maintenance of charity among us by the common

intercourse of friendly offices. But it is proper to describe more fully

what is comprehended under the decorum and the order which Paul

recommends. The end of _decorum_ is, partly, that while ceremonies are

employed to conciliate veneration to sacred things, we may be excited to

piety by such aids; partly that the modesty and gravity, which ought to

be discovered in all virtuous actions, may be most of all conspicuous in

the Church. In _order_, the first point is, that those who preside

should be acquainted with the rule and law of good government, and that

the people who are governed should be accustomed to an obedience to God

and to just discipline; the second is, that when the Church is in a well

regulated state, care should be taken to preserve its peace and

tranquillity.

XXIX. We shall not call that _decorum_, therefore, which is merely a

frivolous spectacle, yielding an unprofitable gratification; such as we

see exemplified in the theatrical apparatus employed by the Papists in

their services, where nothing is to be seen but a useless appearance of

elegance and splendour, without any advantage. But we shall esteem that

as _decorum_, which shall be so adapted to inspire a reverence of holy

mysteries as to be calculated for an exercise of piety; or which at

least shall contribute an ornament corresponding to the act; and that

not without some beneficial tendency, but that believers may be

admonished with what modesty, fear, and reverence, they ought to engage

in sacred services. Now, that ceremonies may be exercises of piety, it

is necessary that they should lead us directly to Christ. In like

manner, we do not place _order_ in those nugatory pomps which have

nothing but a vain appearance of splendour, but in that well regulated

polity, which excludes all confusion, incivility, obstinacy, clamours,

and dissensions. Of the first kind, examples are furnished by Paul; as

that profane banquets should not be connected with the sacred supper of

the Lord; that women should not appear in public without being

veiled;[1025] and many others in common use among us; such as, that we

pray with bended knees and with our heads uncovered; that we administer

the sacraments of the Lord, not in a slovenly manner, but with due

decorum; that we observe some decent order in the burial of the dead;

and other things of a similar nature. Of the second sort are the hours

appointed for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments; quietness and

silence under sermons; the singing of hymns; the places appointed for

these services, and the days fixed for the celebration of the Lord’s

supper;[1026] the prohibition of Paul, that women should not teach in

the Church, and the like; but especially the regulations for the

preservation of discipline, as catechizing, ecclesiastical censures,

excommunication, fastings, and every thing else that can be referred to

the same class. Thus all the constitutions of the Church which we

receive as holy and useful, may be classed under two heads; some refer

to rites and ceremonies, others to discipline and peace.

XXX. But, because there is danger here, on the one hand, that the false

bishops may seize a pretext to excuse their impious and tyrannical laws,

and, on the other, that there may be some persons who, from an excessive

fear of falling into the evils we have mentioned, will reject all

ecclesiastical laws, however holy and useful they may be,—it is

necessary to protest, that I approve of no human constitutions, except

such as are founded on the authority of God, and deduced from the

Scripture, so that they may be considered as altogether Divine. Let us

take, as an example, the kneeling practised during solemn prayers. The

question is, whether it be a human tradition, which every one is at

liberty to reject or neglect. I answer that it is at once both human and

Divine. It is of God, as it forms a branch of that decorum which is

recommended to our attention and observance by the apostle; it is of

men, as it particularly designates that which had in general been rather

hinted than clearly expressed. From this single example, it is easy to

judge what opinion ought to be entertained of all the rest. Because the

Lord, in his holy oracles, has faithfully comprehended and plainly

declared to us the whole nature of true righteousness, and all the parts

of Divine worship, with whatever is necessary to salvation,—in these

things he is to be regarded as our only Master. Because, in external

discipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to give us minute

directions what we ought to do in every particular case, foreseeing that

this would depend on the different circumstances of different periods,

and knowing that one form would not be adapted to all ages,—here we must

have recourse to the general rules which he has given, that to them may

be conformed all the regulations which shall be necessary to the decorum

and order of the Church. Lastly, as he has delivered no express

injunctions on this subject, because these things are not necessary to

salvation, and ought to be applied to the edification of the Church,

with a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation,

therefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be right

to change and abolish former regulations, and to institute new ones. I

grant, indeed, that we ought not to resort to innovation rashly or

frequently, or for trivial causes. But charity will best decide what

will injure or edify, and if we submit to the dictates of charity, all

will be well.

XXXI. Now, such regulations as have been made upon this principle and

for this end, it is the duty of Christian people to observe, with a free

conscience, indeed, and without any superstition, yet with a pious and

ready inclination; they must not treat them with contempt or

carelessness, much less violate them, in an open manner, through pride

and obstinacy. It will be asked, What kind of liberty of conscience can

be retained amidst so much attention and caution? I reply, It will very

well be supported, when we consider, that these are not fixed and

perpetual laws by which we are bound, but external aids for human

infirmity, which though we do not need, yet we all use, because we are

under obligations to each other to cherish mutual charity between us.

This may be observed in the examples already mentioned. What! does

religion consist in a woman’s veil, so that it would be criminal for her

to walk out with her face uncovered? Is the solemn decree respecting her

silence such as cannot be violated without a capital offence? Is there

any mystery in kneeling, or in the interment of a dead body, which

cannot be omitted without sin? Certainly not; for if a woman, in the

assistance of a neighbour, finds a necessity for such haste as allows

her no time to cover her head, she commits no offence in running to the

place with her head uncovered. And it is sometimes as proper for her to

speak, as at other times to be silent. And he who from disease is unable

to kneel, is quite at liberty to pray standing. Lastly, it is better to

bury a dead body in proper season, even without a shroud, than, for want

of persons to carry it to burial, to suffer it to putrefy without

interment. Nevertheless, in these things, the customs and laws of the

country we inhabit, the dictates of modesty, and even humanity itself,

will direct us what to do, and what to avoid; and if an error be

incurred through inadvertence or forgetfulness, no crime is committed;

but if through contempt, such perverseness deserves to be reprobated. So

it is of little importance what days and hours are appointed, what is

the form of the places, what psalms are sung on the respective days. But

it is proper that there should be certain days and stated hours, and a

place capable of receiving all the people, if any regard be paid to the

preservation of peace. For what a source of contentions would be

produced by the confusion of these things, if every man were permitted

to change, at his pleasure, what relates to the general order, for it

would never happen that the same thing would be agreeable to all, if

things were undetermined and left to the choice of every individual. If

any one object, and resolve to be wiser on this subject than is

necessary, let him examine by what reason he can justify his obstinacy

to the Lord. We ought, however, to be satisfied with the declaration of

Paul, “If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor

the Churches of God.”[1027]

XXXII. Now, it is necessary to exert the greatest diligence to prevent

the intrusion of any error which may corrupt or obscure this pure use of

ecclesiastical regulations. This end will be secured, if all the forms,

whatever they may be, carry the appearance of manifest utility, if very

few are admitted, and principally if they are accompanied with the

instructions of a faithful pastor, to shut the door against all corrupt

opinions. The consequence of this knowledge is, that every person will

retain his liberty in all these things, and yet will voluntarily impose

some restraint upon his liberty, so far as the decorum we have

mentioned, or the dictates of charity, shall require. In the next place,

it will be necessary, that, without any superstition, we should attend

to the observance of these things ourselves, and not too rigidly exact

it from others; that we should not esteem the worship of God to be

improved by the multitude of ceremonies; and that one Church should not

despise another on account of a variety of external discipline. Lastly,

establishing no perpetual law of this kind for ourselves, we ought to

refer the use and end of all such observances to the edification of the

Church, according to the exigence of which we should be content not only

with the change of some particular observance, but with the abolition of

any that have hitherto been in use among us. For that the abrogation of

some ceremonies, not otherwise inconsistent with piety or decorum, may

become expedient from the circumstances of particular periods, the

present age exhibits an actual proof. For such has been the blindness

and ignorance of former times, Churches have heretofore adhered to

ceremonies with such corrupt sentiments and such obstinate zeal, that it

is scarcely possible for them to be sufficiently purified from monstrous

superstitions without the abolition of many ceremonies, for the original

institution of which, perhaps, there was some cause, and which are not

in themselves remarkable for any impiety.

Footnote 973:

Matt. xxiii. 4. Luke xi. 46.

Footnote 974:

1 Cor. vii. 35.

Footnote 975:

Rom. xiii. 5.

Footnote 976:

Rom. ii. 15.

Footnote 977:

1 Peter iii. 21.

Footnote 978:

Heb. x. 2.

Footnote 979:

1 Tim. i. 5.

Footnote 980:

1 Tim. i. 19.

Footnote 981:

Acts xxiv. 16.

Footnote 982:

1 Cor. x. 28, 29.

Footnote 983:

Rom. xiii. 5.

Footnote 984:

Rom. xiii. 1.

Footnote 985:

James iv. 11, 12.

Footnote 986:

Isaiah xxxiii. 22.

Footnote 987:

1 Peter v. 2, 3.

Footnote 988:

Col. i. 27, 28; ii. 3, 8, 23.

Footnote 989:

Gal. v. 1-18.

Footnote 990:

Col. ii. 8.

Footnote 991:

Gal. v. 1.

Footnote 992:

Matt. xv. 6.

Footnote 993:

Gal. iv. 9. Col. ii. 8.

Footnote 994:

Col. ii. 23.

Footnote 995:

Col. ii. 22.

Footnote 996:

Col. ii. 20, 21.

Footnote 997:

Gal. iv. 1, 2.

Footnote 998:

John iv. 23.

Footnote 999:

Jer. vii. 22, 23.

Footnote 1000:

Isaiah lv. 2.

Footnote 1001:

Isaiah xxix. 13. Matt. xv. 7-9.

Footnote 1002:

Isaiah xxix. 13, 14.

Footnote 1003:

Acts xv. 28, 29.

Footnote 1004:

Deut. xii. 32.

Footnote 1005:

Prov. xxx.

Footnote 1006:

Jer. vii. 22, 23.

Footnote 1007:

Jer. xi. 7.

Footnote 1008:

1 Sam. xv. 22, 23.

Footnote 1009:

Acts xv. 29.

Footnote 1010:

Acts xv. 10.

Footnote 1011:

1 Cor. viii. 4, 7, 9.

Footnote 1012:

Isaiah xxix. 13, 14.

Footnote 1013:

Matt. xv. 9.

Footnote 1014:

2 Kings xvii. 24-34.

Footnote 1015:

2 Kings xxii. 2. 2 Chron. xvii. 4, et alibi.

Footnote 1016:

2 Kings xvi. 10, &c.

Footnote 1017:

2 Kings xxi. 4.

Footnote 1018:

Col. ii. 4, 8, 18, 23.

Footnote 1019:

1 Sam. vii. 17.

Footnote 1020:

Judges xiii. 19.

Footnote 1021:

Judges viii. 27.

Footnote 1022:

Matt. xxiii. 3.

Footnote 1023:

Matt. xvi. 6.

Footnote 1024:

1 Cor. xiv. 40.

Footnote 1025:

1 Cor. xi. 5; xiv. 34.

Footnote 1026:

1 Cor. xi. 20-22.

Footnote 1027:

1 Cor. xi. 16.