multa habeo vobis dicere, sed non potestis portare modo. Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem.' Allegant etiam exemplum Apostolorum, qui prohibuerunt abstinere a sanguine et suffocato. Allegant Sabbatum mutatum in diem Dominicum, contra Decalogum ut videtur. Nec ullum exemplum magis jactatur, quam mutatio Sabbati. Magnam contendunt Ecclesiæ potestatem esse, quod dispensaverit de præcepto Decalogi. testimony for it: 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear them now; but when that Spirit of truth shall come, he shall teach you all truth' (John xvi 12, 13). They allege also the examples of the Apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood, and that which was strangled (Acts xv. 29). They allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day, contrary, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue; and they have no example more in their mouths than the change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church's power to be very great, because it hath dispensed with a precept of the Decalogue. Sed de hac quæstione nostri sic docent, quod Episcopi non habent poststatem statuendi aliquid contra Evangelium, ut supra ostensum est, docent idem Canones IX. Distinct. Porro contra Scripturam est, traditiones condere aut exigere, ut per eam observationem satis faciamus pro peccatis, aut mereamur gratiam et justitiam. Leditur enim Gloria meriti Christi, cum talibus observationibus conamur mereri justificationem. Constat autem propter hanc persuasionem, in Ecclesia pene in infinitum crevisse traditiones, oppressa interim doctrina de fide But of this question ours do thus teach: that the Bishops have no power to ordain any thing contrary to the Gospel, as was showed before. The same also do the Canons teach: Distinct. 9. Moreover, it is against the Scripture to ordain or require the observation of any traditions, to the end that we may merit remission of sins, and satisfy for sins by them. For the glory of Christ's merit suffers when we seek by such observances to merit justification. And it is very apparent, that through this persuasion traditions grew into an infinite number in the Church. In the mean while, the doctrine concerning faith, and the
et justitia fidei, quia subinde plures feriæ factæ sunt, jejunia indicta, ceremoniæ novæ, novi honores sanctorum instituti sunt, quia arbitrabantur se autores talium rerum his operibus mereri gratiam. Sic olim creverunt Canones poenitentiales, quorum adhuc in satisfactionibus vestigial quædam videmus. righteousness of faith, was quite suppressed, for thereupon there were new holidays made, new fasts appointed, new ceremonies, new worships for saints, instituted; because that the authors of such things supposed by these works to merit grace. After the same manner heretofore did the Penitential Canons increase, whereof we still see some traces in satisfactions. Item, autores traditionum faciunt contra mandatum Dei, cum collocant peccatum in cibis, in diebus et similibus rebus, et onerant Ecclesiam servitute legis, quasi oporteat apud Christianos ad promerendam justificationem cultum esse similem Levitico, cujus ordinationem commiserit Deus Apostolis et Episcopis. Sic enim scribunt quidam, et videntur Pontifices aliqua ex parte exemplo legis Mosaicæ decepti esse. Hinc sunt illa onera, quod peccatum mortale sit, etiam sine offensione aliorum, in feriis laborare minibus, quod sit peccatum mortale omittere horas Canonicas, quod certi cibi polluant conscientiam, quod jejunia sint opera placantia Deum, quod peccatum in casu reservato non posit remitti, nisi accesserit autoritas reservantis, cum quidem ipsi Canones non de reservatione Moreover, the authors of traditions do contrary to the command of God when they find matters of sin in foods, in days, and like things, and burden the Church with the servitude of the law, as if there ought to be among Christians, in order to merit justification, a service like the Levitical, the ordination of which God has committed to the Apostles and Bishops. For this some of them write, and the Pontiffs in some measure seem to be misled by the example of the Law of Moses. From hence are those burdens, that it is mortal sin, even without offense to others, to do manual labor on the festivals, that it is a mortal sin to omit the Canonical Hours, that certain foods defile the conscience, that fastings are works which appease God; that sin, in a reserved case, can not be pardoned, but by the authority of him that reserved it: whereas the Canons speak only of
culpæ, sed de reservatione poenæ ecclesiasticæ loquantur. reserving of ecclesiastical penalty, and not of the reserving of the fault. Unde habent jus episcopi has traditiones imponendi Ecclesiis ad illaqueandas conscientias, quum Petrum (Acts xv. 10) vetet 'imponere jugum discipulis,' quum Paulus (2 Cor. xiii. 10) dicat, potestatem ipsis datam esse 'ad ædificationem, non ad destructionem.' Cur igitur augent peccata per has traditiones? Whence, then, have the Bishops power and authority of imposing these traditions upon the churches, for the ensnaring of men's consciences, when Peter forbids (Acts xv. 10) 'to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,' and St. Paul says (2 Cor. xiii. 10) that the power given him was to edification, not to destruction? Why, therefore do they increase sins by these traditions? Verum extant clara testimonia, quæ prohibent condere tales traditiones ad promerendam gratiam, aut tanquam necessarias ad salutem. Paulus (Col. ii. 16): 'Nemo vos judicet in cibo, potu, parte diei festi, novilunio aut Sabbatis.' Item (20): 'Si mortui estis cum Christo ab elementis mundi, quare tanquam viventes in mundo, decreta facitis? Non attingas, non gustes, non contrectes; quæ omnia pereunt usu, et sunt mandata et doctrinæ hominum, quæ habent speciem sapientiæ.' Item, ad Titum (i. 14) aperte prohibet traditiones: 'Non attendentes Judaicis fabulis et mandatis hominum aversantium veritatem.' Et Christus (Matt. xv. 14) inquit de his, qui exigent traditions: 'Sinite illos, cæci sunt et duces For there are divers clear testimonies which prohibit the making of such traditions, either to merit grace, or as things necessary to salvation. Paul saith to the Colossians, 'Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holiday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days' (Col. ii. 16). Again, 'If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (Touch not, taste not, handle not; which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things indeed have a show of wisdom' (Col. ii. 20-23). And to Titus he doth plainly forbid traditions; for he saith, 'Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and to commandments of men, that turn from the truth' (Tit. i. 14). And Christ saith of them
cæcorum.' Et improbat tales cultus (13): 'Omnis plantatio, quam non plantavit Pater meus cælestis, eradicabitur.' which urge traditions, 'Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind' (Matt. xv. 14). And he condemneth such services: 'Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up' (ver. 13). Si jus habent Episcopi onerandi ecclesias infinitis traditionibus, et illaqueandi conscientias, cur toties prohibet Scriptura condere et audire traditiones? Cur vocat eas (1 Tim. iv. 1) doctrinas dæmoniorum? Num frustra hæc præmonuit Spiritus Sanctus? If Bishops have authority to burden the churches with innumerable traditions, and to snare men's consciences, why doth the Scripture so oft forbid to make and to listen to traditions? Why doth it call them the doctrines of devils? (1 Tim. iv. 1.) Hath the Holy Ghost warned us of them to no purpose? Relinquitur igitur, cum ordinationes institutæ tanquam necessariæ, aut cum opinione promerendæ gratiæ, pungent cum Evangelio, Quod non liceat ullis Episcopis tales cultus instituere aut exigere. Necesse est enim in ecclesiis [in der Christenheit] retineri doctrinam de liberate Christiana, quod non sit necessaria servitus legis ad justificationem; sicut in Galatis scriptum est (v. 1): 'Nolite iterum jugo servitutis subjici.' Necesse est retineri præcipuum Evangelii locum, quod gratiam per fidem in Christum, gratis consequamur, non propter certas observationes, aut propter cultus ab hominibus institutos. It remaineth, then, that (seeing ordinances, instituted as necessary, or with the opinion of meriting grace, are repugnant to the Gospel) it is not lawful for any Bishops to institute or exact such worship. For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty should be maintained in the church [Christendom]: that the bondage of the law is not necessary unto justification, as it is written to the Galatians: 'Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage' (Gal. v. 1). It necessary that the chiefest point of all the Gospel should be holden fast, that we do freely obtain grace, by faith in Christ, not because of certain observances, or of services devised by men.
Quid igitur sentiendum est de die Dominico et similibus ritibus templorum? Ad hæc respondent [die Unsern], quod liceat Episcopis seu Pastoribus facere ordinationes, ut res ordine gerantur in Ecclesia, non ut per illas mereamur gratiam, aut satis faciamus pro peccatis, aut obligentur conscientiæ, ut judicent esse necessarios cultus, ac sentient se peccare, cum sine offensione aliorum violant. Sic Paulus ordinat (1 Cor. xi. 15) 'ut in congregatione mulieres velent capita' (1 Cor. xiv. 30), 'ut ordine audiantur in Ecclesia interpretes,' etc. What is, then to be thought of the Lord's day, and of like rites of temples? Hereunto they [ours] answer, that it is lawful for Bishops or Pastors to make ordinances, whereby things may be done in order in the Church; not that by them we may merit grace, or satisfy for sins, or that men's consciences should be bound to esteem them as necessary services, and think that they sin when they violate them, without the offense of others. So Paul ordained, 'that women should cover their heads in the congregation' (1 Cor. xi. 6); 'that the interpreters of Scriptures should be heard in order in the Church' (1 Cor. xiv. 27), etc. Tales ordinations convenit ecclesias propter caritatem et tranquillitatem servare eatenus, ne alius alium offendat, ut ordine et sine tumultu omnia fiant in ecclesiis (1 Cor. xiv. 40, comp. Phil. ii. 14): verum ita, ne conscientiæ onerentur, ut ducant res esse necessarias ad salutem, ac judicent se peccare, cum violant eas sine aliorum offensione, sicut nemo dixerit peccare mulierem, quæ in publicum non velato capite procedit, sine offensione hominum. Such ordinances it behooveth the churches to keep for charity and quietness' sake, so that one offend not another, that all things may be done in order, and without tumult in the churches (1 Cor. xiv. 40 and Phil. ii. 14), but so that consciences be not burdened, so as to account them as things necessary to salvation, and think they sin when they violate them, without offense of others; as no one would say that a woman sins if she went into public with her head uncovered, provided it were without the offense of men. Talis est observatio diei Dominici, Such is the observation of the
Paschatis, Pentecostes et similium feriarum et rituum. Nam qui judicant Ecclesiæ autoritate pro Sabbato institutam esse diei Dominici observationem, tanquam necessariam, longe errant. Scriptura abrogavit Sabbatum, quæ docet omnes ceremonias Mosaicas, post revelatum Evangelium omitti posse. Et tamen, quia opus erat constituere certum diem, ut sciret populus, quando convenire deberet, apparet Ecclesiam [die christliche Kirche] ei rei destinasse diem Dominicum, qui ob hanc quoque causam videtur magis placuisse, ut haberent homines exemplum Christianæ libertatis, et scirent, nec Sabbati nec alterius diei observationem necessariam esse [dass weder die Haltung des Sabbaths, noch eines andern Tages vonnöthen sei]. [26] Lord's day, of Easter, of Pentecost, and like holidays and rites. For they that think that the observation of the Lord's day was appointed by the authority of the Church, instead of the Sabbath, as necessary, are greatly deceived. The Scripture, which teacheth that all the Mosaical ceremonies can be omitted after the Gospel is revealed, has abrogated the Sabbath. And yet, because it was requisite to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the [Christian] Church did for that purpose appoint the Lord's day: which for this cause also seemed to have been pleasing, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the observation, neither of the Sabbath, nor of another day, was of necessity. Extant prodigiosæ disputationes de mutatione legis, de ceremoniis novæ legis, de mutatione Sabbati, quæ omnes ortæ sunt There are certain marvelous disputations touching the changing of the law, and the ceremonies of the new law, and the change of the Sabbath: