CHAPTER X.08

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?