Chapter 10. Of the Power in Making of Laws, Where the Pope and His Have Used a Most Cruel Tyranny and Butchery upon Souls

Now follows the second part, which they will have to consist in making of laws, out of which spring have flowed innumerable traditions of men, even so many snares to strangle poor souls. For they have had no more conscience than had the Scribes and Pharisees, to lay burdens upon other men's shoulders, which they themselves would not touch with one finger. I have in another place taught how cruel a butchery is that which they command concerning auricular confession. In other laws there appears not so great violence: but those which seem the most tolerable of all, do tyrannously oppress consciences. I leave unspoken how they corrupt the worship of God, and do spoil God himself of his right, which is the only lawmaker. This power is now to be treated of, whether the Church may bind consciences with her laws. In which discourse the order of policy is not touched, but this only is intended, that God be rightly worshipped according to the rule which himself has prescribed, and that the spiritual liberty, which has regard to God, may remain safe to us. Use has made that all those decrees be called traditions of men, whatever they be that have concerning the worship of God proceeded from men beside his word. Against these do we strive, not against the holy and profitable ordinances of the Church which make for the preservation either of discipline or honesty or peace. But the end of our striving is, that the immeasurable and barbarous empire may be restrained, which they usurp upon souls, that would be counted pastors of the Church, but in very deed are most cruel butchers. For they say that the laws which they make are spiritual, and pertaining to the soul, and they affirm them to be necessary to eternal life. But so (as I even now touched) the kingdom of Christ is invaded, so the liberty by him given to the consciences of the faithful is utterly oppressed and thrown abroad. I speak not now with how great ungodliness they establish the observing of their laws, while out of it they teach men to seek both forgiveness of sins, and righteousness, and salvation, while they set in it the whole sum of religion and godliness. This one thing I earnestly hold, that there ought no necessity to be laid upon consciences in those things wherein they are made free by Christ, and unless they be made free, as we have before taught, they cannot rest with God. They must acknowledge one only king Christ their deliverer, and be governed by one law of liberty, even the holy word of the Gospel, if they will keep still the grace which they have once obtained in Christ: they must be held with no bondage, and bound with no bonds.

These Solons do indeed feign that their constitutions are laws of liberty, a sweet yoke, a light burden: but who cannot see that they be mere lies? They themselves indeed do feel no heaviness of their own laws, which casting away the fear of God, do carelessly and stoutly neglect both their own and God's laws. But they that are touched with any care of their salvation, are far from thinking themselves free so long as they be entangled with these snares. We see with how great wariness Paul did deal in this behalf, that he dared not so much as in any one thing lay upon men any snare at all — and that not without cause. Truly he foresaw with how great a wound consciences should be stricken, if they should be charged with a necessity of those things of which the Lord had left them liberty. On the other side the constitutions are almost innumerable, which these men have most grievously established with threatening of eternal death, which they most severely require as necessary to salvation. And among those there are many most hard to be kept, but all of them (if the whole multitude of them be laid together) are impossible: so great is the heap. How then shall it be possible, that they upon whom so great a weight of difficulty lies, should not be vexed in perplexity with extreme anguish and terror? Therefore my purpose is here to impugn such constitutions, as tend to this end, inwardly to bind souls before God, and charge them with a religion, as though they taught them of things necessary to salvation.

This question does therefore encumber the most part of men, because they do not subtly enough put difference between the outward court (as they call it) and the court of conscience. Moreover this increases the difficulty, that Paul teaches that the magistrate ought to be obeyed, not only for fear of punishment, but for conscience's sake. Whereupon follows, that consciences are also bound with the political laws. But if it were so, then all should fall that we have spoken in the last chapter, and intend now to speak concerning the spiritual government. For the loosing of this knot, first it is good to learn what is Conscience. The definition is to be gathered of the proper derivation of the word. For, as when men do with mind and understanding conceive the knowledge of things, they are thereby said to know, from which is derived the name of knowledge: so when they have a feeling of God's judgment as a witness adjoined with them, which does not suffer them to hide their sins, but that they be brought accused to the judgment seat of God, the same feeling is called Conscience. For it is a certain mean between God and man: because it suffers not man to suppress that which he knows, but pursues him so far till it bring him to guilt. This is it that Paul means when he teaches that Conscience does together witness with men, when their thoughts do accuse or acquit them in the judgment of God. A simple knowledge might remain in man as enclosed. Therefore this feeling which presents man to the judgment of God, is as it were a keeper joined to man, to mark and watch all his secrets, that nothing should remain buried in darkness. Whereupon also comes the old proverb, Conscience is a thousand witnesses. For the same reason also Peter has set the examination of a good conscience, for quietness of mind, when we being persuaded of the grace of Christ, do without fear present ourselves to God. And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, uses these words, to have no more conscience of sin, in place of to be delivered or acquitted, that sin may no more accuse us.

Therefore as works have respect to men, so the conscience is referred to God: so the conscience is nothing else but the inward purity of the heart. In which sense Paul writes that charity is the fulfilling of the law, out of a pure conscience, and faith not feigned. Afterward also in the same chapter he shows how much it differs from understanding, saying that some had suffered shipwreck from the faith, because they had forsaken good conscience. For in these words he signifies that it is a lively affection to worship God, and a sincere desire to live godly and holy. Sometimes indeed it is referred also to men, as in Luke, when the same Paul testifies that he endeavored himself that he might walk with a good conscience toward God and men. But this was therefore said, because the fruits of good conscience do flow and come even to men. But in speaking properly, it has respect to God only, as I have already said. From this comes that a law is said to bind conscience, which simply binds a man, without regard of men, or not having any consideration of them. As for example: God commands not only to keep the mind chaste and pure from all lust, but also forbids all manner of filthiness of words and outward wantonness, whatever it be. To the keeping of this law my conscience is subject, although there lived not one man in the world. So he that behaves himself intemperately does not only sin in this that he gives example to his brethren, but he has his conscience bound with guilt before God. In things that are of themselves mean, there is another consideration. For we ought to abstain from them, if they breed any offense, but the conscience still being free. So Paul speaks of flesh consecrated to idols. If any (says he) makes doubt, touch it not, for conscience's sake: I say for conscience, not your own, but the other's. A faithful man should sin, which being first warned should nevertheless eat of such flesh. But however in respect of his brother, it be necessary for him to abstain, as it is prescribed of God, yet he ceases not to keep still the liberty of conscience. We see how this law binding the outward work, leaves the conscience unbound.

Now let us return to the laws of men. If they be made to this end, to charge us with a religion, as though the observing of them were of itself necessary, then we say that that is laid upon conscience which was not lawful to be laid upon it. For our consciences have not to do with men, but with God only: to which pertains the common difference between the earthly court and the court of conscience. When the whole world was wrapped in a most thick mist of ignorance, yet this small sparkle of light remained, that they acknowledged a man's conscience to be above all judgments of men. However the same thing that they did with one word confess, they did afterward in deed overthrow: yet it was God's will that there should then also remain some testimony of Christian liberty, which might deliver consciences from the tyranny of men. But the difficulty is not yet dissolved, which arises out of the words of Paul. For if we must obey princes not only for penalties' sake, but also for conscience, it seems thereupon to follow that princes' laws have also dominion over conscience. If this be true, then the same also ought to be said of the laws of the Church. I answer that first here we must put a difference between the generality and the speciality. For though all special laws do not touch the conscience, yet we are bound by the general commandment of God, which commends to us the authority of magistrates. And upon this point stands the disputation of Paul, that magistrates are to be honored because they are ordained of God. In the meantime he teaches not that those laws that are prescribed by them do belong to the inward government of the soul: whereas he everywhere extols both the worshiping of God and the spiritual rule of living righteously, above all the ordinances of men whatever they be. In other things also is worthy to be noted, (which yet hangs upon the former) that the laws of men, whether they be made by the magistrate or by the Church, although they be necessary to be kept, (I speak of the good and righteous laws) yet therefore do not by themselves bind conscience, because the whole necessity of keeping them is referred to the general end, but consists not in the things commanded. From this sort do greatly differ both those that prescribe a new form of the worshiping of God, and those that appoint necessity in things that are free.

But such are those that at this day be called ecclesiastical constitutions in the Papacy, which are thrust in, in stead of the true and necessary worshiping of God. And as they be innumerable, so are there infinite bonds to catch and snare souls. But although in the declaration of the law we have somewhat touched them, yet because this place was fitter to treat fully of them, I will now travail to gather together the whole sum in the best order that I can. And because we have already discoursed so much as seemed to be sufficient, concerning the tyranny which the false Bishops do take upon themselves, in liberty to teach whatever they list, I will now omit all that part, and I will here tarry only upon declaring the power, which they say they have, to make laws. Our false Bishops therefore do burden consciences with new laws, under this pretense, that they are ordained of the Lord as spiritual lawmakers, since the government of the Church is committed to them. Therefore they affirm that whatever they command and prescribe, ought necessarily to be observed of the Christian people, and that he that breaks it, is guilty of double disobedience, for that he is rebellious both to God and to the Church. Certainly, if they were true Bishops, I would in this behalf grant to them some authority, not so much as they require, but so much as is requisite to the well ordering of the polity of the Church. Now since they are nothing less than that which they would be accounted, they can not take any thing to them, be it never so little, but that they shall take too much. But because this has been elsewhere considered, let us grant them at this present, that whatever power true Bishops have, the same rightly belongs to them also: yet I deny that they be therefore appointed lawmakers over the faithful, that may of themselves prescribe a rule to live by, or compel to their ordinances the people committed to them. When I say this I mean, that it is not lawful for them, to deliver to the Church to be observed of necessity, that which they have devised of themselves without the word of God. Forasmuch as that authority both was unknown to the Apostles, and so often taken away from the ministers of the Church by the Lord's own mouth, I marvel who have been so bold to take it upon them, and at this day are so bold to defend it, beside the example of the Apostles, and against the manifest prohibition of God.

As touching that that pertained to the perfect rule of well living, the Lord has so contained all that in his law, that he has left nothing for men that they might add to that sum. And this he did first for this purpose, that because the whole uprightness of living stands in this point, if all works be governed by his will as by a rule, he should be held of us the only master and director of life: then, to declare that he requires of us nothing more than obedience. For this reason James says: he that judges his brother judges the law: he that judges the law, is not an observer of the law, but a judge. But there is one only lawmaker, that can both save and destroy. We hear that God does claim this one thing as proper to himself, to rule us with the government and laws of his word. And the same thing was spoken before of Isaiah, although somewhat more darkly: the Lord is our king, the Lord is our lawmaker, the Lord is our judge, he shall save us. Truly in both these places is showed, that he that has power over the soul, has the judgment of life and death. Indeed James pronounces this plainly. Now, no man can take that upon him. Therefore God must be acknowledged to be the only king of souls, to whom alone belongs the power to save and destroy, as those words of Isaiah express, and to be the king, and judge, and lawmaker and Savior. Therefore Peter, when he admonishes the Pastors of their duty, exhorts them so to feed the flock, not as using a lordship over the Clergy, by which word Clergy he signifies the inheritance of God, that is to say the faithful people. This if we rightly weigh, that it is not lawful, that that should be transferred to man, which God makes his own only, we shall understand that so all the power is cut off, whatever it be, that they challenge, who advance themselves to command any thing in the Church without the word of God.

Now, forasmuch as the whole cause hangs thereupon, that if God be the only lawmaker, it is not lawful for men to take that honor to themselves: it is fitting also therewithal to keep in mind those two reasons which we have spoken, why the Lord claims that to himself alone. The first is, that his will may be to us a perfect rule of all righteousness and holiness: and that so in the knowing of him may be the perfect knowledge to live well. The other is, that (when the manner is sought how to worship him rightly and well) he only may have authority over our souls, whom we ought to obey, and upon whose beck we ought to hang. These two reasons being well marked, it shall be easy to judge, what ordinances of men are contrary to the word of God. Of that sort be all those which are feigned to belong to the true worshipping of God, and to the observing whereof consciences are bound, as though they were necessary to be observed. Let us therefore remember that all laws of men ought to be weighed with this balance, if we will have a sure trial that may never suffer us to err. The first of these reasons Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians uses in contending against the false Apostles that attempted to oppress the Churches with new burdens. The second reason he more uses with the Galatians in the like case. This therefore he labors to prove in the Epistle to the Colossians, that the doctrine concerning the true worshipping of God is not to be sought at men's hands: because the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us how he ought to be worshipped. To prove the same in the first chapter, he says that in the Gospel is contained all wisdom, whereby the man of God may be made perfect in Christ. In the beginning of the second chapter, he says that all the treasures of wisdom and understanding are hidden in Christ. Thereupon he afterward concludes: let the faithful beware that they be not by vain philosophy led from the flock of Christ, according to the constitutions of men. But in the end of the chapter, he does yet with greater boldness condemn all Ethelothreskias, that is to say all feigned worshippings, which men devise to themselves, or receive of other, and whatever precepts they dare of themselves give concerning the worshipping of God. We have therefore, that all those ordinances are wicked, in observing whereof the worshipping of God is feigned to be. As for the places in the Galatians wherewith he earnestly affirms that consciences, which ought to be ruled of God only, ought not to be entangled with snares, they are open enough, especially in the fifth chapter. Therefore let it be sufficient to have but noted them.

But because the whole matter shall better be made open by examples, before that we go any further, it is good also to apply this doctrine to our own times. We say that the constitutions which they call Ecclesiastical, wherewith the Pope and his do burden the Church, are pernicious and wicked: our adversaries defend that they be holy and available to salvation. There be two kinds of them: for some concern ceremonies and rites, other some pertain more to discipline. Is there then a just cause to move us to impugn them both? Truly a juster than we would. First, do not the authors themselves clearly define, that the very worshipping of God is contained in them? To what purpose do they apply their ceremonies, but that God should be worshipped by them? And that comes to pass not by the only error of the ignorant multitude, but by their allowance that have the place of teaching. I do not touch the gross abominations, wherewith they have gone about to overthrow all godliness. But it should not be imagined among them to be so heinous an offense, to have failed in any of the least petty traditions, unless they did make the worshipping of God subject to their feigned devices. What do we then offend, if at this day we cannot bear that, which Paul taught to be intolerable, that the lawful order of the worshipping of God should be reduced to the will of men: especially when they command men to worship according to the elements of this world, which Paul testifies to be against Christ? Again it is not unknown, with how precise necessity they bind consciences to keep whatever they command. Here when we cry out to the contrary, we have all one cause with Paul, which in no wise suffers faithful consciences to be brought into bondage of men.

Moreover this worst of all is added, that when religion has once begun to be defined with such vain inventions, there ever follows after that perverseness another abominable frowardness, of which Christ reproached the Pharisees — that the commandment of God is made void for the traditions of men. I will not use my own words in fighting against our lawmakers at these days. Let them have the victory, if they can by any means purge themselves from this accusation of Christ. But how should they excuse themselves, when among them it is thought infinitely more heinous to have omitted auricular confession when the time of year comes about, than to have continued a most wicked life a whole year together: to have infected their tongue with a little tasting of flesh on a Friday, than to have defiled their body with whoredom all the days of the week? To have put their hand to an honest work upon a day consecrated to I know not what petty saints, than to have continually exercised their members in most wicked offenses? For a priest to be coupled with one lawful marriage, than to be entangled with a thousand adulteries? Not to have performed a vowed pilgrimage, than to break faith in all promises? Not to have wasted somewhat upon monstrous and no less superfluous and unprofitable excessive gorgeousness of temples, than to have failed to help the extreme necessities of the poor? To have passed by an idol without honor, than to have despitefully entreated all kinds of men? Not [reconstructed: to] have mumbled up at certain hours a great number of words without understanding, than never to have conceived a true prayer in their heart? What is to make void the commandment of God for the traditions of men, if this is not it: when commending the keeping of God's commandments but coldly and as it were lightly by the way, they do no less earnestly and busily exact the obeying of their own, than if they contained in them the whole substance of godliness? When revenging the transgressing of God's law with light penalties of satisfactions, they punish the very least offense of one of their own decrees with no less pain than with imprisonment, banishment, fire, or sword? Being not so sharp and hard to entreat against the despisers of God, they persecute the despisers of themselves with unappeasable hatred to the extremity, and do so instruct all those whose simplicity they hold captive, that they would with more contented mind see the whole law of God overthrown, than one small title (as they call it) in the commandments of the Church to be broken. First in this point is grievous offense committed, that for small matters, and such as (if it should be tried by God's judgment) are at liberty, one man despises, judges, and casts away another. But now, as though that were not evil enough, those trifling elements of the world (as Paul calls them in his writing to the Galatians (Galatians 4:9)) are weighed of more value than the heavenly oracles of God. And he that is in a manner acquitted in adultery is judged in meat; he that has leave to use a harlot is forbidden to have a wife. This profit truly is gotten by that transgressing obedience, which is so much turned from God as it declines to men.

There are also other two not slender faults, which we disallow in the same ordinances. First, because they prescribe for the most part unprofitable, and sometimes also foolish observations; then, because godly consciences are oppressed with the infinite multitude of them, and being rolled back into a certain Jewishness, they so cleave to shadows that they cannot attain to Christ. Whereas I call them foolish and unprofitable, I know that it will not seem credible to the wisdom of the flesh, which so well likes them that it thinks the Church to be utterly deformed when they are taken away. But this is it that Paul writes of — to have a resemblance of wisdom in counterfeit worshipping, in humility, and in this, that they think that with their sharpness they are able to tame their flesh. This is truly a most wholesome admonition, such as ought never to slip away from us. Men's traditions (says he) do deceive under the show of wisdom. From where have they this color? Because they are feigned of men, therefore the wit of man does therein acknowledge his own, and acknowledging it does more gladly embrace it, than anything were it never so good that less agreed with his vanity. Again, they have hereby another commendation, because they seem to be fit introductions to humility, for that with their yoke they hold the minds of men pressed down to the ground. Last of all, because they seem to tend to this end to restrain the daintiness of the flesh and to subdue it with rigor of abstinence, therefore they are thought to be wisely devised. But what says Paul to these things? Does he not shake off those visors, lest the simple should be deceived with false pretense? Because he judged this enough for confutation of them, that he had said that they were the inventions of men, he passes over all these things without confutation, as though he esteemed them for nothing. Yes, because he knew that all feigned worshippings in the Church were condemned, and are so much more suspicious to the faithful as they more delight the wit of man; because he knew that that feigned image of outward humility does so much differ from true humility as it might easily be discerned; finally, because he knew that that childish introduction was no more esteemed than an exercise of the body — therefore he willed that the very same things should be to the faithful in place of a confutation of men's traditions, by favor of which they were commended among the ignorant (Colossians 2:23).

So at this day not only the unlearned common people, but every man as he is most puffed up with worldly wisdom, so is he most marvelously delighted with beholding of ceremonies. But hypocrites and foolish women think that there can be nothing devised more glorious nor better. But they which do more deeply search, and more truly weigh according to the rule of godliness, of what value so many and such ceremonies are, do understand, first that they are trifles, because they have no profit: then, that they are deceits, because they do with vain pomp beguile the eyes of the beholders. I speak of those ceremonies, under which the Romish masters will that there be great mysteries: but we find them by experience to be nothing else but mere mockeries. And it is no marvel that the authors of them have fallen so far as to mock both themselves and others with trifling follies: because they partly took their exemplar out of the dotages of the Gentiles, and partly after the manner of apes did indiscreetly counterfeit the old usages of the law of Moses, which no more pertained to us than the sacrifices of beasts and such other things. Truly although there were no other argument, yet no man that has his sound wit will look for any goodness of a heap so ill patched together. And the thing itself plainly shows that many ceremonies have no other use but to amaze the people rather than to teach them. So in these newfound canons, that do rather pervert than preserve discipline, the hypocrites repose great importance: but if a man do better look into them, he shall find that they are nothing else but a shadowy and vanishing show of discipline.

But now (to come to the other point) who does not see that traditions with heaping one upon another, are overgrown into so great a number, that the Christian Church may in no way bear them? Hereby it has come to pass, that in ceremonies there appears I know not what Jewishness, and the other observations bring a grievous slaughter to Christian souls. Augustine complained that in his time, the commandments of God neglected, all things were full of so many presumptions, that he was more grievously rebuked that in his octave had touched the ground with bare foot, than he that had buried his wit with drunkenness. He complained that the Church, which the mercy of God willed to be free, was so burdened, that the state of the Jews was much more tolerable. If that holy man had happened to live in our age, with what complaints would he have bewailed the bondage that now is? For both the number is ten times greater, and every small tittle is a hundred times more rigorously looked to, than at that time. So is it wont to be done: when these perverse lawmakers have gotten the dominion, they make no end of bidding and forbidding, till they come to extreme peevishness. Which thing Paul has also very well declared in these words: If you be dead to the world, why are you held as though you were living, with traditions, as eat not, taste not, handle not? For whereas the Greek word aptesthai signifies both to eat and to touch, doubtless in this place it is taken in the first of these two significations, lest there should be a superfluous repetition. Therefore he does here excellently well describe the proceedings of the false apostles. They begin at superstition, so that they do not only forbid to eat, but also even scarcely to chew: when they have obtained this, they then also forbid to taste. When this is also granted them, they reckon it not lawful so much as to touch with a finger.

This tyranny in the ordinances of men we do at this day worthily blame, by which it has come to pass that poor consciences are marvelously tormented with innumerable decrees and immeasurable exacting of keeping them. Of canons pertaining to discipline we have spoken in another place. Of the ceremonies, what shall I say, by which it is brought about that, Christ being half buried, we are returned to Jewish figures? Our Lord Christ (says Augustine) has bound together the fellowship of the new people, with sacraments very few in number, most excellent in signification, most easy in observing. How far the multitude and diversity of usages with which at this day we see the Church to be entangled, does differ from this simplicity, it cannot be sufficiently declared. I know with what crafty shift some subtle men do excuse this perverseness. They say that among us there are many as rude as they were in the people of Israel: that such introduction was ordained for their sakes, which although the stronger may well want, yet they ought not to neglect it, forasmuch as they see it to be profitable for the weaker brethren. I answer, that we are not ignorant what we owe to the weakness of our brethren: but on the other side we take exception and say, that this is not the way whereby the weak may be provided for, that they should be overwhelmed with great heaps of ceremonies. The Lord did not in vain put this difference between us and the old people, that his will was to instruct them like children with signs and figures, but us more simply without such outward furniture. As (says Paul) a child is ruled by his schoolmaster, and kept under custody, according to the capacity of his age: so the Jews are kept under the law. But we are like full grown men, which being set at liberty from tutorship and government, have no more need of childish introductions. Truly the Lord did foresee what manner of common people there should be in his Church, and how they should be ruled. Yet he did in this manner, as we have said, make difference between us and the Jews. Therefore it is a foolish way, if we will provide for the ignorant, in raising up Jewishness which is abrogated by Christ: Christ also touched in his own words this difference of the old and new people, when he said to the woman of Samaria, that the time was come wherein the true worshippers should worship God in Spirit and truth. This verily had always been done: but the new worshippers differed from the old in this point, that under Moses the spiritual worshipping of God was shadowed and in a manner entangled with many ceremonies, which being abolished, he is now more simply worshipped. Therefore they that confound this difference, do overthrow the order instituted and established by Christ. Shall there then (will you say) no ceremonies be given to the ruder sort to help their unskilfulness? I say not so: for I truly think that this kind of help is profitable for them. I do here labor only that such a means may be used, as may brightly set out Christ, and not darken him. Therefore there are given us of God few ceremonies, and those not laborious, that they should show Christ being present. The Jews had more given them, that they should be images of him being absent. Absent I say he was, not in power, but in manner of signifying. Therefore, that means may be kept, it is necessary to keep that fewness in number, easiness in observing, and dignity in signifying, which also consists in clearness. What need I to say that this has not been done? For the thing itself is in all men's eyes.

Here I omit with how pernicious opinions men's minds are filled, in thinking that they be sacrifices, with which oblation is rightly made to God, by which sins are cleansed, by which righteousness and salvation is obtained. They will deny that good things are corrupted with such foreign errors: forasmuch as in this behalf a man may no less offend in the very works also commanded of God. But this has more heinousness, that so much honor is given to works rashly feigned by the will of man, that they are thought to be things deserving eternal life. For the works commanded of God have reward therefore, because the lawmaker himself in respect of obedience accepts them. Therefore they receive not their value of their own worthiness, or of their own deserving, but because God so much esteems our obedience toward him. I speak here of that perfection of works which is commanded of God, and is not performed by men. For therefore the very works of the law which we do, have no thanks but of the free goodness of God, because in them our obedience is weak and lame. But because we do not here dispute of what value works are without Christ, therefore let us pass over the question. I come back again to that which properly belongs to this present argument, that whatever commendation works have in them, they have it in respect of the obedience, which only the Lord does look upon, as he testifies by the prophet: I gave not commandment of sacrifices and burnt offerings, but only that you should with hearing, hear my voice. But of feigned works he speaks in another place, saying: You weigh your silver and not in bread. Again, they worship me in vain with the precepts of men. This therefore they can by no means excuse, that they suffer the silly people to seek in those outward trifles the righteousness by which they may stand against God, and uphold themselves before the heavenly judgment seat. Moreover, is not this a fault worthy to be inveighed against, that they show forth ceremonies not understood, as it were a stage play, or a magical enchantment? For it is certain that all ceremonies are corrupt and hurtful, unless men be by them directed to Christ. But the ceremonies that are used under the papacy, are severed from doctrine, that they may the more hold men in signs without all signification. Finally (such a cunning craftsman is the belly) it appears that many of them have been invented by covetous sacrificing priests, to be snares to catch money. But whatever beginning they have, they are all so given forth in common for filthy gain, that we must needs cut off a great part of them, if we will bring to pass that there be not a profane market, and full of sacrilege used in the Church.

Although I seem not to teach a continual doctrine concerning the ordinances of men, because this speaking is altogether applied to our own time: yet there is nothing spoken that shall not be profitable for all times. For so often as this superstition creeps in, that men will worship God with their own feigned devices, whatever the laws be that are made to that purpose, they do by and by degenerate to those gross abuses. For the Lord threatens not this curse to one or two ages, but to all ages of the world, that he will strike them with blindness and amazed dullness that worship him with the doctrines of men. This blinding continually makes that they flee from no kind of absurdity, who, despising so many warnings of God, do willfully wrap themselves in those deadly snares. But if, setting aside circumstances, you will have simply shown what the traditions of men of all ages are, which it is fitting to be rejected by the Church, and to be disallowed of all the godly, that same shall be a sure and plain definition which we have above set: that all laws without the word of God are made by men to this end, either to prescribe a manner of worshipping God, or to bind consciences with religion, as though they gave commandment of things necessary to salvation. If to the one or both of these there be adjoined other faults; as, that with their multitude they darken the brightness of the Gospel: that they nothing edify, but be rather unprofitable and trifling occupations than true exercises of godliness: that they be laid abroad to filthiness and dishonest gain: that they be too hard to be kept: that they be defiled with evil superstitions: these shall be helps that we may the more easily find how much evil is in them.

I hear what they answer for themselves, that their traditions are not of themselves, but of God. For, they say that the Church is governed by the Holy Spirit, that it can not err: and that the authority thereof remains with them. When this is obtained, it therewith follows, that their traditions are the revelations of the Holy Spirit, which can not be despised but wickedly and with the contempt of God. And that they should not seem to have attempted anything without great authority, they will have it believed that a great part of their observations came from the Apostles: and they affirm that by one example is sufficiently declared what the Apostles did in other things, when being assembled in one Council, they did by the decree of the Council command the Gentiles to abstain from things offered to idols, from blood and strangled. We have already in another place declared, how falsely for boasting of themselves they lyingly usurp the title of the Church. So much as concerning this present cause: if, plucking away all visors and deceitful colors, we truly look upon that which we ought principally to care for, and which chiefly is for our benefit, that is, what manner of Church Christ will have, that we may fashion and frame ourselves to the rule thereof: it shall easily be evident to us, that it is not the Church, which passing the bounds of the word of God, does outrage and runs riot in making of new laws. For does not that law which was once prescribed to the Church, remain eternal? What I command you, that you shall keep that you may do it. You shall not add anything, nor take anything from it. And in another place: Add not to the word of the Lord, nor diminish anything: lest he perhaps reprove you, and you be found a liar. Since they can not deny that this was spoken to the Church, what do they else but report the stubbornness of that Church, which they boast to have been so bold as after such prohibitions nevertheless to add and mingle of her own with the doctrine of God? But God forbid that we should assent to their lies, whereby they burden the Church with so great a slander: but let us understand, that the name of the Church is falsely pretended, so often as this lust of men's rashness is spoken of, which can not hold itself within the prescribed bounds of God, but that it wildly ranges and runs out into her own inventions. There is nothing entangled, nothing dark, nothing doubtful in these words, in which the whole Church is forbidden to add to the word of God, or to take anything from it, when the worshipping of God, and precepts concerning salvation, are treated of. But this (say they) was spoken of the law only, after which followed the prophecies and the whole ministration of the Gospel. I grant indeed: and I add also, which are rather fulfillments of the law, than additions or diminishments. But if the Lord suffered nothing to be added to or taken from the ministry of Moses, which was (as I may so term it) dark by reason of many doubtful wrappings, till by his servants the Prophets, and at length by his beloved Son, he ministered a clearer doctrine: why should we not think it much more severely forbidden us, that we should add nothing to the law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Gospel? The Lord is not gone out of kind from himself, who has long ago declared, that he is with nothing so highly offended, as when he is worshipped with the inventions of men? From where came those notable sayings in the Prophets, which ought to have continually sounded in our ears: I spoke no words to your fathers, in the day that I brought them out of Egypt, concerning sacrifice and burnt offering. But this word I commanded them, saying: With hearing hear my voice: and I will be your God, and you shall be my people, and you shall walk in all the way that I shall command you. Again, I have with protesting protested to your fathers, Hear my voice. And other like sayings: but this is notable above the rest. Will God have burnt offerings and sacrifices, and not rather that his voice be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifice, and to listen is better than to offer the fat of rams. For, to resist is as the sin of soothsaying: and not to obey is as the wickedness of idolatry. Therefore whatever inventions of men are in this behalf defended with the authority of the Church, forasmuch as the same can not be excused from the crime of ungodliness, it is easy to prove that it is falsely imputed to the Church.

After this sort we freely inveigh against this tyranny of men's traditions, which is proudly thrust in among us, under the title of the Church. For neither do we scorn the Church (as our adversaries, to bring us in hatred, do unjustly lie upon us) but we give to her the praise of obedience, than which she knows no greater praise. They rather are very sore wrongdoers to the Church, who make her obstinate against her Lord, while they feign that she has proceeded further than she lawfully might do by the word of God: though I speak nothing of how it is a notable shamelessness joined with as great malice, continually to cry out of the authority of the Church, and in the mean time dissemblingly to hide both what is commanded her by the Lord, and what obedience she owes to the commandment of the Lord. But if we have a mind, as it is meet we should have, to agree with the Church, this pertains rather to the purpose, to have an eye to and remember what is commanded by the Lord both to us and the Church, that we should with one agreement obey him. For there is no doubt but we shall very well agree with the Church, if we do in all things show ourselves obedient to the Lord. But now to father upon the Apostles, the original of the traditions wherewith the Church has been hitherto oppressed, was a point of mere deceit: forasmuch as the doctrine of the Apostles travails wholly to this end, that consciences should not be burdened with new observations, nor the worshipping of God be defiled with our inventions. Moreover if there be any faithfulness in histories and ancient monuments, the Apostles not only never knew, but also never heard of this that they attribute to them. Neither let them prate, that the most part of their decrees were received in use and in men's behaviors, which never were put in writing: even those things forsooth, which, while Christ was yet living, they could not understand, after his ascending they learned by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Of the exposition of that place we have elsewhere already seen. So much as is sufficient for this present cause: truly they make themselves worthy to be laughed at, while they feign that those great mysteries, which so long a time were unknown to the Apostles, were partly observations either Jewish or Gentile (of which all the one sort had been long before published among the Jews, and all the other sort among the Gentiles) and partly foolish gesturings and vain petty ceremonies, which foolish sacrificing priests, that can neither skill of swimming nor of letters, use to do very trimly: yes, such as children and fools do so aptly counterfeit that it may seem that there be no fitter ministers of such holy mysteries. If there were no histories at all: yet men that have their sound wit might consider by the thing itself, that so great a heap of ceremonies and observations did not suddenly burst into the Church, but by little and little crept in. For when those holier bishops, which were next in time to the Apostles, had ordained some things that belonged to order and discipline, afterward there followed men, some after other, not discreet enough, and too curious and greedy: of which the later that every one was, so he more strived with his predecessors in foolish envious counterfeiting, not to give place in inventing of new things. And because there was peril lest their devices would shortly grow out of use, by which they coveted to get praise among their posterity, they were much more rigorous in exact calling upon the keeping of them. This wrongful zeal has bred us a great part of these ceremonies which they set out to us for Apostolic. And this also the histories do testify.

Lest in making a register of them we should be too tedious, we will be content with one example. In the ministering of the Lord's supper, there was in the Apostles' time great simplicity. The next successors, to adorn the dignity of the mystery, added somewhat that was not to be disallowed. But afterward there came those foolish counterfeiters, which with now and then patching of pieces together, have made us this apparel of the priest which we see in the Mass, those ornaments of the altar, those gesturings, and the whole furniture of unprofitable things. But they object, that this in old time was the persuasion, that those things which were with one consent done in the universal Church, came from the Apostles themselves, whereof they cite Augustine for witness. But I will bring a solution from no other where than out of the words of Augustine himself. Those things (says he) that are kept in the whole world, we may understand to have been ordained either of the Apostles themselves, or of the general Councils, whose authority is most healthful in the Church: as, that the Lord's passion, and resurrection, and his ascending into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, are celebrated with yearly solemnity: and whatever like thing be found, that is kept of the whole Church, in whichever way it be spread abroad. When he reckons up so few examples, who does not see that he meant to impute to authors worthy of credit and reverence, the observations that then were used, even none but those simple, rare, and sober ones, with which it was profitable that the order of the Church should be kept together? But how far does this differ from that which the Romish masters would enforce men to grant, that there is no petty ceremony among them that ought not to be judged Apostolic.

That I be not too long, I will bring forth only one example. If any man ask them, from where they have their Holy water: they by and by answer, from the Apostles. As though the histories do not attribute this invention to I know not what Bishop of Rome, which truly, if he had called the Apostles to counsel, would never have defiled Baptism with a strange and unfit sign. Albeit I do not think it likely to be true, that the beginning of that hallowing is so old as it is there written. For, that which Augustine says, that certain Churches in his time did shun that solemn following of Christ's example in washing of feet, lest that usage should seem to pertain to Baptism, secretly shows that there was then no kind of washing that had any likeness with Baptism. Whatever it be, I will not grant that this proceeded from an Apostolic Spirit, that Baptism, when it is with a daily sign brought into remembrance, should after a certain manner be repeated. And I pass not upon this, that the self-same Augustine in another place ascribes other things also to the Apostles. For since he has nothing but conjectures, judgment ought not upon them to be given of so great a matter. Finally admit that we grant them also, that those things which he recounts came from the time of the Apostles. Yet there is great difference between instituting some exercise of godliness, which the faithful with a free conscience may use, or if the use of it shall not be profitable for them, they may forbear it: and making a law that may snare consciences with bondage. But now, from whatever author they proceeded, since we see that they are slid into so great abuse, nothing withstands, but that we may without offense of him abolish them: forasmuch as they were never so commended, that they must be perpetually immovable.

Neither does it much help them, that to excuse their tyranny they pretend the example of the Apostles. The Apostles (say they) and the elders of the first Church, made a decree beside the commandment of Christ, wherein they commanded all the Gentiles to abstain from things offered to idols, from strangled, and from blood. If that was lawful for them, why is it not also lawful for their successors, to follow the same so often as occasion so requires? I would to God, they did both in all other things and in this thing follow them. For I deny that the Apostles did there institute or decree any new thing, which is easy to be proved by a strong reason. For whereas Peter in that Council pronounces, that God is tempted, if a yoke be laid upon the necks of the disciples: he does himself overthrow his own sentence, if he afterward consent to have any yoke laid upon them. But there is a yoke laid, if the Apostles do decree of their own authority that the Gentiles should be forbidden, that they should not touch things offered to idols, blood, and strangled. Indeed there yet remains a doubt, for that they do nevertheless seem to forbid. But this doubt shall easily be dissolved, if a man do more nearly consider the meaning of the decree itself: in the order and effect whereof the chief point is, that to the Gentiles their liberty is to be left, and that they ought not to be troubled, nor encumbered about the observations of the law. To this point it very well makes on our side. But the exception that immediately follows, neither is any new law made by the Apostles, but the divine and eternal commandment of God, that charity ought not to be broken, nor does diminish one tittle of that liberty: but only admonishes the Gentiles, how they should temper themselves to their brethren, that they abuse not their liberty to the offense of them. Let this therefore be the second point, that the Gentiles should use a harmless liberty, and without offense of their brethren. But yet they prescribe some certain thing: that is, they teach and appoint, so far as was expedient for the time, by what things they might run into the offense of their brethren, that they might beware of those things: but they add no new thing of their own to the eternal law of God, which forbids the offending of brethren.

Like as if the faithful pastors who govern churches not yet well reformed, should command all their people, that till the weak with whom they live do grow stronger, they should not openly eat flesh on Friday, or openly labor upon holy days, or any such thing. For although these things, setting superstition aside, are by themselves indifferent: yet when there is added offense of brethren, they cannot be done without a fault. But the times are such, that the faithful cannot show such a sight to the weak brethren, but that they shall sorely wound their consciences. Who, but a caviller, will say that so they make a new law, whereas it is certain that they do only prevent offenses, which are expressly enough forbidden of the Lord? And no more can it be said of the Apostles, whose purpose was nothing else, but in taking away the matter of offenses, to call upon the law of God concerning the avoiding of offense: as if they had said: It is the Lord's commandment that you offend not a weak brother. You cannot eat things offered to images, strangled and blood, but that the weak brethren shall be offended. Therefore we command you in the word of the Lord; that you eat not with offense. And that the Apostles had respect to the same thing, Paul himself is a very good witness, who writes thus, verily none otherwise than according to the meaning of the Council: Concerning meats that are offered to idols, we know that the idol is nothing. But some with conscience of the idol, do eat it as offered to idols, and their conscience, forasmuch as it is weak, is defiled. See that your liberty be not made an offense to the weak. He that shall have well weighed these things, shall not afterward be deceived with such a false color as they make, that pretend the Apostles for defense of their tyranny, as though the Apostles had begun with their decree to break the liberty of the Church. But, that they may not be able to escape, but be driven even with their own confession to allow this solution, let them answer me, by what right they were so bold to abrogate the same decree. Because there was no more peril of those offenses and dissensions, which the Apostles meant to provide for, and they know that the law was to be weighed by the end thereof. Forasmuch as therefore this law was made in respect of charity, there is nothing prescribed in it, but so much as pertains to charity. When they confess that the transgressing of this law is nothing but a breaking of charity, do they not therewith acknowledge, that it is not a forged addition to the law of God, but a natural and simple application to the times and manners whereto it was directed?

But although such laws be a hundred times unjust and injurious to us, yet they affirm that they must be heard without exception: for they say that this is not here intended, that we should consent to errors, but only that being subjects we should bear the hard commandments of our governors, which it is not our parts to refuse. But here also the Lord very well resists them with the truth of his word, and delivers us out of such bondage into the liberty, which he has purchased for us with his holy blood, the benefit whereof he has more than once confirmed with his word. For that is not here only intended (as they maliciously feign) that we should suffer some grievous oppression in our body, but that our consciences being spoiled of their liberty — that is of the benefit of the blood of Christ — should be servilely tormented. However let us pass over this also, as though it made little to the matter. But of how great importance do we think it is, that the Lord's kingdom is taken away from him, which he claims to himself with so great severity? But it is taken away so often as he is worshipped with the laws of men's inventions, whereas he will be held for the only lawmaker of his own worship. And lest any man should think it to be a matter of nothing, let us hear how much the Lord esteems it. Because (says he) this people has feared me with the commandment and doctrine of men: behold I will astonish them with a great and wondrous miracle. For wisdom shall perish from the wise men thereof, and understanding shall depart from the elders. In another place, They worship me in vain teaching doctrines, the commandments of men. And truly whereas the children of Israel defiled themselves with many idolatries, the cause of all that evil is ascribed to this unclean mixture, that transgressing the commandments of God, they have forged new worshippings. And therefore the holy history rehearses that the new strangers that had been transplanted by the king of Babylon to inhabit Samaria, were torn in pieces and consumed of wild beasts, because they knew not the judgments or statutes of the God of that land. Although they had nothing offended in the ceremonies, yet God would not have allowed a vain pomp: but in the meantime he ceased not to take vengeance of the defiling of his worship, for that men did thrust in devices strange from his word. Whereupon it is afterward said, that they being made afraid with that punishment, received the ceremonies prescribed in the law: but because they did not yet purely worship the true God, it is twice repeated that they did fear him and did not fear him. Whereupon we gather, that the part of reverence which is given to him, consists in this, while in worshipping him we simply follow what he commands with mingling none of our own inventions. And therefore the godly kings are oftentimes praised, because they did according to all the commandments, and declined not to the right hand nor to the left. I go yet further: although in some feigned worshipping there does not openly appear ungodliness, yet it is severely condemned of the Holy Spirit, as soon as men depart from the commandment of God. The altar of Ahaz, the pattern whereof was brought out of Samaria, might have seemed to increase the garnishment of the temple, whereas his device was to offer sacrifices thereupon to God only, which he should do more honorably than upon the first and old altar: yet we see how the Spirit detests the boldness, for no other cause but for that the inventions of men in the worshipping of God are unclean corruptions. And how much more clearly the will of God is opened to us, so much the less excusable is our frowardness to attempt anything. And therefore worthily with this circumstance the crime of Manasseh is enforced, for that he built a new altar in Jerusalem, of which God had pronounced I will there set my name, because the authority of God is now as it were of set purpose refused.

Many marvel why God so sharply threatens that he will do things to be wondered at to the people by whom he was worshipped with the commandments of men, and pronounces that he is worshipped in vain with the precepts of men. But if they considered what it is in the cause of religion — that is to say, of heavenly wisdom — to hang upon the only mouth of God, they would see with that, that it is no slender reason why God so abhors such perverse services that are done to him according to the desire of man's wit. For although they that obey such laws for the worshipping of God have a certain show of humility in this their obedience, yet they are not humble before God, to whom they prescribe the same laws which they themselves do keep. This is the reason why Paul wills us so diligently to beware, that we be not deceived by the traditions of men, and that which he calls *ethelothreskian*, that is, will-worship invented of men beside the doctrine of God. This is truly so: both our own wisdom and all men's wisdom must be foolishness to us, that we may suffer him alone to be wise. Which way they do not keep who study with petty observations feigned by the will of men to commend themselves to him, and do thrust to him as it were against his will a transgressing obedience toward him, which is in deed given to men. As it has been done both in many ages heretofore, and in the time within our own remembrance, and is also at this day done in those places where the authority of the creature is more esteemed than of the creator: where religion (if yet the same be worthy to be called religion) [illegible] defiled with more and more unsavory superstitions, than ever was any heathen wickedness. For what could the wit of men breed but all things carnal and foolish and such as truly resemble their authors?

Whereas also the patrons of superstitions allege that Samuel sacrificed in Ramah, and although the same was done beside the law, yet it pleased God: the solution is easy, that it was not a certain second altar to set against the one only altar: but because the place was not yet appointed for the ark of the covenant, he appointed the town where he dwelled for sacrifices, as the most convenient place. Truly the mind of the holy prophet was not to make any innovation in holy things, whereas God had so strictly forbidden anything to be added or diminished. As for the example of Manoah, I say that it was an extraordinary and singular case. He being a private man offered sacrifice to God, and not without the allowance of God: truly because he undertook it not of a rash motion of his own mind, but by a heavenly instinct. But how much the Lord abhors those things that men devise of themselves to worship him, another not inferior to Gideon is a notable example, whose ephod turned to destruction not only to him and his family, but to the whole people. Finally, every newly invented thing with which men covet to worship God is nothing else but a defiling of true holiness.

Why then (say they) did Christ will that those intolerable burdens should be borne, which the Scribes and Pharisees bound upon men? But why in another place did the same Christ will that men should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees: calling leaven (as Matthew the Evangelist expounds it) all their own doctrine that they mingled with the purity of the word of God? What would we have more plain, than that we are commanded to flee and beware of all their doctrine? Whereby it is made most certain to us, that in the other place also the Lord willed not that the consciences of his people should be vexed with the Pharisees' own traditions. And the very words, if they be not wrested, sound of no such thing. For the Lord, purposing there to inveigh sharply against the manners of the Pharisees, did first simply instruct those that heard him, that although they saw nothing in their life fitting for them to follow, yet they should not cease to do those things which they taught in words, while they sat in the chair of Moses, that is, to declare the law. Therefore he meant nothing else but to provide that the common people should not with the evil examples of the teachers be brought to despise the doctrine. But inasmuch as many are nothing at all moved with reasons, but always require authority, I will cite Augustine's words, in which the very same thing is spoken. The Lord's sheepfold has governors, some faithful, and some hirelings. The governors that are faithful are true pastors: but hear this, that the hirelings also are necessary: for many in the Church following earthly profits, do preach Christ, and by them the voice of Christ is heard: and the sheep do follow, not a hireling, but the pastor by the means of a hireling. Hear that the hirelings are shown by the Lord himself. The Scribes (says he) and the Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses. Do those things that they say, but do not those things that they do. What other thing said he, but hear the voice of the pastor by the hirelings? For in sitting in the chair they teach the law of God: therefore God teaches by them. But if they will teach their own, hear it not, do it not. This says Augustine.

But whereas many unskillful men, when they hear that consciences are wickedly bound and God worshiped in vain with the traditions of men, do at once blot out altogether all laws whereby the order of the Church is set in frame: therefore it is convenient also to meet with their error. Verily in this point it is easy to be deceived, because at the first sight it does not by and by appear what difference is between the one sort and the other. But I will so plainly in few words set out the whole matter, that the likeness may deceive no man. First let us hold this, that if we see in every fellowship of men some policy to be necessary, that may serve to nourish common peace and to retain concord: if we see that in the doing of things there is always some orderly form, which is fitting for public honesty and for very humanity not to be refused: the same ought chiefly to be observed in Churches, which are both best maintained by a well-framed disposition of all things, and without agreement are no Churches at all. Therefore if we will have the safety of the Church well provided for, we must altogether diligently procure that which Paul commands, that all things be done decently and according to order (1 Corinthians 14:40). But forasmuch as there is so great diversity in the manners of men, so great variety in minds, so great disagreement in judgments and wits: neither is there any policy steadfast enough, unless it be established by certain laws, nor any orderly usage can be observed without a certain appointed form. Therefore we are so far from condemning the laws that are profitable to this purpose, that we affirm that when those be taken away, Churches are dissolved from their sinews, and utterly deformed and scattered abroad. For this which Paul requires, that all things be done decently and in order, cannot be had, unless the order itself and comeliness be established, with observations adjoined as with certain bonds. But this only thing is always to be excepted in those observations, that they be not either believed to be necessary to salvation, and so bind consciences with religion, or be applied to the worshiping of God, and so godliness be reposed in them.

We have therefore a very good and most faithful mark, which puts difference between those wicked ordinances, by which we have said the true religion is darkened and consciences subverted, and the lawful observations of the Church: if we remember that the lawful observations tend always to one of these two things or to both together, that in the holy assembly of the faithful all things be done comely and with such dignity as befits: and that the very common fellowship of men should be kept in order as it were by certain bonds of humanity and moderation. For when it is once understood that the law is made for public honesty's sake, the superstition is now taken away, into which they fall that measure the worshiping of God by the inventions of men. Again when it is known that it pertains to common use, then that false opinion of bond and necessity is overthrown, which did strike a great terror into consciences, when traditions were thought necessary to salvation. For herein is nothing required but that charity should with common dutiful doing be nourished among us. But it is good yet to define more plainly, what is comprehended under that comeliness which Paul commends, and also what under order. The end of comeliness is, partly that when such ceremonies are used as may procure a reverence to holy things, we may by such helps be stirred up to godliness: partly also that the modesty and gravity which ought to be seen in all honest doings may therein principally appear. In order, this is the first point, that they which govern may know the rule and law to rule well: and the people which are governed may be accustomed to obeying of God, and to right discipline: then, that the state of the Church being well framed, peace and quietness may be provided for.

Therefore we shall not say that comeliness is that wherein shall be nothing but vain delight: such as we see in that theatrical apparel which the Papists use in their ceremonies, where appears nothing else but an unprofitable mask of gaiety, and excess without fruit. But we shall account that to be comeliness which shall so be fitting for the reverence of holy mysteries, that it be a fit exercise to godliness, or at least such as shall serve to convenient adorning for the celebrating thereof: and the same not without fruit, but that it may put the faithful in mind with how great modesty, religiousness and reverence, they ought to handle holy things. Now, that ceremonies may be exercises of godliness, it is necessary that they lead us the straight way to Christ. Likewise we may not say that order consists in those trifling pomps that have nothing else than a vanishing gaiety: but that it stands in such an orderly framing as may take away all confusion, barbarousness, obstinacy, and all strifes and dissensions. Of the first sort are these examples in Paul: that profane banquetings should not be mingled with the holy Supper of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:21 and 1 Corinthians 11:5): that women should not come abroad, but covered: and many other which we have in common use: as this, that we pray kneeling and bare-headed: that we minister the Lord's Sacraments not uncleanly, but with some dignity: that in the burying of the dead we use some honest show: and other things that are of the same sort. Of the other kind are the hours appointed for public prayers, Sermons, and celebrations of mysteries: at Sermons, quietness and silence, places appointed, singing together of Hymns, days prefixed for celebrating of the Lord's Supper, that Paul forbids that women should teach in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:34), and such like. But specially those things that concern discipline, as the teaching of the Catechism, the censures of the Church, excommunication, fastings, and such as may be reckoned in the same number. So all the constitutions of the Church, which we receive for holy and wholesome, we may refer to two chief titles: for some pertain to rites and ceremonies, and the other to discipline and peace.

But because here is peril, lest on the one side the false bishops should thereby catch a pretense to excuse their wicked and tyrannous laws, and lest on the other side there be some men too fearful, which admonished with the aforesaid evils do leave no place to laws be they never so holy: here it is good to declare that I allow only those ordinances of men, which are both grounded upon the authority of God, and taken out of the Scripture, yes and altogether God's own. Let us take for an example the kneeling which is used in time of common prayer. It is demanded, whether it be a tradition of man, which every man may lawfully refuse or neglect. I say that it is so of men, that it is also of God. It is of God, in respect that it is a part of that comeliness, the care and keeping whereof is commended to us by the Apostle: it is of men, in respect that it specially betokens that which had in general rather been pointed to than declared. By this one example we may judge, what is to be thought of that whole kind: verily because the Lord has in his holy Oracles both faithfully contained and clearly set forth both the whole sum of true righteousness, and all the parts of the worshipping of his divine majesty, and whatever was necessary to salvation: therefore in these things he is only to be heard as our schoolmaster. But because in outward discipline and ceremonies his will was not to prescribe each thing particularly what we ought to follow (because he foresaw this to hang upon the state of times, and did not think one form to be fit for all ages) herein we must flee to those general rules which he has given, that thereby all those things should be tried which the necessity of the Church shall require to be commanded for order and comeliness. Finally, forasmuch as he has therefore taught nothing expressly, because these things both are not necessary to salvation, and according to the manners of every nation and age ought diversely to be applied to the edifying of the Church: therefore as the profit of the Church shall require, it shall be convenient as well to change and abrogate those that are used, as to institute new ones. I grant indeed, that we ought not rashly, nor often, nor for light causes to run to innovation. But what may hurt or edify, charity shall best judge: which if we will suffer to be the governess, all shall be safe.

Now it is the duty of Christian people, to keep such things as have been ordained according to this rule, with a free conscience and without any superstition, but yet with a godly and easy readiness to obey, not to despise them, not to pass them over with careless negligence: so far is it from what they ought, by pride and obstinacy openly to break them. What manner of liberty of conscience (will you say) may there be in so great observation and wariness? Indeed, it shall stand excellently well when we shall consider, that they are not steadfast and perpetual settled laws, to which we are bound, but outward rudiments for the weakness of men: which although we do not all need, yet we do all use them, because we are mutually one bound to another, to nourish charity among us. This we may acknowledge in the examples above rehearsed. What? Does religion stand in a woman's veil, that it is not lawful to go out of doors with her head uncovered? Is that holy decree of his concerning silence, such as cannot be broken without most heinous offense? Is there any mystery in kneeling, or in burying of a dead corpse, that may not be omitted without sin? No. For if a woman needs, for the helping of her neighbor, to make such haste as may not suffer her to cover her head, she offends not if she runs there with her head uncovered. And it may sometimes befall that it may be no less convenient for her to speak, than at another time to hold her peace. And there is no cause to the contrary, but that he which by reason of disease cannot bow his knees may pray standing. Finally, it is better to bury a dead man speedily in time, than when they lack a winding sheet, or when there are not men present to convey him, to tarry till he rot unburied. But nevertheless in these things there is somewhat which the manner and ordinances of the country, and finally very natural honesty and the rule of modesty appoints to be done or avoided: wherein if a man swerves anything from them, by unawareness, or forgetfulness, there is no crime committed: but if upon contempt, such stubbornness is to be disallowed. Likewise the days themselves, which they be, and the hours, and how the places are built, and what Psalms are sung upon which day, it makes no matter. But it is fitting that there be both certain days, and appointed hours, and a place fit to receive all, if there be regard had of the preservation of peace. For how great an occasion of brawlings should the confusion of these things be, if it were lawful for every man, as he wishes, to change those things that belong to common state: forasmuch as it will never come to pass that one same thing shall please all men, if things be left as it were in the middle to the choice of every man? If any man does carp against us, and will herein be more wise than he ought, let him see himself by what reason he can defend his own preciseness to the Lord. As for us, this saying of Paul ought to satisfy us, that we have not a custom to contend, nor the Churches of God.

Moreover it is with great diligence to be endeavored, that no error creep in, that may corrupt or obscure this pure use. Which shall be obtained, if all observations, whatever they shall be, shall have a show of manifest profit, and if very few be received, but principally if there be adjoined a faithful doctrine of the pastor, that may stop up the way to perverse opinions. This knowledge makes, that in all these things every man may have his own liberty preserved, and nevertheless shall willingly charge his own liberty with a certain necessity, so far as either this comeliness that we have spoken of, or the order of charity shall require. Secondly, that both we ourselves should without any superstition be busied in the observing of those things, and should not too precisely require them of others, so as we should think the worshiping of God to be the better for the multitude of ceremonies: that one church should not despise another for the diversity of discipline: last of all that setting herein no perpetual law to ourselves, we should refer the whole use and end of observations to the edification of the church, that, when it requires we may without any offense suffer not only somewhat to be changed, but all the observations that were before in use among us to be altered. For this age is a present experience, that certain rites, which otherwise are not ungodly nor uncomely, may according to the fit occasion of the matter, be conveniently abrogated. For (such has been the blindness and ignorance, of the former times) churches have heretofore, with so corrupt opinion and with so stiff affection, stuck in ceremonies, that they can scarcely be sufficiently purged from monstrous superstitions, but that many ceremonies must be taken away, which in old time were perhaps ordained not without cause, and of themselves have no notable ungodliness in them.

Now comes the second part of church power — the power of making laws — out of which an endless stream of human traditions has flowed, becoming so many snares strangling poor souls. Those who exercised this power had no more conscience than the scribes and Pharisees when it came to loading heavy burdens onto other people's shoulders while refusing to touch those burdens themselves with a single finger. I have already explained elsewhere how cruel a butchery is the one they perpetrate in the law of auricular confession. Other laws appear less violent on the surface, but even the most seemingly tolerable ones tyrannically oppress consciences. I leave aside for now how they corrupt the worship of God and strip God Himself of the right that belongs to Him alone as the one true lawmaker. What must be examined here is whether the church has the authority to bind consciences with its own laws. In this discussion I am not touching on the political order. My sole concern is that God be rightly worshipped according to the rule He Himself has prescribed, and that the spiritual liberty which has regard to God remain intact for us. By established usage, all decrees made by men about the worship of God beyond His word are called human traditions. It is against these that we contend — not against the church's useful and holy ordinances that serve the preservation of discipline, decency, or peace. Our contention has one aim: to restrain the immeasurable and barbaric empire that those who call themselves pastors of the church — but are in reality the cruelest of butchers — have seized over souls. They call their laws 'spiritual' and 'pertaining to the soul,' and they declare them necessary for eternal life. But in this way — as I just touched on — Christ's kingdom is invaded and the liberty He granted to the consciences of believers is utterly destroyed. I am not speaking here about the wickedness of the basis on which they require obedience to their laws — teaching that in obeying them one earns forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and salvation, making law-keeping the whole sum of religion. This one thing I firmly hold: no necessity must be imposed on consciences in those things in which Christ has set them free. And unless they are set free — as we showed earlier — they cannot rest with God. Consciences must acknowledge one King alone — Christ their liberator — and be governed by one law of liberty: the holy word of the Gospel. Otherwise they cannot hold onto the grace they once received in Christ. They must be held by no bondage and bound by no chains.

These would-be lawmakers claim their regulations are laws of liberty, a sweet yoke, a light burden. But who cannot see this is pure pretense? They themselves feel no burden from their own laws — having cast off the fear of God, they casually disregard both their own laws and God's. But those who have any genuine concern for their salvation are far from feeling free while entangled in these snares. Notice the care with which Paul handled this matter — he was unwilling to lay even the smallest snare upon anyone. And not without reason. He saw clearly how deeply consciences would be wounded if they were burdened with necessities in things where the Lord had left them free. On the other side, these men have established countless regulations with the threat of eternal death, demanding them as necessary for salvation. Many of these rules are very difficult to keep, and when taken all together their sheer number makes them impossible. How can those who carry such an overwhelming weight not be tormented by constant anxiety and dread? My purpose here is to challenge those regulations that aim to bind souls inwardly before God and burden them with religious duty as though such requirements were necessary to salvation.

Most people find this question difficult because they do not clearly enough distinguish between the external court — as it is called — and the court of conscience. The difficulty is made worse by Paul's teaching that the magistrate must be obeyed not merely from fear of punishment, but for the sake of conscience. From this one might conclude that political laws also bind the conscience. But if that were so, everything we said in the previous chapter about spiritual governance — and everything we intend to say now — would collapse. To untangle this knot, we must first understand what conscience is. The definition can be drawn from the word's origins. Just as when people grasp and understand things with their minds they are said to 'know' — from which we get the word 'knowledge' — so when they have an awareness of God's judgment as an internal witness that does not allow them to hide their sins, but drives them to stand accused before God's judgment seat, that awareness is called 'conscience.' Conscience stands as a kind of intermediary between God and man — it does not allow a person to suppress what he knows, but pursues him until it brings him to a reckoning. This is what Paul means when he says that conscience bears witness alongside people, while their thoughts either accuse or defend them before God's judgment. A bare intellectual awareness could remain quietly enclosed within a person. But this moral awareness — the one that brings a person before God's judgment — is like a guardian appointed to observe and monitor all his hidden thoughts, so that nothing remains buried in darkness. From this comes the ancient saying: conscience is a thousand witnesses. For the same reason, Peter speaks of the examination of a good conscience as the source of peace — when, persuaded of Christ's grace, we can present ourselves to God without fear. And the author of Hebrews uses the phrase 'no more conscience of sin' to mean being delivered and acquitted — freed from the accusation of sin.

So just as works have reference to other people, conscience is referred to God — conscience is nothing less than the inward purity of the heart. In this sense Paul writes that love is the goal of the law, proceeding from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. Then in the same chapter he shows how much conscience differs from mere understanding, saying that some had shipwrecked their faith by abandoning a good conscience — meaning that conscience is a living devotion to God and a genuine desire to live a holy and godly life. Sometimes conscience is said to have reference to other people, as when Paul in Acts testifies that he strove to maintain a clear conscience before both God and men. But this is because the fruits of a good conscience overflow even to those around us. Properly speaking, however, conscience refers to God alone, as I said. From this it follows that a law is said to bind the conscience when it binds a person simply — without reference to other people and without taking them into account. For example: God commands not only that the mind be kept chaste and pure from all lust, but He also forbids every form of filthy speech and outward immodesty. My conscience is subject to keeping this law even if there were not another person in the world. So a person who acts immorally does not only sin by setting a bad example for others — he is already guilty before God in his conscience. With matters that are indifferent in themselves, the case is different. We ought to abstain from them if they cause offense — yet conscience remains free. This is what Paul says about meat sacrificed to idols: 'If someone raises a question, do not eat it, for the sake of conscience — I say for conscience, not your own, but the other person's.' A believer who eats such meat after being warned would sin. But even though he must abstain out of regard for his brother — as God prescribes — he still retains his freedom of conscience. We see how this law, which binds the outward act, leaves the conscience free.

Now let us return to human laws. If they are made with the purpose of burdening us with religious obligation — as though keeping them were itself necessary for something — then we say that an obligation has been imposed on conscience that was not lawful to impose. For consciences have to do not with men, but with God alone. This is the basis of the common distinction between the external court and the court of conscience. Even when the whole world was wrapped in the densest fog of ignorance, this small spark of light remained: people acknowledged that a person's conscience stood above all human judgments. Though in practice they overturned what they confessed in words, God still willed that some testimony to Christian liberty would survive — enough to free consciences from human tyranny. But the difficulty raised by Paul's words is not yet resolved. If we must obey rulers not only out of fear of punishment but also for conscience's sake, it seems to follow that rulers' laws also have authority over conscience. And if that is true, the same should apply to the laws of the church. My answer is this: we must distinguish between the general and the particular. Though individual laws do not each directly touch the conscience, we are bound by the general commandment of God, which commends to us the authority of magistrates. This is Paul's point — that magistrates are to be honored because they are appointed by God. He is not teaching, however, that the specific laws rulers prescribe belong to the inward governance of the soul. Throughout his letters he consistently exalts the worship of God and the spiritual rule of righteous living above all human ordinances. There is another important point closely related to this: human laws — whether made by magistrates or by the church — although they may be necessary to obey (I am speaking of good and righteous laws), do not in themselves bind conscience. This is because the entire obligation to obey them is grounded in the general end they serve, not in the specific things they command. Laws of a very different kind are those that prescribe new forms of worshipping God, or impose necessity in matters that God has left free.

And this is precisely what the so-called ecclesiastical regulations of the papacy are — thrust in as substitutes for the true and necessary worship of God. They are countless in number, and so are the traps they set for souls. Though I have touched on these things in discussing the law, this is a better place to address them fully, and I will now try to draw together the main points as clearly as I can. Since I have already said what seemed sufficient about the tyranny these false bishops seize for themselves in claiming freedom to teach whatever they please, I will skip that part here and focus on the specific power they claim to make laws. These false bishops burden consciences with new laws on the pretense that they have been appointed by the Lord as spiritual lawmakers, since the governance of the church is entrusted to them. They therefore declare that whatever they command and prescribe must necessarily be obeyed by the Christian people — and that anyone who breaks their laws is guilty of double disobedience, being rebellious to both God and the church. Certainly, if they were true bishops, I would grant them some authority in this area — not as much as they claim, but as much as is needed for the proper ordering of the church. But since they are everything except what they claim to be, they cannot take the smallest thing to themselves without taking too much. Setting that aside, however, let us for now grant them that whatever authority true bishops possess, they too rightly hold. Even so, I deny that they are therefore appointed as lawmakers over believers — free to prescribe on their own authority a rule of life, or to compel the people committed to them to keep their ordinances. What I mean is this: it is not lawful for them to deliver to the church as binding necessity what they have invented without God's word. This authority was unknown to the apostles, and the Lord Himself repeatedly and explicitly forbade it to the church's ministers. I marvel at who first dared to take it upon themselves — and who today dares to defend it — contrary to apostolic example and against God's plain prohibition.

As for what pertains to the complete rule of righteous living, the Lord has contained all of it in His law, leaving nothing for human beings to add. He did this for two reasons: first, because the whole substance of upright living consists in this — that all works be governed by His will as by a rule — so that He alone would be held by us as the teacher and director of life. And second, to show that He requires from us nothing beyond obedience. For this reason James says: 'He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother speaks against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and to destroy.' We see that God claims this as His sole prerogative: to rule us by the governance and laws of His word. Isaiah says the same, though somewhat more broadly: 'The Lord is our King, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our Judge. He will save us.' Both passages make the same point: the one who holds authority over souls holds the judgment of life and death. James states this plainly. No human being can take that upon himself. God must therefore be acknowledged as the only King of souls — the one to whom alone belongs the power to save and destroy, as Isaiah's words express, and who is King, Judge, Lawgiver, and Savior. This is why Peter, when instructing pastors about their duties, urges them to feed the flock — not exercising domination over 'the clergy,' by which he means God's inheritance, that is, the believing people. If we weigh this rightly — that what God claims as exclusively His own cannot be transferred to human beings — we will understand that all the power these men claim when they command anything in the church apart from God's word is thereby stripped away entirely.

Since the whole case rests on this — that if God is the only Lawgiver, it is not lawful for men to take that honor to themselves — it is also important to keep in mind the two reasons we stated for why the Lord reserves this solely to Himself. The first is that His will may be for us a perfect rule of all righteousness and holiness — so that in knowing Him we have complete knowledge for living well. The second is that when the question arises of how to worship Him rightly, He alone may have authority over our souls, since He is the one we must obey and upon whose word we must depend. With these two reasons clearly in mind, it becomes easy to judge which human ordinances contradict God's word. All those that are presented as belonging to the true worship of God — and to which consciences are bound as though keeping them were necessary — fall into that category. Let us remember, then, to weigh all human laws by this standard, if we want a reliable test that will never lead us astray. Paul uses the first of these reasons in Colossians when contending against the false apostles who were trying to burden the churches with new requirements. He uses the second more prominently in Galatians for a similar purpose. His argument in Colossians is this: the teaching about the true worship of God is not to be sought from human beings, because the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us how He is to be worshipped. To prove this in the first chapter, he says that the Gospel contains all the wisdom by which the man of God may be made complete in Christ. In the second chapter he says that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. From this he concludes: let believers beware of being drawn away from Christ's flock by vain philosophy based on human traditions. At the close of the chapter he condemns with even greater boldness all 'ethelothreskia' — that is, all self-invented worship, whether devised by a person himself or received from others, and all the commandments that people dare to give concerning the worship of God. We have it on Paul's authority, then, that all ordinances claiming to constitute the worship of God are wicked. As for the passages in Galatians where he forcefully argues that consciences — which ought to be governed by God alone — must not be ensnared by human bonds, they are clear enough, especially in the fifth chapter. It is sufficient simply to point to them.

But since the matter will be better understood from examples, before going further it is good to apply this teaching to our own times. We say that the regulations called ecclesiastical constitutions — by which the pope and his associates burden the church — are harmful and wicked. Our opponents defend them as holy and conducive to salvation. There are two kinds: some concern ceremonies and rites, others pertain more to discipline. Is there good reason to challenge both? Better reason than we even need. First — do not the authors themselves openly declare that the very worship of God is contained in these regulations? For what purpose do they conduct their ceremonies, if not to worship God through them? And this is not simply the error of ignorant common people — it is the teaching of those who hold the office of teachers. I am not even touching the gross abominations by which they have worked to overthrow all godliness. But failing to observe even the smallest of their petty traditions would not be counted among them as so grave an offense, unless they had made the worship of God subject to their invented requirements. What offense do we then commit by refusing to tolerate what Paul taught was intolerable — that the legitimate ordering of God's worship should be reduced to human will? Especially when they command people to worship according to the elements of this world, which Paul declares to be contrary to Christ. And it is well known with what precise and binding force they require compliance with everything they command. When we resist this, we stand with Paul — who would in no way allow faithful consciences to be brought into bondage to human authority.

What makes things even worse is that once religion begins to be defined by such vain inventions, there always follows a perverse and abominable consequence — the very one Christ charged against the Pharisees: the commandment of God is made void for the sake of human traditions. I will not use my own words to press this charge against today's lawmakers. Let them have the victory, if they can clear themselves of this accusation from Christ. But how could they excuse themselves when among them it is considered infinitely more serious to have skipped auricular confession at the appointed time of year than to have lived a thoroughly wicked life all year long? More serious to have touched one's lips with a bit of meat on a Friday than to have defiled one's body with sexual immorality all week? More serious to have done honest work on a day dedicated to some minor saint than to have continually exercised one's body in the most wicked offenses? For a priest to enter a lawful marriage is counted worse than being entangled in a thousand adulteries. Failing to make a vowed pilgrimage is worse than breaking faith in all one's promises. Not wasting money on the monstrous and useless excess and display of church buildings is worse than failing to meet the desperate needs of the poor. To pass an idol without doing it honor is worse than treating all kinds of people with contempt. To fail to mumble through a prescribed number of words at certain hours without understanding is worse than never having formed a true prayer in one's heart. If this is not making void the commandment of God for the sake of human traditions, then what is? While they commend the keeping of God's commandments only coldly and in passing, they demand obedience to their own with all the urgency and earnestness of those who believe the whole substance of godliness rests in them. While they treat violations of God's law with light penalties of satisfaction, they punish even the smallest infraction of their own decrees with imprisonment, exile, fire, or sword. They are not particularly sharp or severe toward those who despise God — but toward those who despise themselves they pursue with relentless hatred to the utmost extreme. And they so instruct all those whose simplicity they hold captive that these people would more calmly see the whole law of God overturned than see a single small article — as they call it — of the church's commandments broken. First, there is great offense in the fact that over small and, by God's standard, entirely free matters, one person despises, judges, and condemns another. But beyond even that, those 'childish elements of the world' — as Paul calls them in Galatians (Galatians 4:9) — are weighed as more valuable than the heavenly oracles of God. A man who is practically cleared of adultery is condemned for what he ate; a man who has license to use a prostitute is forbidden to have a wife. This is the fruit that comes from the kind of obedience that turns so far from God as it inclines toward men.

There are two other significant failings we reject in these same ordinances. First, they prescribe for the most part useless and sometimes downright foolish observances. Second, godly consciences are crushed under their sheer endless number — and being drawn back into a kind of Judaism, they cling so to shadows that they cannot reach Christ. When I call these things foolish and useless, I know it will not seem credible to the worldly mind, which is so fond of them that it thinks the church would be completely ruined without them. But this is exactly what Paul means when he speaks of things that have 'the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion, and ascetic discipline, and severe treatment of the body' (Colossians 2:23). This is a most wholesome warning, one we must never let slip from our minds. Human traditions, Paul says, deceive under the appearance of wisdom. Where does this appearance come from? Because they are invented by human beings, the human mind recognizes its own in them — and recognizing what is its own, it embraces it all the more gladly than it would anything, however good, that is less agreeable to its own vanity. They also gain another commendation: they seem to be useful training in humility, pressing down the minds of men under their yoke. And finally, because they appear to restrain the indulgence of the flesh and subdue it by rigorous abstinence, they are thought to be wisely designed. But what does Paul say to all this? Does he not strip off these masks so that the simple will not be deceived by false appearances? He judged it sufficient to simply note that they were inventions of men. He passes over all these apparent virtues without argument, treating them as nothing. He knew that all self-made worship in the church stands condemned. He knew that it is the more suspicious to believers the more it pleases the human mind. He knew that the artificial display of outward humility differs so widely from true humility that the difference can be easily seen. He knew that this childish training amounts to no more than physical exercise. Therefore he directed that the very qualities for which human traditions were commended among the ignorant should serve believers as a standing refutation of those traditions (Colossians 2:23).

So today, not only uneducated common people but every person puffed up with worldly wisdom is wonderfully delighted by the spectacle of ceremonies. Hypocrites and foolish women think that nothing more glorious or better could ever be devised. But those who search more deeply and weigh more carefully by the standard of godliness what all these ceremonies are truly worth come to understand two things. First, they are trivial, because they serve no real purpose. Second, they are deceptive, because their empty display only dazzles the eyes of onlookers. I am speaking of those ceremonies to which the Roman leaders want to attach great mysteries, but which we find by experience to be nothing more than sheer mockery. And it is no surprise that the inventors of these ceremonies have sunk so far as to fool both themselves and others with pointless nonsense. They partly took their model from the foolish practices of the pagans, and partly, like apes, they thoughtlessly imitated the ancient rituals of Moses' law -- rituals that have no more to do with us than the sacrifices of animals and similar things. Even if there were no other argument, no sensible person would expect anything good from such a badly assembled patchwork. And the reality plainly shows that many ceremonies serve no purpose other than to overwhelm the people rather than teach them. In the same way, when it comes to these newly invented regulations that pervert discipline rather than preserve it, the hypocrites place great importance on them. But if a person examines them more closely, he will find they are nothing but a fading shadow of discipline.

But now, to come to the other point: who does not see that traditions have been piled one on top of another until they have grown into such an enormous number that the Christian church can in no way bear them? This is why ceremonies have taken on a kind of Jewish character, and the other observances bring a devastating slaughter to Christian souls. Augustine complained that in his day, with God's commandments neglected, everything was overrun with so many human presumptions that a person was more severely rebuked for touching the ground with a bare foot during the octave than for burying his mind in drunkenness. He complained that the church, which the mercy of God intended to be free, was so weighed down that the condition of the Jews was far more tolerable. If that holy man had lived in our age, what protests would he have raised against the bondage that exists now? For the number of rules is ten times greater, and each small detail is a hundred times more strictly enforced than it was back then. This is what always happens: once these perverse lawmakers gain control, they never stop commanding and forbidding until they reach extreme pettiness. Paul expressed this perfectly in these words: If you have died to the world, why are you held bound as though you were still living in it, with rules like "Do not eat, do not taste, do not touch"? Now the Greek word aptesthai means both "to eat" and "to touch," and here it clearly refers to eating, so that there would not be an unnecessary repetition. Therefore Paul describes the methods of the false apostles brilliantly here. They begin with superstition, forbidding not only eating but almost even chewing. When they have achieved that, they also forbid tasting. When this too is granted them, they declare it unlawful even to touch with a finger.

This tyranny of human ordinances deserves every condemnation we bring against it today — it has resulted in poor consciences being grievously tormented by countless decrees and the relentless demand that each one be kept. I have already addressed canons pertaining to discipline elsewhere. As for the ceremonies — what can I say? They have resulted in Christ being half-buried while we are sent back to Jewish figures. 'Our Lord Christ,' says Augustine, 'has bound the fellowship of the new people together with sacraments few in number, outstanding in their meaning, and easy in their observance.' How far the mass and variety of observances in which the church is today entangled departs from this simplicity cannot be fully stated. I know the clever excuse some subtle men offer for this corruption. They say that many among us are as unlearned as the people of Israel were, and that such elementary instructions were established for their sake — that the stronger may not need them, but should not neglect them since they see them as beneficial for the weaker. My answer is this: I am not ignorant of what we owe to our weaker brothers. But I insist that overwhelming them with great heaps of ceremonies is not the way to provide for them. The Lord did not without purpose make a distinction between us and the ancient people — His will was to instruct them like children through signs and figures, but to instruct us more simply without such outward trappings. 'As a child,' Paul says, 'is kept under a schoolmaster and in custody according to the capacity of his age — so the Jews are kept under the law.' But we are like full-grown adults, freed from tutors and guardians, no longer in need of childish introductions. The Lord foresaw exactly what kind of people His church would contain and how they should be governed. And yet He made this distinction between us and the Jews in the manner we have described. It is therefore foolish, in seeking to provide for the ignorant, to revive a Judaism that Christ has abolished. Christ Himself pointed to this difference between the old and new people when He said to the Samaritan woman that the time had come when true worshippers would worship God in spirit and truth. This spiritual worship had always been the heart of true worship — but the new worshippers differed from the old in that under Moses, spiritual worship was clothed in and entangled with many ceremonies. Those ceremonies having been removed, God is now worshipped more simply. Those who blur this distinction overthrow the order Christ established. Shall there then be no ceremonies given to the less educated to help them in their ignorance? I am not saying that. I genuinely believe that this kind of help is useful for them. My only concern is that the means used should clearly display Christ rather than obscure Him. God has given us a few ceremonies — not burdensome ones — so that they might show Christ as present. The Jews were given more, to show Him as yet to come. Absent, I say, not in power, but in the manner of signifying. To maintain the right means, it is necessary to maintain that same fewness in number, ease in observance, and dignity in meaning — which consists in clarity. Has this been done? The answer is plain to everyone.

I will say nothing here about the pernicious opinions with which people's minds are filled — the idea that these ceremonies are sacrifices by which God is properly appeased, by which sins are cleansed, and by which righteousness and salvation are obtained. They will deny that such foreign errors corrupt the ceremonies themselves, since a person can equally misuse even works commanded by God. But the greater offense is this: that so much honor is given to works rashly invented by human will that they are thought to deserve eternal life. For God-commanded works receive their reward because the Lawgiver Himself, out of respect for the obedience shown, accepts them. They do not receive their value from their own worthiness or merit, but because God so highly values our obedience toward Him. I am speaking here of the perfection of works that God commands — a perfection that human beings do not achieve. For even the works of the law that we do have no acceptance except through God's free goodness, since our obedience in them is weak and defective. But since we are not here debating what value works have apart from Christ, let us leave that question aside. I return to the matter directly at hand: whatever commendation works possess, they possess it with respect to the obedience to which the Lord alone looks, as He testifies through the prophet: 'I did not give commandment concerning sacrifices and burnt offerings, but only this: that you would hear My voice.' Of self-invented works He speaks elsewhere: 'You spend your silver on what is not bread.' And: 'They worship Me in vain with the precepts of men.' They therefore cannot excuse in any way the fact that they allow poor people to seek in outward trifles the righteousness by which they might stand before God and sustain themselves at the heavenly judgment seat. And is it not also a fault worth denouncing that they present ceremonies that are not understood — like a theatrical performance or a magical spell? For it is certain that all ceremonies are worthless and harmful unless they direct people to Christ. But the ceremonies used under the papacy are separated from all teaching, so that they may more effectively hold people in signs without any meaning. Finally — so clever a craftsman is greed — it is clear that many of these ceremonies were invented by profit-hungry priests to serve as traps to extract money. Whatever their origin, they are all so freely dispensed for filthy gain that a great portion of them must be cut away if the church is to have any chance of not becoming a profane marketplace full of sacrilege.

Although what I am saying is applied directly to our own time, it may seem as though I am not presenting a continuous teaching about human ordinances in general — yet nothing I have said lacks relevance to every era. For as often as this superstition creeps in — that people will worship God with their own invented devices — whatever laws they make for that purpose immediately degenerate into those gross abuses. The Lord does not threaten this curse for one or two generations, but for all ages: He will strike with blindness and spiritual stupor all who worship Him with the doctrines of men. This persistent blindness ensures that those who, despite so many warnings from God, willfully entangle themselves in deadly snares will never be troubled by any absurdity, however obvious. But if, setting aside particular circumstances, you want a clear and simple definition of what human traditions in every age the church should reject and every godly person should refuse — here it is: all laws made by human beings without God's word, intended either to prescribe a manner of worshipping God, or to bind consciences with religious obligation as though commanding things necessary for salvation. And if to one or both of these faults others are also joined — such as that their sheer number darkens the light of the Gospel; that they provide no edification but are merely pointless and trivial occupations rather than genuine exercises of godliness; that they are exploited for filthy and dishonest gain; that they are too difficult to keep; or that they are tainted with corrupt superstition — these additional faults will help us see even more clearly how much evil is in them.

I hear the answer they give in their own defense: that their traditions are not from themselves, but from God. They say the church is governed by the Holy Spirit, that it cannot err, and that its authority belongs to them. From this they conclude that their traditions are revelations of the Holy Spirit, and to despise them is wickedness and contempt of God. And to avoid appearing to have acted without serious authority, they want it believed that a large portion of their observances came from the apostles. They point to the Jerusalem Council's decree as an example — that assembly where the apostles commanded the Gentiles to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, and from what has been strangled. We have already shown elsewhere how falsely they claim the title of the church for themselves when they boast this way. As for the present matter: if we strip away all the disguises and false colors and look honestly at what we most need to care about — that is, what kind of church Christ desires, so that we may conform ourselves to that rule — it will be immediately clear that what overruns and tramples the word of God in manufacturing new laws is not the church. Does not the law once prescribed to the church remain permanent? 'What I command you, that you shall observe and do. You shall not add to it, nor take anything from it.' And again: 'Do not add to the word of the Lord, nor take anything away from it, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.' Since they cannot deny that this was spoken to the church, what are they saying but that the church they boast of was so bold as to add to and mix its own ideas with God's teaching, even after such prohibitions? That is an enormous slander on the church. But let us never agree with their lies. Let us recognize that the name of the church is falsely invoked whenever men's reckless inventions are in question — inventions that cannot contain themselves within God's prescribed boundaries but run wild into self-made additions. There is nothing tangled, nothing obscure, nothing doubtful in those words by which the whole church is forbidden to add to or take from God's word when worship of God and precepts concerning salvation are the subject. But, they say, this was spoken only of the law — after which came the prophecies and the whole ministry of the Gospel. I grant it — and I add that the prophecies and the Gospel are fulfillments of the law, not additions to or subtractions from it. But if the Lord permitted nothing to be added to or removed from the ministry of Moses — which was, so to speak, obscure because of many veiled types — until through His servants the prophets, and at last through His beloved Son, He provided clearer teaching: how much more strictly must we believe it is forbidden to add anything to the law, the prophets, the Psalms, and the Gospel? Has the Lord changed His nature? He who long ago declared that nothing offends Him so deeply as being worshipped with human inventions? Where did those remarkable words in the prophets come from — words that should ring continually in our ears? 'I did not speak to your fathers, in the day I brought them out of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: Hear My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people, and walk in all the way that I command you.' And again: 'I solemnly warned your fathers — hear My voice.' And this passage above all others: 'Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry.' Therefore, whatever human inventions in this area are defended with the authority of the church — since they cannot be excused from the charge of ungodliness — it is easy to prove that the church's name is falsely invoked in their defense.

For this reason we freely attack the tyranny of human traditions that is proudly pressed upon us under the name of the church. We do not scorn the church — though our opponents dishonestly tell that lie to make us look bad. On the contrary, we give the church the praise of obedience, than which she knows no greater honor. Those who do the church real wrong are those who make her obstinate toward her Lord — pretending she has gone further than God's word allows her. And I will say nothing of how conspicuously shameless it is, combined with equal malice, to constantly cry about the authority of the church while secretly hiding both what the Lord has commanded her and what obedience she owes Him. But if we truly desire to be in agreement with the church — as we ought — what matters most is to fix our eyes on what the Lord has commanded both us and the church, so that we may obey Him in common agreement. There is no doubt that we will be in true unity with the church when we show ourselves obedient to the Lord in all things. Now, to father these traditions on the apostles — traditions that have oppressed the church until now — is sheer deception. The apostles' teaching labors toward exactly the opposite goal: that consciences not be burdened with new requirements, and that the worship of God not be defiled with our inventions. And if histories and ancient records can be trusted at all, the apostles not only never practiced but never even heard of what is attributed to them. They should not pretend that most of their decrees were quietly received into common practice without ever being written down — things, they say, that the apostles could not understand while Christ was still living, but learned by the Spirit's revelation after His ascension. We have already addressed that interpretation of the passage elsewhere. For the present purpose, this much is enough: they make themselves worthy of mockery by pretending that the great mysteries unknown to the apostles for so long were partly Jewish or pagan observances — the first category long published among the Jews, the second among the Gentiles — and partly foolish gestures and empty petty ceremonies performed very precisely by illiterate and witless priests. These are things that children and fools imitate so aptly that it seems as though there are no fitter ministers for such holy mysteries. Even without any historical records, people of sound judgment could tell by observing the thing itself that so great a pile of ceremonies and observances did not burst suddenly into the church, but crept in gradually. For after the holier bishops who came immediately after the apostles had established some things belonging to good order and discipline, their successors followed — men less wise, more curious, and more ambitious. The later each one came, the more he competed with his predecessors in foolish and envious imitation, striving not to fall behind in inventing new things. And because they feared their devices would quickly fall out of use — and with them any chance of winning praise from posterity — they became all the more rigid in demanding strict compliance. This wrongful zeal has given us a great portion of the ceremonies they now present to us as apostolic. The historical records bear this out.

To avoid an exhaustive catalog, one example will suffice. In administering the Lord's Supper in the apostles' time, there was great simplicity. Their immediate successors, wishing to adorn the dignity of the mystery, added some things that were not entirely objectionable. But then came the foolish imitators who, by patching pieces together one after another, produced the priestly vestments we now see at the Mass, the ornaments of the altar, the elaborate gestures, and the whole apparatus of useless things. They object, however, that the ancient conviction was that whatever was done by universal consent throughout the church had come from the apostles themselves — and they cite Augustine as a witness to this. But I will find my answer from none other than Augustine's own words. 'Those things that are maintained throughout the whole world,' he says, 'we may understand to have been ordained either by the apostles themselves or by general councils whose authority is most beneficial to the church — such as the annual celebration of the Lord's passion, resurrection, ascension, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, and whatever similar observances are maintained throughout the whole church wherever it is spread.' When he offers so few examples, who cannot see that he meant to attribute apostolic authority to the observances actually in use — and only those simple, rare, and sober ones by which it was beneficial to maintain the church's order? How far this is from what the Roman masters want people to grant: that there is not a single petty ceremony among them that ought not to be considered apostolic.

To avoid going on too long, I will give only one example. If someone asks them where they get holy water, they immediately answer: from the apostles. As though the historical records do not attribute this invention to some bishop of Rome — who, had he consulted the apostles, would never have defiled baptism with a foreign and inappropriate sign. Though I do not think the origins of that consecration are quite as ancient as those records claim. For Augustine's comment that some churches in his time avoided the solemn foot-washing after Christ's example, fearing it might seem to pertain to baptism — this quietly suggests that at that time there was no form of washing that bore any resemblance to baptism. Whatever the case, I will not concede that it was of apostolic spirit to introduce a daily sign that recalls baptism in a way that practically repeats it. And I am not very concerned that elsewhere Augustine also attributes other things to the apostles. Since his grounds are no more than conjecture, no firm judgment on so important a matter should rest on them. Even granting them that everything Augustine mentions came from apostolic times — there is still a great difference between instituting an exercise of godliness that believers may use with a free conscience, or refrain from if it is not useful to them, and making a law that binds consciences with compulsion. Whatever their origin, since we now see that they have slid into such great abuse, nothing prevents us from abolishing them without offense to anyone — since they were never established as permanently and unalterably binding.

Nor does it help them much to excuse their tyranny by appealing to the example of the apostles. They say: the apostles and elders of the first church issued a decree beyond Christ's explicit commandment, ordering all Gentiles to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from what was strangled, and from blood. If this was lawful for them, why may their successors not do the same whenever occasion requires? I would to God that in this and in everything else they truly followed the apostles. For I deny that the apostles in that council instituted or decreed anything new — and this can be proved by a decisive argument. Peter in that council declares that to lay a yoke on the disciples' necks is to test God. If he then consents to have any yoke laid on the Gentiles, he contradicts himself. But a yoke would be laid on them if the apostles had decreed on their own authority that the Gentiles were forbidden from touching things sacrificed to idols, blood, and strangled animals. There does seem to be a difficulty here, since the decree does appear to forbid these things. But this difficulty dissolves on a closer look at what the decree actually says and does. The chief point of the decree is this: the Gentiles' liberty is to be preserved, and they are not to be troubled or burdened with the requirements of the law. On this point, the decree strongly supports our position. The exception that follows does not create any new law from the apostles — it applies the eternal commandment of God that love must not be broken. It does not diminish one bit of that liberty, but simply instructs the Gentiles how to conduct themselves toward their brothers, so that they do not abuse their liberty to give offense. Let this therefore be the second point: the Gentiles should use their liberty freely, but without causing offense to their brothers. The apostles do indicate certain specific things — they teach and specify, as far as was useful for that time, the kinds of things that could cause their brothers to stumble, so that the Gentiles would avoid them. But they added nothing new of their own to God's eternal law, which forbids causing offense to one's brothers.

Consider this parallel: if faithful pastors governing churches not yet fully reformed were to command their people that — until the weak among them grow stronger — they should not openly eat meat on Fridays, or openly work on holy days, or do similar things. For although these things, setting superstition aside, are indifferent in themselves, when a brother's offense is added to them, they cannot be done without fault. The times are such that the faithful cannot act this way openly before their weaker brothers without badly wounding those brothers' consciences. Who but a quibbler would say that in doing this the pastors are creating a new law? It is clear they are simply preventing offenses that the Lord explicitly forbids. The same is true of the apostles, whose purpose was simply to apply God's law concerning offense — in effect saying: 'The Lord commands you not to cause your weak brother to stumble. You cannot eat things sacrificed to idols, strangled meat, and blood without causing your weak brothers to stumble. Therefore we command you in the Lord's name not to eat these things with offense.' Paul is the best witness that this was the apostles' intention, and he writes in full agreement with the spirit of that council: 'Concerning food offered to idols — we know that an idol is nothing. But some, with a weak conscience toward the idol, eat it as something actually offered to an idol, and their weak conscience is defiled. See to it that your liberty does not become a stumbling block to the weak.' Anyone who weighs these things carefully will not afterward be deceived by the false pretense our opponents make when they cite the apostles to defend their tyranny — as though the apostles had begun with this decree to chip away at the church's liberty. But to prevent them from escaping this conclusion and force them to accept this solution on their own terms: let them answer by what authority they felt free to abolish that very decree. Their answer is that there was no longer any danger of the offenses and divisions the apostles were addressing, and they know that a law must be weighed according to its purpose. Since this law was made in the interest of love, it prescribes nothing beyond what love requires. When they admit that violating this law is nothing but a failure of love, do they not also acknowledge that it was not an invented addition to God's law, but simply a direct and practical application to the time and circumstances for which it was given?

But although such laws may be unjust and harmful to us a hundred times over, they insist they must be obeyed without exception — arguing that the issue is not whether we agree with the errors, but simply that as subjects we must bear the hard commands of our rulers, and it is not our place to refuse them. But here again the Lord very effectively opposes them with the truth of His word and delivers us from that bondage into the liberty He purchased for us with His holy blood — a benefit He has confirmed more than once in His word. For what is at stake here is not merely (as they maliciously pretend) some bodily hardship we must endure — but the stripping of consciences of their liberty, which is the benefit of Christ's blood, reducing them to servile torment. But let us set even that aside as though it were a small matter. Yet how serious is it that the Lord's kingdom is taken from Him — which He claims for Himself with such firmness? It is taken from Him whenever He is worshipped according to laws invented by men, when He alone will be recognized as the Lawgiver of His own worship. Lest anyone think this is a trivial matter, let us hear how highly the Lord values it. 'Because this people fears Me with commandments and doctrines of men,' He says, 'behold, I will do a marvelous work among this people, a wonderful and astonishing thing. For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their discerning men shall be hidden.' And elsewhere: 'They worship Me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' And indeed, when the children of Israel defiled themselves with many idolatries, the root cause of all that evil is traced to this corrupt mixture — that they abandoned God's commandments and devised new forms of worship. The sacred history records that the foreigners transplanted by the king of Babylon to inhabit Samaria were torn apart and consumed by wild animals because they did not know the ordinances and judgments of the God of that land. Even though they had not offended in the formal ceremonies themselves, God would not have tolerated empty pomp — and the whole time He continued to take vengeance for the corruption of His worship, because people were introducing practices foreign to His word. It is then recorded that, frightened by that punishment, they received the ceremonies prescribed in the law — but because they still did not worship the true God purely, it is twice said of them that they feared Him and did not fear Him. From this we gather that the reverence owed to Him consists in this: that in worshipping Him we follow simply what He commands, mixing in none of our own inventions. This is why the godly kings are often praised for doing according to all of God's commandments and turning neither to the right nor to the left. I go further still: even where a self-invented form of worship does not openly display ungodliness, the Holy Spirit condemns it severely the moment people depart from God's commandment. The altar of Ahaz — whose design was brought from Samaria — might have seemed to enhance the beauty of the temple. His intention was to offer sacrifices to God alone on it, in a more honorable manner than on the old original altar. Yet we see how the Spirit condemns this presumption for no other reason than that human inventions in the worship of God are corrupt defilements. And the more clearly God's will has been made known to us, the less excusable our stubbornness in attempting anything beyond it. This is why the specific circumstances add weight to the crime of Manasseh, who built a new altar in Jerusalem — the very city about which God had declared, 'I will place My name there' — because in doing so, the authority of God was as good as deliberately rejected.

Many people wonder why God so sharply threatens to do astonishing things to the nation that worshiped Him with man-made commandments, and why He declares that He is worshiped in vain with human rules. But if they considered what it means in the realm of religion -- that is, of heavenly wisdom -- to depend on the mouth of God alone, they would see that there is no small reason why God so despises these corrupt acts of worship done according to human invention. For although those who obey such laws for worshiping God display a certain appearance of humility in their obedience, they are not truly humble before God, since they impose on Him the same laws they have chosen to keep. This is the reason Paul urges us so earnestly to guard against being deceived by human traditions and what he calls ethelothreskia -- that is, self-imposed worship invented by people apart from the teaching of God. This is certainly true: both our own wisdom and all human wisdom must become foolishness to us, so that we allow Him alone to be wise. Those who try to earn His approval through petty observances invented by human will do not follow this path. They force upon Him, against His will, a transgressing obedience that is really given to human authority, not to God. This has been the case in many ages past, in the time within our own memory, and continues today in those places where the authority of the creature is valued more than that of the Creator. In those places, religion -- if it even deserves to be called religion -- is stained with increasingly distasteful superstitions, worse than any pagan wickedness. For what could human cleverness produce except things that are worldly, foolish, and truly resemble their authors?

When the defenders of superstition argue that Samuel sacrificed at Ramah, and that although this was done outside the law it still pleased God, the answer is simple. He was not setting up a rival altar against the one true altar. Rather, because the place for the ark of the covenant had not yet been designated, he appointed the town where he lived as the most suitable location for sacrifices. The holy prophet certainly had no intention of introducing anything new in sacred matters, since God had so strictly forbidden adding anything or taking anything away. As for the example of Manoah, I say it was an extraordinary and unique case. Though he was a private citizen, he offered sacrifice to God -- and not without God's approval. He did not undertake it from a rash impulse of his own mind but by heavenly prompting. But how much the Lord hates the things that people invent on their own to worship Him is powerfully illustrated by another example no less significant than Gideon's, whose ephod became a source of destruction not only for him and his family but for the whole people. In the end, every newly invented practice by which people try to worship God is nothing but a corruption of true holiness.

Why then, they ask, did Christ say that those unbearable burdens the scribes and Pharisees placed on people should be carried? But why did the same Christ elsewhere tell people to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees -- calling it "leaven," as Matthew the Evangelist explains, because they mixed their own teaching into the purity of God's word? What could be plainer than the fact that we are commanded to flee from and guard against all their teaching? This makes it absolutely clear that in the other passage as well, the Lord did not want the consciences of His people to be tormented by the Pharisees' own traditions. And the words themselves, if they are not twisted, do not mean anything of the sort. For the Lord, intending to strongly criticize the Pharisees' behavior, first simply instructed His listeners that even though they saw nothing in the Pharisees' lives worth imitating, they should still do what the Pharisees taught in words while they sat in the seat of Moses -- that is, while they were explaining the law. Therefore He meant nothing more than to ensure that ordinary people would not be led by the bad examples of their teachers to despise the teaching itself. But since many people are not moved at all by reasoning and always demand a recognized authority, I will quote Augustine's words, which say the very same thing. The Lord's sheepfold has governors: some faithful, and some hirelings. The faithful governors are true pastors. But understand this: the hirelings also are necessary. For many in the church pursue earthly gain yet still preach Christ, and through them the voice of Christ is heard. The sheep follow not the hireling but the pastor, through the hireling's voice. Listen to how the Lord Himself identifies the hirelings. The scribes and the Pharisees, He says, sit in the seat of Moses. Do what they say, but do not do what they do. What else did He say but: hear the voice of the pastor through the hirelings? For by sitting in that seat they teach the law of God, and therefore God teaches through them. But if they teach their own ideas, do not listen; do not follow. This is what Augustine says.

Many people, when they hear that consciences are wickedly bound and that God is worshiped in vain through human traditions, immediately conclude that all church laws must be abolished altogether. We need to address that error. At first glance, it is easy to be deceived, because the difference between legitimate and illegitimate laws is not immediately obvious. But I will lay out the whole matter plainly so that no one is misled by the surface similarity. First, let us hold this principle: every human community needs some form of order to preserve peace and maintain agreement. In carrying out shared activities, there must always be some structure — one that befits public decency and basic human dignity. This is especially true in churches, which are best maintained by well-ordered arrangement and which cannot exist at all without agreement. If we want the church's health to be properly secured, we must diligently pursue what Paul commands: that all things be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40). But since human habits vary so greatly, minds differ so widely, and judgments are so diverse, no community is stable without established laws, and no orderly practice can be observed without a defined structure. We are therefore far from condemning laws that serve this purpose. We actually affirm that when such laws are removed, churches lose their backbone and fall into disorder and disarray. Paul's requirement that all things be done decently and in order cannot be fulfilled unless that order and decency are established with specific observances that serve as their support. There is only one condition that must always be maintained for such observances: they must not be regarded as necessary for salvation — binding consciences through religious requirement — nor applied to the worship of God in such a way that godliness is thought to consist in them.

We have a reliable and trustworthy test for distinguishing wicked ordinances — those that corrupt true religion and enslave consciences — from legitimate church observances. Lawful observances always serve one or both of the following purposes: that in the holy assembly of believers everything is done with dignity and proper reverence, and that the common life of the community is maintained in good order through bonds of mutual consideration and moderation. Once it is understood that a law exists for the sake of public decency, the superstition is removed — the superstition into which people fall when they measure the worship of God by human inventions. Likewise, once it is known that a law serves the common good, the false notion of strict necessity is overthrown — the notion that used to strike great terror into consciences when traditions were thought to be required for salvation. For all that is required in such cases is that love be nourished among us through shared and considerate practice. Still, it is good to define more precisely what is meant by the comeliness Paul commends, and also by order. The purpose of comeliness is twofold: first, that ceremonies which promote reverence for holy things may stir us up to godliness; second, that the modesty and gravity which should mark all honorable conduct may be especially visible in sacred gatherings. The first point of order is that those who govern know the rule and standard of good governance, and that the people under their care are trained in obedience to God and sound discipline. Then, with the church well ordered, peace and quietness may be secured.

Comeliness, then, is not something that produces nothing but empty visual pleasure — such as the theatrical vestments the papists use in their ceremonies, which amount to nothing more than a pointless display of ornament without any spiritual fruit. Rather, comeliness is whatever is fitting for reverence toward sacred mysteries in a way that genuinely exercises godliness — or at least appropriately adorns its celebration — and that is not without fruit, reminding the faithful with what great modesty, reverence, and solemn care they ought to handle holy things. For ceremonies to be genuine exercises of godliness, they must point us directly to Christ. Likewise, order does not consist in trivial pomp that has nothing to offer beyond a fleeting appearance of grandeur. It consists in an orderly arrangement that removes confusion, crudeness, stubbornness, and all strife and division. Examples of the first kind are found in Paul: that common meals must not be mixed with the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:21); that women should not come into the assembly unveiled; and many others in common use — such as that we pray kneeling and bare-headed, that the Lord's Supper is administered not carelessly but with appropriate dignity, that the burial of the dead is conducted with proper honor, and similar things. Examples of the second kind include the hours set aside for public prayers, sermons, and the celebration of the sacraments; silence and attentiveness during sermons; designated places; the singing of hymns together; days appointed for the Lord's Supper; Paul's instruction that women are not to teach in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34); and similar practices. Especially important are those things that concern discipline: the teaching of the catechism, church censures, excommunication, fasting, and related matters. So all the church's constitutions that we recognize as holy and beneficial can be grouped under two main headings: some pertain to rites and ceremonies, and the rest to discipline and peace.

There is a danger here on two sides: on one side, false bishops might use this framework as a pretense to excuse their wicked and tyrannical laws; on the other, some overly cautious people, alarmed by the evils already described, might refuse to allow any laws at all, however holy. For this reason, it is important to clarify that I approve only those human ordinances that are grounded in God's authority, drawn from Scripture — and are in that sense entirely God's own. Take kneeling during common prayer as an example. Is it a human tradition that any person may lawfully refuse or ignore? I would say it is both of human origin and of God. It is of God in that it is part of the decency and order the apostle commends to our care. It is of human origin in that it gives specific expression to something that God has pointed to in general terms rather than spelled out in detail. From this one example we can judge the whole class of such practices. The Lord has faithfully and clearly set forth in His holy Word the complete substance of true righteousness, every aspect of worship, and everything necessary for salvation. In all these matters, He alone is to be heard as our teacher. But in matters of external discipline and ceremony, His will was not to prescribe every specific detail we should follow — because He knew these things would depend on the circumstances of each era and that no single form would suit every age. In these areas, we must appeal to the general rules He has given us and use them to evaluate whatever the church's needs require to be established for order and decency. Furthermore, since He has given no explicit direction on these matters precisely because they are not necessary for salvation and must be adapted differently for each nation and era to build up the church — it is appropriate, as the church's benefit requires, to change and abolish existing practices or to establish new ones. I certainly grant that we should not rush into change rashly, frequently, or for trivial reasons. But love is the best judge of what may harm or help — and if we let love govern, all will be well.

It is the duty of Christians to observe such ordinances — those established according to this rule — with a free conscience and without superstition, yet also with a willing and humble readiness to obey. They should not despise these ordinances or neglect them carelessly, much less break them openly with pride and stubbornness. But how, you might ask, can conscience truly be free under such careful and detailed observance? It can stand firmly when we recognize that these are not permanent, binding laws but outward forms suited to human weakness. We may not all personally need every one of them, but we use them together because we owe it to one another to nurture love. We can see this in the examples already mentioned. Does religion consist in a woman's veil, such that going out without covering her head is forbidden? Is the rule about silence in worship so absolute that breaking it is a grave offense? Is there some sacred mystery in kneeling or in the burial of the dead that cannot be set aside without sin? No. If a woman urgently needs to help her neighbor and has no time to cover her head, she does not sin by going out uncovered. There may be occasions when it is just as fitting for her to speak as it is at other times for her to remain silent. There is no reason why a person who cannot kneel due to illness may not pray standing. And it is better to bury a person promptly than to let the body decay unburied for lack of a shroud or attendants. Nevertheless, in these matters there is something that the customs and ordinances of the country — and basic natural decency and modesty — require to be done or avoided. If someone deviates from them unintentionally or through forgetfulness, no serious wrong is done. But if someone acts out of contempt, that stubbornness deserves rebuke. Similarly, the specific days, hours, the design of church buildings, and which Psalms are sung on which day — none of these details is essential in itself. Yet it is fitting that there be appointed days, set hours, and a meeting place large enough to hold everyone — if the goal is to preserve peace. Consider how much quarreling a lack of such structure would cause, if everyone were free to change whatever belongs to the common life of the community as they pleased. It will never happen that the same arrangement pleases everyone if everything is left as an open choice for each person. If anyone objects to this and thinks himself wiser than he should, let him consider how he will answer to the Lord for his own exactness. As for us, Paul's word is sufficient: we have no custom of contention, and neither do the churches of God.

Great care must be taken to prevent any error from creeping in that would corrupt or obscure this pure use of church ordinances. This can be achieved if all observances, whatever they are, have a clear and evident purpose, if they are kept to a small number, and especially if the pastor faithfully teaches about them in a way that closes the door to false interpretations. This understanding preserves each person's freedom in all these things, while at the same time allowing them to willingly limit their own freedom to the degree that the decency we have described — or the order of love — requires. Furthermore, we ourselves should practice these observances without superstition and should not press them on others so strictly that we imagine the worship of God is made better by a greater number of ceremonies. One church should not despise another for differences in practice. And we should not set any of these observances in stone as permanent laws, but should direct the whole point and purpose of such observances to the building up of the church — so that when the church's needs require it, we can allow not only individual practices to be changed but, if necessary, all previously existing observances to be abolished without any offense. Our own time shows clearly that certain rites, which are not in themselves ungodly or indecent, may rightly be abolished when circumstances call for it. The blindness and ignorance of earlier ages was so great that churches clung to their ceremonies with such corrupted conviction and such stubborn attachment that the churches can barely be sufficiently purged of their monstrous superstitions without removing many ceremonies — ceremonies that may well have been originally established for good reasons and that contain no obvious wickedness in themselves.