United States or Brazil ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Giving, and not granting, that our consciences do err in condemning the ceremonies, yet, so long as they cannot be otherwise persuaded, the ceremonies ought not to be urged upon us; for if we be made to do that which our consciences do condemn, we are made to sin, Rom. xiv. 23. It is an audacious contempt, in Calvin’s judgment, to do anything repugnante conscientia.
Because he would have tolerated holidays, because he durst not at that time, and as the case then stood, have spoken of the abolishing them, can it be hereupon concluded that he allowed of them? No, sure. But it is observable how both those prelates pervert Calvin’s words.
Next, The Apostle speaks of such governors as the church had at that time; but at that time the church had no godly nor Christian magistrates. This is Calvin’s argument, whereby he proves that ecclesiastical, not civil governors, are there meant.
If Paybody had been in Calvin’s place, he could not have called the Nicodemites idolaters, forasmuch as they have no intention to worship the popish images when they kneel and worship before them.
An ecclesiastical canon, saith Tilen, ducit volentem, non trahit nolentem: quod si accedat coactio, ea ecclesiastici canonis natura est prorsus aliena, Calvin’s judgment is, that an ecclesiastical canon binds, when manifestam utilitatem prae se fert, and when either tu prepon or charitatis ratio doth require, that we impose a necessity on our liberty.
How much surer and sounder is Calvin’s judgment, non aliud fuisse Dei consilium, quam ut interposito obstaculo populum suum a prophanis Gentibus dirimiret?
If the Bishop stand to Calvin’s judgment in that place which he quoteth, he must allow as to refuse some festival days, though enjoined by the prince. In festis non recipiendis cuperem vos esse constantiores, sic tamen ut non litigetis de quibuslibet. Then he allowed them to contend against some holidays, though the prince imposed them. 3.
If holidays, in Calvin’s judgment, be fooleries—if he gave advice not to approve them—if he thought them occasions of superstition—if he held it superstition to distinguish one day from another, or to esteem one above another—if he call them Judaical, though kept to the honour of God, judge then what allowance they had from him. 2.
What then, on Calvin’s own principles, becomes of the omnipotence of God? Does this extend merely to man and not to Satan? Is it not evident that Calvin’s scheme in regard to the sin of the first man, is here most emphatically condemned out of his own mouth?
So that the thing which was forbidden, if the Gentiles had not used it, should have been otherwise lawful enough to God’s people, as we have seen out of Calvin’s commentary. Sect. 6. Secondly, We have reason for that which we say; for by partaking with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we are made to partake with them in their religion too.