Page:The whole familiar colloquies of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.djvu/268

264 FAMILIAR COLLOQUIES. Fi. In the first place, it does not appear that God has forbidden the eating swine’s flesh, meaning that a man should rather be accessory to his own death than eat it. For the Lord excuses David in that he ate shewbread contrary to the letter of the law. And in the Babylonish captivity many things were omitted by the Jews which were required by the law. Secondly, I am of opinion that the law which nature has dictated, and therefore is perpetual and inviolable, ought to be accounted the more obligatory, which never was nor ever will be abrogated. Bu. But why, then, were the Maccabees so much commended that chose rather to die than eat swine’s flesh? Fi. I suppose because this eating being required by the king, did comprise in itself a denial in the general of the law of the country; as circumcision, which the Jews endeavoured to obtrude on the Gentiles, carried in it a profession of the whole law, just as money given in earnest obliges to the performance of the whole contract.

Bu. Well, then, if this more gross part of the law is justly taken away, after the exhibition of the gospel, by what authority are either the same or like things imposed upon us, especially when our Lord calls His yoke an easy one, and Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, calls the law of the Jews a hard one, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear! Circumcision is taken away, but baptism came in the room of it, and, indeed, I was about to say, with a harder condition. That was deferred till the eighth day; and if anything happened to the child in that time, the vow of circumcision was taken for circumcision itself. But we dip children, scarce well got out of the dark caverns of the mother’s womb, all over in cold water, which has stood a long time in a stony font (not to say while it stinks), and if it chance to die upon the first day, or in its very ingress into the world, though there be no fault neither in its parents nor friends, the poor babe is doomed to eternal damnation. Fi. They do say so indeed.

Bu. The sabbath is abrogated; nay, indeed, not abrogated, but translated to the Sunday. What does it signify? The Mosaic law enjoined a few fast days; but what a number have we added to them? And as to the choice of meats, how much freer were the Jews than we are, who were at liberty to eat sheep, capons, partridges, and kids all the year round? They were forbid the use of no garment, but what was mixed with linen and woollen. But now, besides the appointed and forbidden forms and colours of a great number of garments, the head must be shaven too, some after one manner, and some another. Not to mention that heavy burden of confession, the wallets of human constitutions, tithes, and those not single ones neither; matrimony screwed up into too narrow a compass, the new laws of affinity, and abundance of other things, which render the Jews’ circumstances much more easy than ours.

Fi. Indeed, butcher, you are much out of the way, the yoke of Christ is not to be accounted for by that rule you imagine. A Christian is tied up in many points, and to harder circumstances, and liable to a greater punishment. But to make amends for this, the greater strength of faith and love that is added makes those things pleasant which by nature are burdensome. Bu. Pray, tell me why, when the Holy Spirit descended from heaven of old, in the shape of fiery tongues, and enriched the hearts of believers with a more copious gift of faitli