Page:The whole familiar colloquies of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.djvu/273

ICHTHYOPHAGIA ; OR, FISH-EATING. 269 force, what does the Lord mean in Deuteronomy, who uses so severe a commination, that none add to or diminish from the law? Fi. He does not add to the law that more largely explains what lay couched in it, and who suggests those things that have relation to the observation of the law; nor does he diminish who preaches the law according to the capacity of the hearers, declaring some things, and concealing others, according to the circumstances of the time.

Bu. Were the constitutions of the Pharisees and Scribes obligatory? Fi. I do not think they were. Bu. Why so? Fi. Because, though they had authority to teach, yet not to make laws. Bu. Which power is the greater, that of making human laws or that of interpreting divine? Fi. That of making human laws. Bu. I am of another mind; for he that has the right of interpreting his opinion has the force of a divine law. Fi. I do not well take you in. Bu. I will explain it to you. The divine law commands us to assist our parents. The Pharisee interprets it thus: That which is offered to the church is given to the Father, because God is the father of all. Does not the divine law then give place to this interpretation? Fi. But that is a false interpretation. Bu. But when once they have received an authority of interpreting, how can I tell which interpretation is true, and especially if they differ among themselves? Fi. If you cannot be satisfied as to the sense of the commonalty, follow the authority of the prelates; that is the safest.

Bu. Is then the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees devolved upon divines and preachers? Fi. It is. Bu. I hear none more ready to inculcate, “hear, I say unto you,” than those that never made divinity much their study. Fi. You must hear all candidly, but with judgment, unless they are quite mad. Then people ought to rise and hiss them out of the pulpit, to make them sensible of their madness. But you ought to believe those that have arrived to the degree of a doctor in divinity. Bu. But among them I find a great many that are much more ignorant and foolish than those that are altogether illiterate; and I see much controversy among the learned themselves. Fi. Single out the best things, and leave those things that are difficult to others, always receiving those things that the consent of the rulers and majority has approved. Bu. I know that is the safest way. But then there are false constitutions as well as false interpretations. Fi. Whether there be or no, let others look to that. I believe there may be.

Bu. Had Annas and Caiaphas authority to make laws? Fi. Yes, they had? Bu. Did these men’s constitutions in all things oblige to the punishment of hell? Fi. I cannot tell. Bu. Suppose Annas had made an order that nobody coming from a market should touch a bit of meat before he had washed his body: if any one ate meat unwashed, did he incur the pain of damnation? Fi. I think not, unless the contempt of the public authority aggravated the crime. Bu. Did all the laws of God oblige to the punishment of eternal damnation? Fi. I believe not; for God forbids all sin, how venial soever, if we may believe divines. Bu. But perhaps a venial sin might send to hell, unless God by His mercy assisted our infirmity. Fi. It is no absurdity to say so, but I dare not affirm it. Bu. When the Israelites were in captivity in Babylon, besides a great many other