Page:The whole familiar colloquies of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.djvu/276

272 FAMILIAR COLLOQUIES. not. And it is a sacred thing to beware lest we lay a stumbling block before the weak by any constitutions. Fi. It is. Bu. And if Paul made use of this caution, much more ought priests to use it, of whom it is uncertain whether they have the Spirit or not. Fi. I confess so.

Bu. But a little while ago you denied that it was at the lawgiver’s pleasure how far the law should oblige a person. Fi. But here it is a counsel and not a law. Bu. Nothing is easier than to change the word “swear not.” Is it a command?Fi. It is. Bu. Resist not evil. Fi. It is a counsel. Bu. But this last carries in it the face of a command more than the former; at least, is it in the breasts of bishops whether they will have their constitutions, commands, or counsels? Fi. It is. Bu. You denied that strenuously but now. For he who will not have his constitution render any one guilty of a crime he makes it advice, and not command. Pi. True; but it is not expedient the vulgar should know this, lest they should presently cry out that what they have not a mind to observe is counsel. Bu. But then what will you do as to those weak consciences that are so miserably perplexed by thy silence? But come on, pray tell me can learned men know by any certain tokens whether a constitution has the force of a counsel or a command? Fi. As I have heard, they can, Bu. May not a person know the mystery?? Fi. You may, if you will not blab it out. Bu. Pshaw, I will be as mute as a fish. Fi. When you hear nothing but, “We exhort, we ordain, we command,” it is a counsel; when you hear, “We command, we require,” especially if threatenings of excommunication be added, it is a command.

Bu. Suppose I owe money to my baker and cannot pay him, and had rather run away than be cast into prison, am I guilty of a capital offence? Fi. I think not, unless a will be wanting as well as ability. Bu. Why am I excommunicated then? Fi. That thunderbolt affrights the wicked, but does not hurt the innocent; for, you know, amongst the ancient Romans there were certain dreadful threatening laws made for this very purpose, as that which is fetched from the twelve tables, concerning the cutting the body of the debtor asunder, of which there is no example extant, because it was not made for use but terror. And now as lightning has no effect upon wax or flax, but upon brass, so such excommunications do not operate upon persons in misery, but upon the contumacious. Bu. To speak ingenuously, to make use of Christ’s thunderbolt on such frivolous occasions as these are seems in a manner to be, as the ancients said, in lente unguentum.

Bu. Has a master of a house the same power in his own house as a bishop has in his diocese? Fi. It is my opinion he has propor tionably. Bu. And do his prescriptions equally oblige? Fi. Why not? Bu. I command that nobody eat onions, how is he that does not obey a sinner before God? Fi. Let him see to that. Bu. Then for the future I will say I admonish you, not I command you. Fi. That will be wisely done. Bu. But suppose I see my neighbour in danger, and therefore I take him aside and admonish him privately to withdraw himself from the society of drunkards and game sters, but he, slighting my admonition, lives more profligately than before, does my admonition lay him under an obligation? Fi. In my