The commentaries of M. John Calvin upon the Acts of the Apostles, faithfully translated…The commentaries of M. Iohn Caluin vpon the Actes of the Apostles, faithfully translated…

Besides these necessary things. The Papists do frowardly triumph under colour of this word, as if it were lawful for men to make Laws which may lay necessity upon the conscience. That (say they) which the church commandeth must be kept under pain of mortal sin: because the Apostles say that that must necessarily be observed which they decree. But such a vain cavil is quickly answered. For this necessity reached no farther than there was any danger least the unity should be cut a sunder. So that to speak properly, this necessity was accidental or external: which was placed not in the thing it self, but only in avoiding of the offence, which appeareth more plainly by abolishing of the decree. For Laws made concerning things which are of themselves necessary, must be continual. But we know that this Law was foredone by Paul, so soon as the tumult and contention was once ended,¹ when he teacheth that nothing is unclean, and when he granteth liberty to eat all manner meats, yea even such as were sacrificed to Idols. Wherefore in vain do they gather any cloak or colour out of this word, to bind mens consciences, seeing that the necessity spoken of in this place, did only respect men in the external use, least there should any offence rise thereupon: and that their liberty before God might stand whole and sound. Also in vain do they gather out of all the whole place, and in vain do they go about out of the same to prove that the church had power given to decree any thing contrary to the word of God. The Pope hath made such laws as seemed best to him contrary to the word of God, whereby he meant to govern the Church: and that not ten or twenty, but an infinite number: so that they do not only tyrannously oppress souls: but are also cruel torments to vex and torment them. To the end the hired brabblers of the Pope may excuse such cruelty, they do object that even the Apostles did forbid the Gentiles that which was not forbidden in the word of God. But I say flatly that the Apostles added nothing unto the word of God. Which shall plainly appear, if we list to mark their drift. I said of late that they meant nothing less then to set down a perpetual law, whereby they might bind the faithful. What then? They use that remedy which was fit for the nourishing of brotherly peace and concord among the Churches:

Besides these necessarie things. The Papists doe frowardly triumph vnder colour of this worde, as if it were lawfull for men to make Lawes which may lay necessitie vpon the cōscience. That (say they) which the church commaundeth must be kept vnder paine of mortall sinne: because the Apostles say that that must necessarily be obserued which they decree. But such a vaine cauill is quickly answered. For this necessitie reached no farther than there was any danger least the vnitie shoulde bee cut a sunder. So that to speake properly, this necessitie was accidental or externall: which was placed not in the thing it selfe, but onely in auoiding of the offence, which appeareth more plainely by abolishing of the decree. For Lawes made concerning thinges which are of themselues necessarie, must be continual. But we know that this Law was foredone by Paul, so soone as the tumult and contention was once ended,