for certainty I shall have heard its clear voice. Nay, had Leo's Bull
given the fullest expression of this doctrine, and any one should either
be ignorant of it, or should have forgotten it, it would meanwhile
suffice (I imagine) to obey in this matter the authority of the Church,
with a disposition of obedience, should the point be established. Nor in
truth can it be rightly inferred, _This Confession is of human
ordinance, therefore Christ is not its Author_. The Apostles laid down
the discipline of the Church, without doubt from Christ's ordinances:
they ordained Baptism, they ordained Bishops, &c., but by the authority
of Christ. And yet it cannot be denied, that many particulars of this
Confession depend on the appointment of the Pontiffs, viz., that we
confess once a year, at Easter, to this or that priest; that any priest
absolves us from any trespasses whatever. Hence I judge it to be clear
how manifest is the calumny in what relates to _Confession_.

Further, no mention is there made of _fasting_, to which the Gospel and
the Apostolic epistles exhort us, but _concerning the choice of foods_,
which Christ openly sets at naught in the Gospel, and the Pauline
epistles not seldom condemn; especially that which is Jewish and
superstitious. Some one will say, this is to accuse the Roman Pontiff
who teaches that which the Apostle condemns. What the Gospel teaches,
is perfectly plain. The Pontiff himself must declare with what intention
he commands what the Gospel does not require. Yet no one there
says--what I know not whether Luther teaches--that the constitutions of
the Pontiffs do not render us liable to guilt, unless there has been
contempt besides. In fact, he who speaks in that passage grants that the
Pope may appoint an observance; he simply enquires, whether this were
the intention of the Pope, to bind all equally to abstinence from meats,
so that one who should partake would be liable to hell-fire, even
although no perverse contempt should be committed. And he who says this