THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH; ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND
EXCOMMUNICATION.
The discipline of the Church, the discussion of which I have deferred to
this place, must be despatched in a few words, that we may proceed to
the remaining subjects. Now, the discipline depends chiefly on the power
of the keys, and the spiritual jurisdiction. To make this more easily
understood, let us divide the Church into two principal orders—the
clergy and the people. I use the word _clergy_ as the common, though
improper, appellation of those who execute the public ministry in the
Church. We shall, first, speak of the common discipline to which all
ought to be subject; and in the next place we shall proceed to the
clergy, who, beside this common discipline, have a discipline peculiar
to themselves. But as some have such a hatred of discipline, as to abhor
the very name, they should attend to the following consideration: That
if no society, and even no house, though containing only a small family,
can be preserved in a proper state without discipline, this is far more
necessary in the Church, the state of which ought to be the most orderly
of all. As the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the Church, so
discipline forms the ligaments which connect the members together, and
keep each in its proper place. Whoever, therefore, either desire the
abolition of all discipline, or obstruct its restoration, whether they
act from design or inadvertency, they certainly promote the entire
dissolution of the Church. For what will be the consequence, if every
man be at liberty to follow his own inclinations? But such would be the
case, unless the preaching of the doctrine were accompanied with private
admonitions, reproofs, and other means to enforce the doctrine, and
prevent it from being altogether ineffectual. Discipline, therefore,
serves as a bridle to curb and restrain the refractory, who resist the
doctrine of Christ; or as a spur to stimulate the inactive; and
sometimes as a father’s rod, with which those who have grievously fallen
may be chastised in mercy, and with the gentleness of the Spirit of
Christ. Now, when we see the approach of certain beginnings of a
dreadful desolation in the Church, since there is no solicitude or means
to keep the people in obedience to our Lord, necessity itself proclaims
the want of a remedy; and this is the only remedy which has been
commanded by Christ, or which has ever been adopted among believers.
II. The first foundation of discipline consists in the use of private
admonitions; that is to say, that if any one be guilty of a voluntary
omission of duty, or conduct himself in an insolent manner, or discover
a want of virtue in his life, or commit any act deserving of
reprehension, he should suffer himself to be admonished; and that every
one should study to admonish his brother, whenever occasion shall
require; but that pastors and presbyters, beyond all others, should be
vigilant in the discharge of this duty, being called by their office,
not only to preach to the congregation, but also to admonish and exhort
in private houses, if in any instances their public instructions may not
have been sufficiently efficacious; as Paul inculcates, when he says,
that he “taught publicly and from house to house,” and protests himself
to be “pure from the blood of all men,” having “ceased not to warn every
one night and day with tears.”[1043] For the doctrine then obtains its
full authority, and produces its due effect, when the minister not only
declares to all the people together what is their duty to Christ, but
has the right and means of enforcing it upon them whom he observes to be
inattentive, or not obedient to the doctrine. If any one either
obstinately reject such admonitions, or manifest his contempt of them by
persisting in his misconduct; after he shall have been admonished a
second time in the presence of witnesses, Christ directs him to be
summoned before the tribunal of the Church, that is, the assembly of the
elders, and there to be more severely admonished by the public
authority, that if he reverence the Church, he may submit and obey; but
if this do not overcome him, and he still persevere in his iniquity, our
Lord then commands him, as a despiser of the Church, to be excluded from
the society of believers.[1044]
III. But as Jesus Christ in this passage is speaking only of private
faults, it is necessary to make this distinction—that some sins are
private, and others public or notorious. With respect to the former,
Christ says to every private individual, “Tell him his fault between
thee and him alone.”[1045] With respect to those which are notorious,
Paul says to Timothy, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also
may fear.”[1046] For Christ has before said, “If thy brother shall
trespass against thee;” which no person who is not contentious can
understand in any other sense, than if our Lord had said, “If any one
sin against thee, and thou alone know it, without any other persons
being acquainted with it.” But the direction given by the apostle to
Timothy, to rebuke publicly those whose transgressions were public, he
himself exemplified in his conduct to Peter. For when Peter committed a
public offence, he did not admonish him in private, but brought him
forward before all the Church.[1047] The legitimate course, then, will
be,—in correcting secret faults, to adopt the different steps directed
by Christ; and in the case of those which are notorious, to proceed at
once to the solemn correction of the Church, especially if they be
attended with public offence.
IV. It is also necessary to make another distinction between different
sins; some are smaller delinquencies, others are flagitious or enormous
crimes. For the correction of atrocious crimes, it is not sufficient to
employ admonition or reproof; recourse must be had to a severer remedy;
as Paul shows, when he does not content himself with censuring the
incestuous Corinthian, but pronounces sentence of excommunication
immediately on being certified of his crime. Now, then, we begin to have
a clearer perception how the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which
corrects sins according to the word of the Lord, is a most excellent
preservative of health, foundation of order, and bond of unity.
Therefore when the Church excludes from its society all who are known to
be guilty of adultery, fornication, theft, robbery, sedition, perjury,
false witness, and other similar crimes, together with obstinate
persons, who, after having been admonished even of smaller faults,
contemn God and his judgment,—it usurps no unreasonable authority, but
only exercises the jurisdiction which God has given it. And that no one
may despise this judgment of the Church, or consider it as of little
importance that he is condemned by the voice of the faithful, God has
testified that it is no other than a declaration of his sentence, and
that what they do on earth shall be ratified in heaven. For they have
the word of the Lord, to condemn the perverse; they have the word, to
receive the penitent into favour. Persons who believe that the Church
could not subsist without this bond of discipline, are mistaken in their
opinion, unless we could safely dispense with that remedy which the Lord
foresaw would be necessary for us; and how very necessary it is, will be
better discovered from its various use.
V. Now, there are three ends proposed by the Church in those
corrections, and in excommunication. The first is, that those who lead
scandalous and flagitious lives, may not, to the dishonour of God, be
numbered among Christians; as if his holy Church were a conspiracy of
wicked and abandoned men. For as the Church is the body of Christ, it
cannot be contaminated with such foul and putrid members without some
ignominy being reflected upon the Head. That nothing may exist in the
Church, therefore, from which any disgrace may be thrown upon his
venerable name, it is necessary to expel from his family all those from
whose turpitude infamy would redound to the profession of Christianity.
Here it is also necessary to have particular regard to the Lord’s
supper, that it may not be profaned by a promiscuous administration. For
it is certain that he who is intrusted with the dispensation of it, if
he knowingly and intentionally admit an unworthy person, whom he might
justly reject, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he were to give the
Lord’s body to dogs. Wherefore, Chrysostom severely inveighs against
priests, who, from a fear of the great and the powerful, did not dare to
reject any persons who presented themselves. “Blood,” says he, “shall be
required at your hands. If you fear man, he will deride you; if you fear
God, you will also be honoured among men. Let us not be afraid of
sceptres, or diadems, or imperial robes; we have here a great power. As
for myself, I will rather give up my body to death, and suffer my blood
to be shed, than I will be partaker of this pollution.” To guard this
most sacred mystery, therefore, from being reproached, there is need of
great discretion in the administration of it, and this requires the
jurisdiction of the Church. The second end is, that the good may not be
corrupted, as is often the case, by constant association with the
wicked. For, such is our propensity to error, nothing is more easy than
for evil examples to seduce us from rectitude of conduct. This use of
discipline was remarked by the apostle, when he directed the Corinthians
to expel from their society a person who had been guilty of incest. “A
little leaven,” says he, “leaveneth the whole lump.”[1048] And the
apostle perceived such great danger from this quarter, that he even
interdicted believers from all social intercourse with the wicked. “I
have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a
brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a
drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no, not to eat.”[1049] The
third end is, that those who are censured or excommunicated, confounded
with the shame of their turpitude, may be led to repentance. Thus it is
even conducive to their own benefit for their iniquity to be punished,
that the stroke of the rod may arouse to a confession of their guilt,
those who would only be rendered more obstinate by indulgence. The
apostle intends the same when he says, “If any man obey not our word,
note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be
ashamed.”[1050] Again, when he says of the incestuous Corinthian, “I
have judged to deliver such a one unto Satan, that the spirit may be
saved in the day of the Lord;”[1051] that is, as I understand it, that
he had consigned him to a temporal condemnation, that the spirit might
be eternally saved. He therefore calls it _delivering to Satan_, because
the devil is _without_ the Church, as Christ is in the Church. For the
opinion of some persons, that it relates to a certain torment of the
body in the present life, inflicted by the agency of Satan, appears to
me extremely doubtful.
VI. Having stated these ends, it remains for us to examine how the
Church exercises this branch of discipline, which consists in
jurisdiction. In the first place, let us keep in view the distinction
before mentioned, that some sins are public, and others private, or more
concealed. Public sins are those which are not only known to one or two
witnesses, but are committed openly, and to the scandal of the whole
Church. By private sins, I mean, not such as are entirely unknown to
men, like those of hypocrites,—for these never come under the cognizance
of the Church,—but those of an intermediate class, which are not without
the knowledge of some witnesses, and yet are not public. The first sort
requires not the adoption of the gradual measures enumerated by Christ;
but it is the duty of the Church, on the occurrence of any notorious
scandal, immediately to summon the offender, and to punish him in
proportion to his crime. Sins of the second class, according to the rule
of Christ, are not to be brought before the Church, unless they are
attended with contumacy, in rejecting private admonition. When they are
submitted to the cognizance of the Church, then attention is to be paid
to the other distinction, between smaller delinquencies and more
atrocious crimes. For slighter offences require not the exertion of
extreme severity; it is sufficient to administer verbal castigation, and
that with paternal gentleness, not calculated to exasperate or confound
the offender, but to bring him to himself, that his correction may be an
occasion of joy rather than of sorrow. But it is proper that flagitious
crimes should receive severer punishment; for it is not enough for him
who has grievously offended the Church by the bad example of an
atrocious crime, merely to receive verbal castigation; he ought to be
deprived of the communion of the Lord’s supper for a time, till he shall
have given satisfactory evidence of repentance. For Paul not only
employs verbal reproof against the Corinthian transgressor, but excludes
him from the Church, and blames the Corinthians for having tolerated him
so long. This order was retained in the ancient and purer Church, while
any legitimate government continued. For if any one had perpetrated a
crime which was productive of offence, he was commanded, in the first
place, to abstain from the Lord’s supper, and, in the next place, to
humble himself before God, and to testify his repentance before the
Church. There were, likewise, certain solemn rites which it was
customary to enjoin upon those who had fallen, as signs of their
repentance. When the sinner had performed these for the satisfaction of
the Church, he was then, by imposition of hands, readmitted to the
communion. This readmission is frequently called _peace_ by Cyprian, who
briefly describes the ceremony. “They do penance,” he says, “for a
sufficient time; then they come to confession, and by the imposition of
the hands of the bishop and clergy, are restored to the privilege of
communion.” But though the bishop and clergy presided in the
reconciliation of offenders, yet they required the consent of the
people; as Cyprian elsewhere states.
VII. From this discipline none were exempted; so that princes and
plebeians yielded the same submission to it; and that with the greatest
propriety, since it is evidently the discipline of Christ, to whom it is
reasonable that all the sceptres and diadems of kings should be subject.
Thus Theodosius, when Ambrose excluded him from the privilege of
communion, on account of a massacre perpetrated at Thessalonica, laid
aside the ensigns of royalty with which he was invested, publicly in the
Church bewailed his sin, which the deceitful suggestions of others had
tempted him to commit, and implored pardon with groans and tears. For
great kings ought not to think it any dishonour to prostrate themselves
as suppliants before Christ the King of kings, nor ought they to be
displeased at being judged by the Church. As they hear scarcely any
thing in their courts but mere flatteries, it is the more highly
necessary for them to receive correction from the Lord by the mouth of
his _ministers_; they ought even to wish not to be spared by the
_pastors_, that they may be spared by the Lord. I forbear to mention
here by whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised, having spoken of this
in another place. I will only add, that the legitimate process in
excommunicating an offender, which is pointed out by Paul, requires it
to be done, not by the elders alone, but with the knowledge and
approbation of the Church: in such a manner, however, that the multitude
of the people may not direct the proceeding, but may watch over it as
witnesses and guardians, that nothing may be done by a few persons from
any improper motive. Beside the invocation of the name of God, the whole
of the proceeding ought to be conducted with a gravity declarative of
the presence of Christ, that there may be no doubt of his presiding over
the sentence.
VIII. But it ought not to be forgotten, that the severity becoming the
Church must be tempered with a spirit of gentleness. For there is
constant need of the greatest caution, according to the injunction of
Paul respecting a person who may have been censured, “lest perhaps such
a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow;”[1052] for thus a
remedy would become a poison. But the rule of moderation may be better
deduced from the end intended to be accomplished; for as the design of
excommunication is, that the sinner may be brought to repentance, and
evil examples taken away, to prevent the name of Christ from being
blasphemed and other persons being tempted to imitation,—if we keep
these things in view, it will be easy to judge how far severity ought to
proceed, and where it ought to stop. Therefore, when the sinner gives
the Church a testimony of his repentance, and by this testimony, as far
as in him lies, obliterates the offence, he is by no means to be pressed
any further; and if he be pressed any further, the rigour is carried
beyond its proper limits. In this respect, it is impossible to excuse
the excessive austerity of the ancients, which was utterly at variance
with the directions of the Lord, and led to the most dangerous
consequences. For when they sentenced an offender to solemn repentance,
and exclusion from the holy communion, sometimes for three, sometimes
for four, sometimes for seven years, and sometimes for the remainder of
life,—what other consequence could result from it, but either great
hypocrisy or extreme despair? In like manner, when any one had fallen a
second time, the refusal to admit him to a second repentance, and his
exclusion from the Church to the end of his life, was neither useful nor
reasonable. Whoever considers the subject with sound judgment,
therefore, will discover their want of prudence in this instance. But I
would rather reprobate the general custom, than accuse all those who
practised it; among whom it is certain that some were not satisfied, but
they complied with it because it was not in their power to effect a
reformation. Cyprian declares that it was not from his own choice that
he was so rigorous. “Our patience,” he says, “and kindness and
tenderness, is ready for all who come. I wish all to return into the
Church: I wish all our fellow-soldiers to be assembled in the camp of
Christ, and all our brethren to be received into the house of God our
Father. I forgive every thing; I conceal much; from a zealous wish to
collect all the brotherhood together, even the sins committed against
God I examine not with rigid severity; and am scarcely free from fault
myself, in forgiving faults more easily than I ought. With ready and
entire affection I embrace those who return with penitence, confessing
their sin with humble and sincere satisfaction.” Chrysostom is rather
more severe; yet he expresses himself thus: “If God is so kind, why is
his priest determined to be so austere?” We know, likewise, what
kindness Augustine exercised towards the Donatists, so that he hesitated
not to receive into the bishoprics those who renounced their error; and
that immediately after their repentance. But because a contrary system
had prevailed, they were obliged to relinquish their own judgment, in
order to follow the established custom.
IX. Now, as it is required of the whole body of the Church, in
chastising any one who has fallen, to manifest such gentleness and
clemency as not to proceed to the extremity of rigour, but rather,
according to the injunction of Paul, to “confirm their love toward
him,”[1053] so it is the duty of every individual to moderate himself to
the like tenderness and clemency. Such as are expelled from the Church,
therefore, it is not for us to expunge from the number of the elect, or
to despair of them as already lost. It is proper to consider them as
strangers to the Church, and consequently from Christ, but this only as
long as they remain in a state of exclusion. And even then, if they
exhibit more appearance of obstinacy than of humility, still let us
leave them to the judgment of God, hoping better things of them for the
future than we discover at present, and not ceasing to pray to God on
their behalf. And to comprehend all in a word, let us not condemn to
eternal death the person himself, who is in the hand and power of God
alone, but let us content ourselves with judging of the nature of his
works according to the law of the Lord. While we follow this rule, we
rather adhere to the judgment of God than pronounce our own. Let us not
arrogate to ourselves any greater latitude of judging, unless we would
limit the power and prescribe laws to the mercy of God; for, whenever it
seems good to him, the worst of men are changed into the best, strangers
are introduced, and foreigners are admitted into the Church. And this
the Lord does, to frustrate the opinion and repress the presumption of
men, which would usurp the most unwarrantable liberty of judging, if it
were left without any restraint.
X. When Christ promises that what his ministers bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, he limits the power of binding to the censure of the
Church; by which those who are excommunicated are not cast into eternal
ruin and condemnation, but, by hearing their life and conduct condemned,
are also certified of their final condemnation, unless they repent. For
excommunication differs from anathema; the latter, which ought to be
very rarely or never resorted to, precluding all pardon, execrates a
person, and devotes him to eternal perdition; whereas excommunication
rather censures and punishes his conduct. And though it does, at the
same time, punish the person, yet it is in such a manner, that, by
warning him of his future condemnation, it recalls him to salvation. If
he obey, the Church is ready to re-admit him to its friendship, and to
restore him to its communion. Therefore, though the discipline of the
Church admits not of our friendly association and familiar intercourse
with excommunicated persons, yet we ought to exert all the means in our
power to promote their reformation, and their return to the society and
communion of the Church; as we are taught by the apostle, who says, “Yet
count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”[1054] Unless
this tenderness be observed by the individual members, as well as by the
Church collectively, our discipline will be in danger of speedily
degenerating into cruelty.
XI. It is also particularly requisite to the moderation of discipline,
as Augustine observes in disputing with the Donatists, that private
persons, if they see faults corrected with too little diligence by the
council of elders, should not on that account immediately withdraw from
the Church; and that the pastors themselves, if they cannot succeed
according to the wishes of their hearts in reforming every thing that
needs correction, should not, in consequence of this, desert the
ministry, or disturb the whole Church with unaccustomed asperity. For
there is much truth in his observation, that “whoever either corrects
what he can by reproof; or what he cannot correct, excludes, without
breaking the bond of peace; or what he cannot exclude, without breaking
the bond of peace, censures with moderation and bears with firmness; he
is free from the curse, and chargeable with no blame.” In another
passage he assigns the reason; because “all the pious order and method
of ecclesiastical discipline ought constantly to regard the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace; which the apostle commands to be kept by
mutual forbearance; and without the preservation of which, the medicine
of chastisement is not only superfluous, but even becomes pernicious,
and consequently is no longer a medicine.” Again: “He who attentively
considers these things neither neglects severity of discipline for the
preservation of unity, nor breaks the bond of fellowship by an
intemperance of correction.” He acknowledges indeed that it is not only
the duty of the pastors to endeavour to purify the Church from every
fault, but that it is likewise incumbent on every individual to exert
all his influence for the same purpose; and he fully admits, that a
person who neglects to admonish, reprove, and correct the wicked, though
he neither favours them nor unites in their sins, is nevertheless
culpable in the sight of the Lord; but that he who sustains such an
office as to have power to exclude them from a participation of the
sacraments, and does it not, is chargeable, in that case, not with the
guilt of another, but with a sin of his own; he only recommends it to be
done with the prudence required by our Lord, “lest while” they “gather
up the tares,” they “root up also the wheat with them.”[1055] Hence he
concludes with Cyprian, “Let a man, therefore, in mercy correct what he
can; what he cannot, let him patiently bear and affectionately lament.”
XII. These remarks of Augustine were made in consequence of the rigour
of the Donatists, who, seeing vices in the Church, which the bishops
condemned by verbal reproofs, but did not punish with excommunication,
which they thought not adapted to produce any good effects, inveighed in
a most outrageous manner against the bishops, as betrayers of
discipline, and by an impious schism separated themselves from the flock
of Christ. The same conduct is pursued in the present day by the
Anabaptists, who, acknowledging no congregation to belong to Christ,
unless it be, in all respects, conspicuous for angelic perfection, under
the pretext of zeal, destroy all edification. “Such persons,” says
Augustine, “not actuated by hatred against the iniquity of others, but
stimulated by fondness for their own disputes, desire either wholly to
pervert, or at least to divide the weak multitude by insnaring them with
their boastful pretensions; inflated with pride, infuriated with
obstinacy, insidious with calumnies, turbulent with seditions, that
their destitution of the light of truth may not be detected, they
conceal themselves under the covert of a rigorous severity; and those
things which the Scripture commands to be done for the correction of the
faults of our brethren, without violating the sincerity of love, or
disturbing the unity of peace, but with the moderation of a remedial
process, they abuse, to an occasion of dissension and to the sacrilege
of schism. Thus Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, when
from just severity he takes occasion to persuade men to inhuman cruelty,
with no other object than to corrupt and break the bond of peace and
unity; by the preservation of which among Christians, all his power to
injure them is weakened, his insidious snares are broken, and his
schemes for their ruin come to nothing.”
XIII. There is one thing which this father particularly recommends—that
if the contagion of any sin has infected a whole people, there is a
necessity for the severity and mercy which are combined in strict
discipline. “For schemes of separation,” he says, “are pernicious and
sacrilegious, because they proceed from pride and impiety, and disturb
the good who are weak, more than they correct the wicked who are bold.”
And what he here prescribes to others, he faithfully followed himself.
For writing to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, he complained that
drunkenness, which is so severely condemned in the Scripture, prevailed
with impunity in Africa, and persuaded him to endeavour to remedy it by
calling a provincial council. He immediately adds, “I believe these
things are suppressed not by harshness, severity, or imperiousness, but
by teaching rather than commanding, by admonitions rather than by
menaces. For this is the conduct to be pursued with a multitude of
offenders; but severity is to be exercised against the sins of a few.”
Yet he does not mean that bishops should connive or be silent, because
they cannot inflict severe punishments for public crimes, as he
afterwards explains; but he means that the correction should be tempered
with such moderation, as to be salutary rather than injurious to the
body. And therefore he at length concludes in the following manner:
“Wherefore, also, that command of the apostle, to put away the
wicked,[1056] ought by no means to be neglected, when it can be done
without danger of disturbing the peace; for in this case alone did he
intend that it should be enforced; and we are also to observe his other
injunction, to forbear one another in love, endeavouring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”[1057]
XIV. The remaining part of discipline, which is not strictly included in
the power of the keys, consists in this—that the pastors, according to
the necessity of the times, should exhort the people either to fastings
or solemn supplications, or to other exercises of humility, repentance,
and faith, of which the word of God prescribes neither the time, the
extent, nor the form, but leaves all this to the judgment of the Church.
The observation of these things, also, which are highly useful, was
always practised by the ancient Church from the days of the apostles;
though the apostles themselves were not the first authors of them, but
derived the example from the law and the prophets. For there we find,
that whenever any important business occurred, the people were
assembled, supplications commanded, and fasting enjoined. The apostles,
therefore, followed what was not new to the people of God, and what they
foresaw would be useful. The same reasoning is applicable to other
exercises by which the people may be excited to duty, or preserved in
obedience. Examples abound in the sacred history, which it is
unnecessary to enumerate. The conclusion to be deduced from the whole
is, that whenever a controversy arises respecting religion, which
requires to be decided by a council or ecclesiastical judgment; whenever
a minister is to be chosen; in short, whenever any thing of difficulty
or great importance is transacting; and also when any tokens of the
Divine wrath are discovered, such as famine, pestilence, or war;—it is a
pious custom, and beneficial in all ages, for the pastors to exhort the
people to public fasts and extraordinary prayers. If the testimonies
which may be adduced from the Old Testament be rejected, as inapplicable
to the Christian church, it is evident that the apostles practised the
same. Respecting prayers, however, I suppose scarcely a person will be
found disposed to raise any dispute. Therefore let us say something of
fasting; because many, for want of knowing its usefulness, undervalue
its necessity, and some reject it as altogether superfluous; while, on
the other hand, where the use of it is not well understood, it easily
degenerates into superstition.
XV. Holy and legitimate fasting is directed to three ends. For we
practise it, either as a restraint on the flesh, to preserve it from
licentiousness, or as a preparation for prayers and pious meditations,
or as a testimony of our humiliation in the presence of God, when we are
desirous of confessing our guilt before him. The first is not often
contemplated in public fasting, because all men have not the same
constitution or health of body; therefore it is rather more applicable
to private fasting. The second end is common to both, such preparation
for prayer being necessary to the whole Church, as well as to every one
of the faithful in particular. The same may be said of the third. For it
will sometimes happen that God will afflict a whole nation with war,
pestilence, or some other calamity; under such a common scourge, it
behoves all the people to make a confession of their guilt. When the
hand of the Lord chastises an individual, he ought to make a similar
confession, either alone or with his family. It is true that this
acknowledgment lies principally in the disposition of the heart; but
when the heart is affected as it ought to be, it can scarcely avoid
breaking out into the external expression, and most especially when it
promotes the general edification; in order that all, by a public
confession of their sin, may unitedly acknowledge the justice of God,
and may mutually animate each other by the influence of example.
XVI. Wherefore fasting, as it is a sign of humiliation, is of more
frequent use in public, than among individuals in private; though it is
common to both, as we have already observed. With regard to the
discipline, therefore, of which we are now treating, whenever
supplications are to be presented to God on any important occasion, it
would be right to enjoin the union of fasting with prayer. Thus when the
believers at Antioch “laid their hands on Paul and Barnabas,” the better
to recommend their very important ministry to God, they “fasted” as well
as “prayed.”[1058] So also when Paul and Barnabas afterwards “ordained
elders in every Church,” they used to “pray with fasting.”[1059] In this
kind of fasting, their only object was, that they might be more lively
and unembarrassed in prayer. And we find by experience, that after a
full meal, the mind does not aspire towards God so as to be able to
enter on prayer, and to continue in it with seriousness and ardour of
affection. So we are to understand what Luke says of Anna, that she
“served God with fastings and prayers.”[1060] For he does not place the
worship of God in fasting, but signifies that by such means that holy
woman habituated herself to a constancy in prayer. Such was the fasting
of Nehemiah, when he prayed to God with more than common fervour for the
deliverance of his people.[1061] For this cause Paul declares it to be
expedient for believers to practise a temporary abstinence from lawful
enjoyments, that they may be more at liberty to “give themselves to
fasting and prayer.”[1062] For by connecting fasting with prayer as an
assistance to it, he signifies that fasting is of no importance in
itself, any further than as it is directed to this end. Besides, from
the direction which he gives in that place to husbands and wives, to
“render to” each other “due benevolence,” it is clear that he is not
speaking of daily prayers, but of such as require peculiar earnestness
of attention.
XVII. In like manner, when war, pestilence, or famine begins to rage, or
when any other calamity appears to threaten a country and people, then
also it is the duty of pastors to exhort the Church to fasting, that
with humble supplications they may deprecate the wrath of the Lord; for
when he causes danger to appear, he announces himself as prepared and
armed for vengeance. Therefore, as it was anciently the custom for
criminals to appear with long beards, dishevelled hair, and mourning
apparel, in order to excite the pity of the judge; so when we stand as
criminals before the tribunal of God, it is conducive to his glory and
the general edification, as well as expedient and salutary for
ourselves, to deprecate his severity by external demonstrations of
sorrow. That this was customary among the people of Israel, it is easy
to infer from the language of Joel; for when he commands to “blow the
trumpet, sanctify a fast, and call a solemn assembly,”[1063] and
proceeds to give other directions, he speaks as of things commonly
practised. He had just before said that inquisition was made respecting
the crimes of the people, had announced that the day of the Lord was at
hand, and had cited them, as criminals, to appear and answer for
themselves; afterwards, he warns them to have recourse to sackcloth and
ashes, to weeping and fasting, that is, to prostrate themselves before
the Lord with external demonstrations of humility. Sackcloth and ashes,
perhaps, were more suitable to those times; but there is no doubt that
assembling, and weeping, and fastings, and similar acts, are equally
proper for us in the present age, whenever the state of our affairs
requires them. For as it is a holy exercise, adapted both to humble men
and to confess their humility, why should it be less used by us than by
the ancients in similar necessities? We read that fasting in token of
sorrow was not only practised by the Israelitish Church, which was
formed and regulated by the word of God, but also by the inhabitants of
Nineveh, who had no instruction except the preaching of Jonah.[1064]
What cause, then, is there, why we should not practise the same? But, it
will be said, it is an external ceremony, which, with all the rest,
terminated in Christ. I reply, that even at this day it is, as it always
has been, a most excellent assistance and useful admonition to believers
to stimulate them, and guard them against further provocations of God by
their carelessness and inattention, when they are chastised by his
scourges. Therefore, when Christ excuses his apostles for not fasting,
he does not say that fasting is abolished, but appoints it for seasons
of calamity, and connects it with sorrow. “The days will come,” says he,
“when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them.”[1065]
XVIII. That there may be no mistake respecting the term, let us define
what fasting is. For we do not understand it to denote mere temperance
and abstinence in eating and drinking, but something more. The life of
believers, indeed, ought to be so regulated by frugality and sobriety,
as to exhibit, as far as possible, the appearance of a perpetual fast.
But beside this, there is another temporary fast, when we retrench any
thing from our customary mode of living, either for a day or for any
certain time, and prescribe to ourselves a more than commonly rigid and
severe abstinence in food. This restriction consists in three things,—in
time, in quality, and in quantity of food. By time, I mean that we
should perform, while fasting, those exercises on account of which fasts
are instituted. As, for example, if any one fast for solemn prayer, he
should not break his fast till he has attended to it. The quality
consists in an entire abstinence from dainties, and contentment with
simpler and humbler fare, that our appetite may not be stimulated by
delicacies. The rule of quantity is, that we eat more sparingly and
slightly than usual, only for necessity, and not for pleasure.
XIX. But it is necessary for us, above all things, to be particularly on
our guard against the approaches of superstition, which has heretofore
been a source of great injury to the Church. For it were far better that
fasting should be entirely disused, than that the practice should be
diligently observed, and at the same time corrupted with false and
pernicious opinions, into which the world is continually falling, unless
it be prevented by the greatest fidelity and prudence of the pastors.
The first caution necessary, and which they should be constantly urging,
is that suggested by Joel: “Rend your heart, and not your
garments;”[1066] that is, they should admonish the people, that God sets
no value on fasting, unless it be accompanied with a correspondent
disposition of heart, a real displeasure against sin, sincere
self-abhorrence, true humiliation, and unfeigned grief arising from a
fear of God; and that fasting is of no use on any other account than as
an additional and subordinate assistance to these things. For nothing is
more abominable to God, than when men attempt to impose upon him by the
presentation of signs and external appearances instead of purity of
heart. Therefore he severely reprobates this hypocrisy in the Jews, who
imagined they had satisfied God merely by having fasted, while they
cherished impious and impure thoughts in their hearts. “Is it such a
fast, saith the Lord, that I have chosen?”[1067] The fasting of
hypocrites, therefore, is not only superfluous and useless fatigue, but
the greatest abomination. Allied to this is another evil, which requires
the most vigilant caution, lest it be considered as a meritorious act,
or a species of divine service. For as it is a thing indifferent in
itself, and possesses no other value than it derives from those ends to
which it ought to be directed, it is most pernicious superstition to
confound it with works commanded by God, and necessary in themselves,
without reference to any ulterior object. Such was formerly the folly of
the Manichæans, in the refutation of whom Augustine most clearly shows,
that fasting is to be held in no other estimation than on account of
those ends which I here mention, and that it receives no approbation
from God, unless it be practised for their sake. The third error is not
so impious, indeed, yet it is pregnant with danger, to enforce it with
extreme rigour as one of the principal duties, and to extol it with
extravagant encomiums, so that men imagine themselves to have performed
a work of peculiar excellence when they have fasted. In this respect, I
dare not wholly excuse the ancient fathers from having sown some seeds
of superstition, and given occasion to the tyranny which afterwards
arose. Their writings contain some sound and judicious sentiments on the
subject of fasting; but they also contain extravagant praises, which
elevate it to a rank among the principal virtues.
XX. And the superstitious observance of Lent had at that time generally
prevailed, because the common people considered themselves as performing
an eminent act of obedience to God, and the pastors commended it as a
holy imitation of Christ; whereas it is plain that Christ fasted, not to
set an example to others, but in order that by such an introduction to
the preaching of the gospel, he might prove the doctrine not to be a
human invention, but a revelation from heaven. And it is surprising that
men of acute discernment could ever entertain such a gross error, which
is disproved by such numerous and satisfactory arguments. For Christ did
not fast often, which it was necessary for him to do, if he intended to
establish a law for anniversary fasts, but only once, while he was
preparing to enter on the promulgation of the gospel. Nor did he fast in
the manner of men, as it behoved him to do, if he intended to stimulate
men to an imitation of him: on the contrary, he exhibited an example
calculated to attract the admiration of all, rather than to excite them
to a desire of emulating his example. In short, there was no other
reason for his fasting than for that of Moses, when he received the law
from the hand of the Lord. For as that miracle was exhibited in Moses,
to establish the authority of the law, it was necessary that it should
not be omitted in Christ, lest the gospel should seem to be inferior to
the law. But from that time, it never entered into any man’s mind to
introduce such a form of fasting among the people of Israel, under the
pretext of imitating Moses; nor was it followed by any of the holy
prophets and fathers, notwithstanding their inclination and zeal for all
pious exercises. For the account of Elijah, that he lived forty days
without meat and drink, was only intended to teach the people that he
was raised up to be the restorer of the law, from which almost all
Israel had departed. It was nothing but a vain and superstitious
affectation, therefore, to dignify the fasting of Lent with the title
and pretext of an imitation of Christ. In the manner of fasting,
however, there was at that time a great diversity, as Cassiodorus
relates from Socrates, in the ninth book of his history. “For the
Romans,” he says, “had no more than three weeks; but during these there
was a continual fast, except on the Sunday and Saturday. The Illyrians
and Greeks had six weeks, and others had seven; but they fasted at
intervals. Nor did they differ less as to the nature of their food. Some
made use of nothing but bread and water; others added vegetables to
fish; some did not abstain from fowl; others made no distinction at all
between any kinds of food.” This diversity is also mentioned by
Augustine, in his second epistle to Januarius.
XXI. The times which followed were still worse; to the preposterous zeal
of the multitude was added the ignorance and stupidity of the bishops,
with their lust of dominion and tyrannical rigour. Impious laws were
enacted to bind men’s consciences with fatal chains. The eating of
animal food was interdicted, as though it would contaminate them.
Sacrilegious opinions were added one after another, till they arrived at
an ocean of errors. And that no corruption might be omitted, they have
begun to trifle with God by the most ridiculous pretensions to
abstinence. For in the midst of all the most exquisite delicacies, they
seek the praise of fasting; no dainties are then sufficient; they never
have food in greater plenty, or variety, or deliciousness. Such splendid
provision they call fasting, and imagine it to be the legitimate service
of God. I say nothing of the base gluttony practised at that season,
more than at any other time, by those who wish to pass for the greatest
saints. In short they esteem it the highest worship of God to abstain
from animal food, and with this exception, to indulge themselves in
every kind of dainties. On the other hand, to taste the least morsel of
bacon or salted meat and brown bread, they deem an act of the vilest
impiety, and deserving of worse than death. Jerome relates, that there
were some persons, even in his time, who trifled with God by such
fooleries; who, to avoid making use of oil, procured the most delicate
kinds of food to be brought from every country; and who, to do violence
to nature, abstained from drinking water, but procured delicious and
costly liquors to be made for them, which they drank, not from a cup,
but from a shell. What was then the vice of a few, is now become common
among all wealthy persons; they fast for no other purpose than to feast
with more than common sumptuousness and delicacy. But I have no
inclination to waste many words on a thing so notorious. I only assert,
that neither in their fastings, nor in any other parts of their
discipline, have the Papists any thing so correct, sincere, or well
regulated, as to have the least occasion to pride themselves upon any
thing being left among them worthy of praise.
XXII. There remains the second part of the discipline of the Church,
which particularly relates to the clergy. It is contained in the canons
which the ancient bishops imposed on themselves and their order; such as
these: That no ecclesiastic should employ his time in hunting, gambling,
or feasting; that no one should engage in usury or commerce; that no one
should be present at dissolute dances; and other similar injunctions.
Penalties were likewise annexed, to confirm the authority of the canons,
and to prevent their being violated with impunity. For this end, to
every bishop was committed the government of his clergy, to rule them
according to the canons, and to oblige them to do their duty. For this
purpose were instituted annual visitations and synods, that if any one
were negligent in his duty, he might be admonished, and that any one who
committed a fault might be corrected according to his offence. The
bishops also had their provincial councils, once every year, and
anciently even twice a year, by which they were judged, if they had
committed any breach of their duty. For if a bishop was too severe or
violent against his clergy, there was a right of appeal to the
provincial councils, even though there was only a single complainant.
The severest punishment was the deposition of the offender from his
office, and his exclusion for a time from the communion. And because
this was a perpetual regulation, they never used to dissolve a
provincial council without appointing a time and place for the next.
For, to summon a universal council, was the exclusive prerogative of the
emperor, as all the ancient records testify. As long as this severity
continued, the clergy required nothing more from the people than they
exemplified in their own conduct. Indeed, they were far more severe to
themselves than to the laity; and it is reasonable that the people
should be ruled with a milder and less rigid discipline; and that the
clergy should inflict heavier censures, and exercise far less indulgence
to themselves than to other persons. How all this has become obsolete,
it is unnecessary to relate, when nothing can be imagined more
licentious and dissolute than this order of men in the present day; and
their profligacy has gone to such a length, that the whole world is
exclaiming against them. That all antiquity may not appear to have been
entirely forgotten by them, I confess, they deceive the eyes of the
simple with certain shadows, but these bear no more resemblance to the
ancient usages, than the mimicry of an ape to the rational and
considerate conduct of men. There is a remarkable passage in Xenophon,
where he states how shamefully the Persians had degenerated from the
virtues of their ancestors, and, from an austere course of life, had
sunk into delicacy and effeminacy, but that, to conceal their shame,
they sedulously observed the ancient forms. For whereas, in the time of
Cyrus, sobriety and temperance were carried so far, that it was
unnecessary, and was even considered as a disgrace for any one to blow
his nose, their posterity continued scrupulously to refrain from this
act; but to absorb the mucus, and retain the fetid humours produced by
their gluttony, even till they almost putrefied, was held quite
allowable. So, according to the ancient rule, it was unlawful to bring
cups to the table; but they had no objection to drink wine till they
were obliged to be carried away drunk. It had been an established custom
to eat only one meal a day; these good successors had not abolished this
custom, but they had continued their banquets from noon to midnight.
Because their ancient law enjoined men to finish their day’s journey
fasting, it continued to be a permanent custom among them; but they were
at liberty, and it was the general practice, for the sake of avoiding
fatigue, to contract the journey to two hours. Whenever the Papists
bring forward their degenerate rules, for the purpose of showing their
resemblance to the holy fathers, this example will sufficiently expose
their ridiculous imitation, of which no painter could draw a more
striking likeness.
XXIII. In one instance, they are too rigorous and inflexible, that is,
in not permitting priests to marry. With what impunity fornication rages
among them, it is unnecessary to remark; imboldened by their polluted
celibacy, they have become hardened to every crime. Yet this prohibition
clearly shows how pestilent are all their traditions; since it has not
only deprived the Church of upright and able pastors, but has formed a
horrible gulf of enormities, and precipitated many souls into the abyss
of despair. The interdiction of marriage to priests was certainly an act
of impious tyranny, not only contrary to the word of God, but at
variance with every principle of justice. In the first place, it was on
no account lawful for men to prohibit that which the Lord had left free.
Secondly, that God had expressly provided in his word that this liberty
should not be infringed, is too clear to require much proof. I say
nothing of the direction, repeatedly given by Paul, that a bishop should
be “the husband of one wife;”[1068] but what could be expressed with
greater force, than where he announces a revelation from the Holy
Spirit, “that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
forbidding to marry,” and represents these not only as impostors, but as
disseminating “doctrines of devils.”[1069] This, therefore, was a
prophecy, a sacred oracle of the Holy Spirit, by which he intended from
the beginning to forearm the Church against dangers—that the prohibition
of marriage is a doctrine of devils. But our adversaries imagine
themselves to have admirably evaded this charge, when they misapply it
to Montanus, the Tatianists, Encratites, and other ancient heretics. It
refers, say they, to those who have condemned marriage altogether; we by
no means condemn it; we merely prohibit it to the clergy, from an
opinion that it is not proper for them. As if, though this prophecy had
once been accomplished in those ancient heretics, it might not also be
applicable to them; or as if this puerile cavil, that they do not
prohibit marriage, because they do not prohibit it to all, were
deserving of the least attention. This is just as if a tyrant should
contend that there can be no injustice in a law, the injustice of which
only oppresses one part of a nation.
XXIV. They object, that there ought to be some mark to distinguish the
clergy from the laity. As though the Lord did not foresee what are the
true ornaments in which priests ought to excel. By this plea, they
charge the apostle with disturbing the order and violating the decorum
of the Church, who, in delineating the perfect model of a good bishop,
among the other virtues which he required in him, dared to mention
marriage. I know that they interpret this to mean, that no one is chosen
a bishop who shall have had a second wife. And I grant that this
interpretation is not new; but that it is erroneous, is evident from the
context itself; because he immediately after prescribes what characters
the wives of bishops and deacons ought to possess. Paul places marriage
among the virtues of a bishop; these men teach that it is a vice not to
be tolerated in the clergy; and not content with this general censure,
they call it carnal pollution and impurity, which is the language of
Syricius, one of the pontiffs, recited in their canons. Let every man
reflect from what source these things can have proceeded. Christ has
been pleased to put such honour upon marriage, as to make it an image of
his sacred union with the Church. What could be said more, in
commendation of the dignity of marriage? With what face can that be
called impure and polluted, which exhibits a similitude of the spiritual
grace of Christ?
XXV. Now, though their prohibition is so clearly repugnant to the word
of God, yet they find something in the Scriptures to urge in its
defence. The Levitical priests, whenever it came to their turn to
minister at the altar, were required not to cohabit with their wives,
that they might be pure and immaculate to perform the sacrifices; it
would therefore be exceedingly unbecoming for our sacraments, which are
far more excellent and of daily recurrence, to be administered by
married men. As though the evangelical ministry and the Levitical
priesthood were one and the same office. On the contrary, the Levitical
priests were antitypes, representing Christ, who, as the Mediator
between God and man, was to reconcile the Father to us by his perfect
purity. Now, as it was impossible for sinners to exhibit in every
respect a type of his sanctity, yet in order to display some faint
shadows of it, they were commanded to purify themselves in a manner
beyond what is common among men, whenever they approached the sanctuary;
because on those occasions they properly represented Christ, in
appearing at the tabernacle, which was a type of the heavenly tribunal,
as mediators to reconcile the people to God. As the pastors of the
Church now sustain no such office, the comparison is nothing to the
purpose. Wherefore the apostle, without any exception, confidently
pronounces, that “marriage is honourable in all; but whoremongers and
adulterers God will judge.”[1070] And the apostles themselves have
proved by their own example that marriage is not unbecoming the sanctity
of any office, however excellent; for Paul testifies that they not only
retained their wives, but took them about with them.[1071]
XXVI. It has also betrayed egregious impudence, to insist on this
appearance of chastity as a necessary thing, to the great disgrace of
the ancient Church, which abounded with such peculiar Divine knowledge,
but was still more eminent for sanctity. For if they pay no regard to
the apostles, whom they often have the hardihood to treat with contempt,
what will they say of all the ancient fathers, who, it is certain, not
only tolerated marriage in bishops, but likewise approved of it? It
would follow that they must have practised a foul profanation of sacred
things, since, according to the notion we are opposing, they did not
celebrate the mysteries of the Lord with the requisite purity. The
injunction of celibacy was agitated in the council of Nice; for there
are never wanting little minds, absorbed in superstition, who endeavour
to make themselves admired by the invention of some novelty. But what
was the decision? The council coincided in the opinion of Paphnutius,
who pronounced that “a man’s cohabitation with his own wife is
chastity.” Therefore marriage continued to be held sacred among them,
nor was it esteemed any disgrace to them, or considered as casting any
blemish on the ministry.
XXVII. Afterwards followed times distinguished by a too superstitious
admiration of celibacy. Hence those frequent and extravagant encomiums
on virginity, with which scarcely any other virtue was in general deemed
worthy to be compared. And though marriage was not condemned as impure,
yet its dignity was so diminished, and its sanctity obscured, that he
who did not refrain from it was not considered as aspiring to perfection
with sufficient fortitude of mind. Hence those canons, which prohibited
the contraction of marriage by those who had already entered on the
office of priests; and succeeding ones, which prohibited the admission
to that office of any but those who had never been married, or who had
abjured all cohabitation with their wives. Because these things seemed
to add respectability to the priesthood, they were received, I confess,
even in early times, with great applause. But our adversaries object
antiquity against us. I answer, In the first place, in the days of the
apostles, and for several ages after, the bishops were at liberty to
marry; and the apostles themselves, as well as other pastors of the
highest reputation who succeeded them, made use of this liberty without
any difficulty. The example of the primitive Church we ought to hold in
higher estimation than to deem that unlawful or unbecoming which was
then received and practised with approbation. Secondly; even that age,
which, from a superstitious attachment to virginity, began to be more
unfavourable to marriage, did not impose the law of celibacy upon the
priests as if it were absolutely necessary, but because they preferred
celibacy to marriage. Lastly; this law did not require the compulsion of
continence in those who were not able to keep it; for while the severest
punishments were denounced on priests who were guilty of fornication,
those who married were merely dismissed from their office.
XXVIII. Therefore, whenever the advocates of this modern tyranny attempt
to defend their celibacy with the pretext of antiquity, we shall not
fail to reply, that they ought to restore the ancient chastity in their
priests, to remove all adulterers and fornicators, not to suffer those,
whom they forbid the virtuous and chaste society of a wife, to abandon
themselves with impunity to every kind of debauchery, to revive the
obsolete discipline by which all indecencies may be repressed, to
deliver the Church from this flagitious turpitude, by which it has been
so long deformed. When they shall have granted this, it will still be
necessary to admonish them not to impose that as necessary, which, being
free in itself, depends on the convenience of the Church. Yet I have not
made these observations from an opinion that we ought on any condition
to admit those canons which impose the obligation of celibacy on the
clergy, but to enable the more judicious to perceive the effrontery of
our adversaries in alleging the authority of antiquity to bring disgrace
on holy marriage in priests. With respect to the fathers, whose writings
are extant, with the exception of Jerome, they have not so malignantly
detracted from the virtue of marriage, when they have been expressing
their own sentiments. We shall content ourselves with one testimony of
Chrysostom, because he, who was a principal admirer of virginity, cannot
be supposed to have been more lavish than others in commendation of
marriage. He says, “The first degree of chastity is pure virginity; the
second is faithful marriage. Therefore the second species of virginity
is the chaste love of matrimony.”
Footnote 1043:
Acts xx. 20, 26, 31.
Footnote 1044:
Matt. xviii. 15-17.
Footnote 1045:
Matt. xviii. 15.
Footnote 1046:
1 Tim. v. 20.
Footnote 1047:
Gal. ii. 11, 14.
Footnote 1048:
1 Cor. v. 6.
Footnote 1049:
1 Cor. v. 11.
Footnote 1050:
2 Thess. iii. 14.
Footnote 1051:
1 Cor. v. 3, 5.
Footnote 1052:
2 Cor. ii. 7.
Footnote 1053:
2 Cor. ii. 8.
Footnote 1054:
2 Thess. iii. 15.
Footnote 1055:
Matt. xiii. 29.
Footnote 1056:
1 Cor. v. 13.
Footnote 1057:
Eph. iv. 2, 3.
Footnote 1058:
Acts xiii. 2, 3.
Footnote 1059:
Acts xiv. 23.
Footnote 1060:
Luke ii. 37.
Footnote 1061:
Neh. i. 4.
Footnote 1062:
1 Cor. vii. 5.
Footnote 1063:
Joel ii. 15.
Footnote 1064:
Jonah iii. 5.
Footnote 1065:
Matt. ix. 15. Luke v. 34, 35.
Footnote 1066:
Joel ii. 13.
Footnote 1067:
Isaiah lviii. 5.
Footnote 1068:
1 Tim. iii. 2. Titus i. 6.
Footnote 1069:
1 Tim. iv. 1, 3.
Footnote 1070:
Heb. xiii. 4.
Footnote 1071:
1 Cor. ix. 5.