Chapter 12. Of the Discipline of the Church, of Which the Chief Use Is in the Censures and Excommunication

The discipline of the Church, the treating of which we have deferred to this place, is briefly to be declared, that we may at length pass over to the rest. But that same for the most part hangs upon the power of the keys and spiritual jurisdiction. That this may be the more easily understood, let us divide the Church into two principal degrees, that is to say the clergy, and the people. Clergy I call by the usual name those that execute public ministry in the Church. First we will speak of common discipline, to which all ought to be subject: then we will come to the clergy, which besides that common discipline, have a several discipline by themselves. But because many for hatred of discipline do abhor the very name of it, let them hear this: If no fellowship, yes no house though it have but a small household, can be kept in right state without discipline, the same is much more necessary in the Church, whose state ought to be most orderly of all. Therefore as the doctrine of Christ which brings salvation is the soul of the Church, so discipline is in place of sinews therein: by which it is brought to pass, that the members of the body hang together every one in his fit place. Therefore whoever does either desire to have discipline taken away, or hinders the restoring of it, whether they do it of set purpose or by inadvertence, they truly seek the extreme dissolution of the Church. For what shall betide, if whatever is desired should be lawful to every man? But so would it be, if there were not with the preaching of doctrine adjoined private admonishments, corrections, and such other helps which sustain doctrine and suffer it not to be idle. Discipline therefore is as it were a bridle, with which they may be held back and tamed who stubbornly resist against Christ: or as it were a spur, with which they that are not willing enough may be stirred up: and sometimes, as a fatherly rod, with which they which have more grievously fallen may be chastised mercifully and according to the mildness of the Spirit of Christ. Since therefore we do now see at hand certain beginnings of a horrible wasteness in the Church, because there is no care nor order to keep the people in awe, very necessity cries out that there is need of remedy. But this is the only remedy, which both Christ has commanded, and has always been used among the godly.

The first foundation of discipline is, that private admonitions should have place: that is to say, that if any man of his own accord does not his duty, if he behave himself licentiously, or live not honestly, or have committed any thing worthy of blame, he should suffer himself to be admonished: and that every man should study to admonish his brother when occasion shall require. But specially let the pastors and priests be watchful to do this, whose office is not only to preach to the people, but in every house to admonish and exhort if at any time they do not sufficiently prevail by general doctrine: as Paul teaches, when he rehearses that he taught privately and in houses, and protests that he is clean from the blood of all men, because he has not ceased with tears day and night to admonish every one. For doctrine does then obtain force and authority when the minister not only does declare to all together what their duty is to Christ, but also has power and order to require the keeping of it of them whom he marks to be either not obedient to doctrine, or slothful. If any man does either stubbornly refuse, or in going forward in his faults, does despise such admonishments: when he has been the second time admonished with witnesses called to it, Christ commands them to be called to the judgment of the Church, which is the assembly of elders: and that there they should be more grievously admonished as it were by public authority, that if he reverence the Church, he may submit himself and obey. But if he be not hereby subdued, but does continue in his wickedness, then he commands him, as a despiser of the Church, to be put away from the fellowship of the faithful.

But because he speaks here only of secret faults, we must make this division: that some sins be private, and some public or openly manifest. Of the first sort Christ says to every private man, Reprove him between you and him alone. Of manifest sins Paul says in Timothy, Reprove him before all men, that the rest may have fear. For Christ had said before, If your brother have offended against you. Which words, (against you) unless you will be contentious, you cannot otherwise understand than under your own secret knowledge, so that there be no more privy to it. But the same thing which the Apostle teaches Timothy concerning the rebuking of them openly that sin openly, he himself followed in Peter. For when Peter sinned even to public offense, he did not admonish him apart by himself, but brought him forth into the sight of the Church. Therefore this shall be the right order of doing, if in secret faults we go forward according to those degrees that Christ has set: but in manifest faults, we immediately proceed to the Church's solemn rebuking, if the offense be public.

Let this also be another distinction: that of sins some are defaults, others are wicked doings, or heinous offenses. To the correcting of this latter sort, not only admonishment or rebuking is to be used, but also a severe remedy: as Paul shows, who not only chastised with words the Corinthian that had committed incest, but also punished him with excommunication, as soon as he was certified of his wicked deed. Now therefore we begin better to see how the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which punishes sins according to the word of the Lord, is the best maintenance of health, and foundation of order, and bond of unity. Therefore when the Church does banish out of her company manifest adulterers, whoremongers, thieves, robbers, seditious persons, perjured men, false witnesses, and such others, again obstinate men, which being orderly admonished even of small faults do scorn God and his judgment: she takes nothing upon herself without reason, but executes the jurisdiction given her of the Lord. Moreover, that none should despise such judgment of the Church, or lightly regard that he is condemned by the consenting voices of the faithful: the Lord has testified, that the same is nothing else but a pronouncing of his own sentence, and that whatever they do on earth is confirmed in heaven. For they have the word of the Lord, by which they may condemn the perverse: they have the word, by which they may receive the repentant into favor. They I say that trust that without this bond of discipline Churches may long stand, are deceived in opinion: unless perhaps we may want that help which the Lord foresaw that it should be necessary for us. And truly how great is the necessity thereof, shall be better perceived by the manifold use of it.

There be three ends which the Church has respect to in such corrections and excommunication. The first is, that they should not, to the dishonor of God, be named among Christians, that lead a filthy and sinful life, as though his holy Church were a conspiracy of naughty and wicked men. For since the Church is the body of Christ, it can not be defiled with such filthy and rotten members, but that some shame must come to the head. Therefore that there should not be any such thing in the Church, by which his holy name may be spotted with any reproach, they are to be driven out of her household, by whose dishonor any slander might redound to the name of Christians. And herein also is consideration to be had of the Supper of the Lord, that it be not profaned with giving it to all without choice. For it is most true, that he to whom the distribution of it is committed, if he wittingly and willingly admit an unworthy man whom he might lawfully put back, is as guilty of Sacrilege, as if he did give abroad the Lord's body to dogs. Therefore Chrysostome grievously inveighs against the Priests, which while they fear the power of great men, dare debar no man. The blood (says he) shall be required at your hands. If you fear man, he shall laugh you to scorn: but if you fear God, you shall be reverenced also among men. Let us not fear maces, nor purple, nor crowns: we have here a greater power. I verily will rather deliver my own body to death, and suffer my blood to be shed, than I will be made partaker of this defiling. Therefore least this most holy mystery be spotted with slander, in the distributing thereof choice is greatly requisite — which yet can not be had but by the jurisdiction of the Church. The second end is, least (as it is wont to come to pass) with the continual company of the evil, the good should be corrupted. For (such is our ready inclination to go out of the way) there is nothing easier than for us to be led by evil examples from the right course of life. This use the Apostle touched, when he commanded the Corinthians to put the incestuous man out of their company. A little leaven (says he) corrupts the whole lump of dough. And he foresaw herein so great danger, that he forbade him even from all fellowship. If any brother (says he) among you be named either a whoremonger, or a covetous man, or a worshipper of Idols, or a drunkard, or an evil speaker, with such a one I grant you not leave so much as to eat. The third end is, that they themselves confounded with shame may begin to repent of their filthiness. So it is profitable for them also, to have their own wickedness chastised, that with feeling of the rod they may be awaked, which otherwise by tender bearing with them would have become more obstinate. The same thing does the Apostle mean when he says thus: If any do not obey our doctrine, mark him, and keep no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Again in another place, when he writes that he has delivered the Corinthian to Satan, that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord: that is (as I expound it) that he went into a damnation for a time, that he might be saved forever. But he therefore says that he delivers him to Satan, because the devil is out of the Church, as Christ is in the Church. For whereas some do refer it to a certain vexing of the flesh, I think that to be very uncertain.

When these ends are set forth, now it remains to see how the Church executes this part of discipline which consists in jurisdiction. First let us keep the division above set, that of sins some are public, and others are private or more secret. Public are those that have not only one or two witnesses, but are committed openly and with the offense of the whole Church. Secret I call those, not which are altogether hidden from men, as are the sins of Hypocrites, for those come not into the judgment of the Church, but those of the middle kind which are not without witnesses, and yet are not public. The first kind requires not those degrees which Christ rehearses: but when any such thing appears, the Church ought to do her duty in calling the sinner and correcting him according to the proportion of the offense. In the second kind according to the rule of Christ, they come not to the Church till there be also obstinacy added. When it has once come to knowledge, then is the other division to be noted between wicked doings and defaults. For in lighter sins there is not to be used so great severity, but chastisement of words suffices, and the same gentle and fatherly, which may not harden nor confound the sinner, but bring him home to himself, that he may more rejoice than be sorry that he was corrected. But it is fitting that heinous offenses be chastised with sharper remedy. For it is not enough, if he that by doing a wicked deed of evil example has grievously offended the Church, should be chastised only with words, but he ought for a time to be deprived of the communion of the supper, till he have given assurance of his repentance. For against the Corinthian Paul uses not only rebuking of words, but drives him out of the Church, and blames the Corinthians that it had so long borne him. The old and better Church kept this order, when rightful government flourished: for if any man had done any wicked deed whereupon was grown offense, first he was commanded to abstain from partaking of the holy supper, then both to humble himself before God, and to testify his repentance before the Church. There were also certain solemn usages, which were enjoined to them that had fallen, to be tokens of their repentance. When they had so done, that the Church was satisfied, then by laying of hands he was received into favor. Which receiving is often called by Cyprian peace, who also briefly describes this usage. They do penance (says he) in a certain full time: then they come to confession, and by the laying on of hands of the Bishop and the Clergy they receive power to come to the communion. However the Bishop and his Clergy had so the ruling of reconciliation, that they did therewith require the consent of the people: as he shows in another place.

From this discipline there was no man exempted, so that even the princes together with the common people did submit themselves to bear it. And rightly so, since it was evident that it was the discipline of Christ, to whom it is fitting that all scepters and crowns of kings be submitted. So when Theodosius was deprived by Ambrose of power to come to the communion because of the slaughter committed at Thessalonica, he threw down all the royal ornaments wherewith he was clothed: he openly in the Church bewailed his sin, which had crept upon him by fraud of other men: he craved pardon with groaning and tears. For great kings ought not to think this to be any dishonor to them, if they humbly throw down themselves before Christ the king of kings, neither ought it to displease them that they be judged by the Church. For since in their court they hear nothing else but [reconstructed: mere] flatteries, it is more than necessary for them to be rebuked of the Lord by the mouth of the priests. But rather they ought to wish, that the priests should not spare them, that the Lord may spare them. In this place I omit to speak, by whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised, because it is spoken of in another place. This only I add that that is the lawful manner of proceeding in excommunicating a man, which Paul shows: if the elders do it not alone by themselves, but with the Church knowing and allowing it: that is, in such sort that the multitude of the people may not govern the doing, but may mark it as a witness and a keeper that nothing should be done by a few through willful affection. But the whole manner of doing, beside the calling upon the name of God, ought to have such gravity, as may resemble the presence of Christ: that it may be undoubted that he there sits as ruler of his own judgment.

But this ought not to be passed over, that such severity becomes the Church as is joined with the Spirit of mildness. For we must always diligently beware (as Paul teaches) that he who is punished be not swallowed up of sorrow: for so should of a remedy be made a destruction. But from the end may better be gathered a rule of moderation. For whereas this is required in excommunication that the sinner should be brought to repentance, and evil examples taken away, lest either the name of Christ should be evil spoken of, or other men be provoked to follow them: if we shall have an eye to these things, we shall be able easily to judge how far severity ought to proceed and where it ought to end. Therefore when the sinner gives a testimony of his repentance, and does by this testimony, as much as in him lies, blot out the offense: he is not to be compelled any further: but if he be compelled, rigorousness does then exceed measure. In which behalf the immeasurable severity of the old fathers cannot be excused, which both disagreed from the prescribed order of the Lord, and also was marvelously dangerous. For when they charged a sinner with solemn penance, and deprivation from the holy communion sometimes for seven years, sometimes four years, sometimes three years, sometimes for their whole life: what other thing could follow thereof but either great hypocrisy or most great desperation? Likewise whereas no man that had fallen the second time was admitted to second penance but was cast out of the Church even to the end of his life: that was neither profitable nor agreeing to reason. Therefore whoever shall weigh the matter with sound judgment, shall here perceive want of their discretion. However, I do here rather disallow the public manner, than accuse all them that used it, whereas it is certain that many of them disliked it: but they therefore suffered it, because they could not amend it. Truly Cyprian declares how much beside his own will he was so rigorous. Our patience (says he) and easiness and gentleness is ready to them that come. I wish all to return into the Church: I wish all our fellow soldiers to be enclosed within the tents of Christ and in the houses of God the Father. I forgive all things, I dissemble many things: for zeal and desire to gather brotherhood together, I examine not with full judgment even those things that are committed against God: in pardoning defaults more than I ought, I am myself almost in default: I do with ready and full love embrace them that return with repentance, confessing their sins with humble and plain satisfaction. Chrysostom is somewhat harder, and yet he says thus: If God be so kind, why will his Priest seem so rigorous? Moreover we know what gentleness Augustine used toward the Donatists, in so much that he did not hesitate to receive into Bishopric those that had returned from schism, even immediately after their repentance. But because a contrary order had grown in force, they were compelled to leave their own judgment to follow it.

But as this mildness is required in the whole body of the Church, that it should punish those that are fallen mercifully and not to the extremity of rigor, but rather according to the precept of Paul, should confirm charity toward them: so every private man for himself ought to temper himself to this mercifulness and gentleness. Therefore it is not our part to wipe out of the number of the elect such as are driven out of the Church, or to despair of them as though they were already lost. We may indeed judge them strangers from the Church, and therefore strangers from Christ: but that is only during the time that they abide in divorce. But if then also they show a greater resemblance of stubbornness than of gentleness, yet let us commit them to the judgment of the Lord, hoping better of them in time to come than we see in time present, and let us not therefore cease to pray to God for them, and (to comprehend all in one word) let us not condemn to death the person itself, which is in the hand and judgment of God alone, but let us rather weigh by the law of the Lord of what sort every man's works be. Which rule while we follow, we rather stand to the judgment of God than pronounce our own. Let us not take to ourselves more liberty in judging, unless we will bind the power of God within bounds, and appoint a law to his mercy, at whose pleasure when he thinks it good, very evil men are turned into very good, strangers are grafted and foreigners are chosen into the Church. And this the Lord does, thereby to mock out the opinion of men, and rebate their rashness: which if it be not restrained, presumes to take to itself power of judging more than it ought.

For whereas Christ promises that that shall be bound in heaven, which those that are his shall bind on earth, he limits the power of binding to the censure of the Church: by which those that are excommunicated are not thrown into everlasting ruin and damnation: but hearing their lives and manners to be condemned, they are also certified of their own everlasting condemnation, unless they repent. For excommunication differs from accursing, in that accursing taking away all pardon does condemn a man and adjudge him to eternal destruction: excommunication rather revenges and punishes manners. And though the same does also punish the man, yet it does so punish him, that in forewarning him of his damnation to come, it does call him back to salvation. If that be obtained, reconciliation and restoring to the communion is ready. But accursing is either very seldom or never in use. Therefore although ecclesiastical discipline permits not to live familiarly, or to have friendly conversation with those that are excommunicated: yet we ought to endeavor by such means as we may, that returning to amendment, they may return to the fellowship and unity of the Church: as the Apostle also teaches. Do not (says he) think them as enemies, but correct them as brothers. Unless this gentleness be kept as well privately as in common, there is danger lest from discipline we forthwith fall to butchery.

This also is principally required to the moderation of discipline, which Augustine treats of in disputing against the Donatists: that neither private men, if they see faults not diligently enough corrected by the Council of elders, should therefore presently depart from the Church; nor the pastors themselves, if they can not according to their heart's desire purge all things that need amendment, should therefore throw away the ministry, or with unwonted rigorousness trouble the whole Church. For it is most true which he writes: that he is free and discharged from curse, whoever he be that either by rebuking amends what he can: or what he can not amend, excludes, saving the bond of peace: or what he can not exclude, saving the bond of peace, he does disallow with equity, and bear with steadfastness. He renders a reason thereof in another place: because all godly order and manner of ecclesiastical discipline ought always to have respect to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: which the Apostle commands to be kept by our bearing one with another: and when it is not kept, the medicine of punishment begins to be not only superfluous, but also hurtful, and therefore ceases to be a medicine. He that (says he) does diligently think upon these things does neither in preserving of unity neglect the severity of discipline, nor does with immeasurableness of correction break the bond of fellowship. He grants indeed that not only the pastors ought to labor to this point, that there may remain no fault in the Church, but also that every man ought to his power to endeavor thereto: and he plainly declares that he which neglects to admonish, rebuke, and correct the evil, although he does not favor them, nor sin with them, yet is guilty before the Lord. But if he be in such degree, that he may also sever them from the partaking of sacraments, and does it not, now he sins not by another's evil, but by his own. Only he wills it to be done, with using of discretion, which the Lord also requires, lest while the tares be in rooting out, the corn be hurt. Hereupon he gathers out of Cyprian, Let a man therefore mercifully correct what he can: and what he can not, let him patiently suffer, and with love groan and lament it.

This he says because of the preciseness of the Donatists, who when they saw faults in the Churches which the bishops did indeed rebuke with words, but not punish with excommunication, (because they thought that they could this way nothing prevail) did sharply inveigh against the bishops as betrayers of discipline, and did with an ungodly schism divide themselves from the flock of Christ. As the Anabaptists do at this day, which when they acknowledge no congregation to be of Christ, unless it does in every point shine with angelic perfection, do under pretense of their zeal overthrow all edification. Such (says Augustine) not for hatred of other men's wickedness, but for desire to maintain their own contentions, do covet either wholly to draw away, or at least to divide the weak people snared with the boasting of their name: they swelling with pride, mad with stubbornness, traitorous with slanders, troublesome with seditions, lest it should openly appear that they want the light of truth, do pretend a shadow of rigorous severity: and those things which in scripture are commanded to be done with moderate healing for correcting of the faults of brethren, preserving the sincerity of love, and keeping the unity of peace, they abuse to sacrilege of schism and occasion of cutting off. So does Satan transform himself into an angel of light when by occasion as it were of just severity he persuades unmerciful cruelty, coveting nothing else but to corrupt and break the bond of peace and unity: which bond remaining fast, among Christians all his foes are made weak to hurt, his traps of treasons are broken, and his counsels of overthrowing do vanish away.

This one thing he chiefly commends, that if the infection of sin has entered into the whole multitude, then the severe mercy of lively discipline is necessary. For (says he) the devices of separation are vain, and hurtful and full of sacrilege, because they are ungodly and proud, and do more trouble the weak good ones, than they amend the stout evil ones. And that which he there teaches others, he himself also faithfully followed. For writing to Aurelius bishop of Carthage he complains that drunkenness which is so sorely condemned in scriptures, does range unpunished in Africa: and he advises him, that assembling a Council of Bishops he should provide remedy for it. He adds by and by after: These things (as I think) are taken away not roughly, not hardly, not after an imperious manner, but more by teaching than by commanding, more by admonishing than by threatening. For so must we deal with a multitude of sinners — but severity is to be exercised upon the sins of few. Yet he does not mean that bishops should therefore wink or hold their peace at public faults, because they can not severely punish them: as he himself afterward expounds it. But he wills that the measure of correction be so tempered, that so far as may be, it may rather bring health than destruction to the body. And therefore at length he concludes thus: Therefore both this commandment of the Apostle is in no way to be neglected, to sever the evil, when it may be done without peril of breaking of peace: and this is also to be kept, that bearing one with another, we should endeavor to preserve unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace.

The part that remains of discipline, which properly is not contained in the power of keys, stands in this, that according to the necessity of times the Pastors should exhort the people either to fasting, or to common supplications, or to other exercises of humility, repentance, and faith, of which things there is neither time, nor measure, nor form prescribed by the word of God, but is left in the judgment of the Church. The observing of this part also, as it is profitable, so has always been used by the old Church even from the very Apostles. However, the Apostles themselves were not the first authors of them, but they took example out of the law and the Prophets. For we see that there so often as any weighty business happened, the people was called together, common prayers enjoined, and fasting commanded. Therefore the Apostles followed that which both was not new to the people of God, and they foresaw that it should be profitable. Likewise is to be thought of other exercises, with which the people may either be stirred up to their duty, or be kept in awe and obedience. There are examples everywhere in holy histories, which we need not to gather together. In sum this is to be held, that so often as there happens any controversy of religion, which must be determined either by a Synod or by ecclesiastical judgment, so often as they be about choosing a minister, finally so often as any hard matter or of great importance is in doing: again when there appear tokens of the wrath of God, as pestilence, and war, and famine: this is a holy ordinance and profitable for all ages, that the Pastors should exhort the people to common fasting, and to extraordinary prayers. If any man does not allow the testimonies which may be alleged out of the Old Testament, as though they were not appropriate for the Christian Church, it is certain that the Apostles also did the same. However, of prayers I think there will scarcely any be found that will move any question. Therefore let us say somewhat of fasting: because many when they understand not what profit it has, do judge it not so necessary: some also do utterly refuse it as superfluous: and when the use of it is not well known it is easy to slide into superstition.

Holy and true fasting has three ends. For we use it, either to make lean and subdue the flesh, that it should not grow wanton, or that we may be better disposed to prayers and holy meditations, or that it should be a testimony of our humbling before God, when we are willing to confess our guiltiness before him. The first end has not so often place in common fasting, because all men have not like state of body, nor like health: therefore it rather agrees with private fasting. The second end is common to both: for as well the whole Church as every one of the faithful has need of such preparation to prayer. The third also is likewise common. For it shall sometime befall that God shall strike some nation with war, or pestilence, or with some calamity. In such a common scourge the whole people must accuse themselves, and openly confess their own guiltiness. But if the hand of the Lord does strike any private man, he ought to do the same, either alone, or with his own family. That stands chiefly in the affection of the mind. But when the mind is affected as it ought to be, it is scarcely possible, but that it will break out into outward testifying: and then chiefly if it turns to common edifying, that altogether in openly confessing their sin should yield praise of righteousness to God, and every one mutually exhort others with their example.

Therefore fasting, as it is a sign of humbling, has more often use publicly, than among private men, however it be common, as is already said. Therefore as touching the discipline of which we now speak: so often as we must make supplication to God for any great matter, it were expedient to command fasting together with prayer. So when the Antiochians laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas, that they might the better commend to God their ministry which was of so great importance, they joined fasting with prayer. So both they afterward, when they made ministers over Churches, were wont to pray with fasting (Acts 14:3; Acts 14:23). In this kind of fasting they had regard to no other thing, but that they might be made fresher and more unencumbered to pray. Truly this we find by experience, that when the belly is full, the mind is not so lifted up to God, that it can both with hearty and fervent affection be carried to prayer, and continue in it. So is that to be understood which Luke relates of Anna, that she served the Lord in fastings and prayers (Luke 2:37). For he does not set the worshipping of God in fasting: but signifies that the holy woman did after that manner exercise herself to continuance of prayer. Such was the fasting of Nehemiah when he did with earnestly bent zeal pray to God for the deliverance of his people (Nehemiah 1:4). For this cause Paul says that the faithful do well, if they abstain for a time from their wedding bed, that they may the more freely apply prayer and fasting (1 Corinthians 7:5). Where joining fasting to prayer in stead of a help, he puts us in mind that it is of no value but so far as it is referred to this end. Again when in the same place he gives a rule to married folks, that they should mutually render good will one to another, it is plain that he does not speak of daily prayers, but of such prayers as require a more earnest attentiveness.

Again, if either pestilence, or famine, or war begin to range abroad, or if any calamity otherwise seem to hang over any country and people: then also it is the duty of Pastors to exhort the Church to fasting, that they may humbly beseech the Lord to turn away his wrath. For he gives warning that he is prepared and in a manner armed to revenge, when he makes any danger to appear. Therefore as accused men in time past with long hanging beard, with uncombed hair, with black array, were wont humbly to abase themselves, to procure the mercy of the judge: so when we are accused before the judgment seat of God, it behooves both for his glory, and for common edification, and also is profitable and healthful for us, that we should in piteous array crave to escape his severity. And that this was used among the people of Israel, it is easy to gather by the words of Joel. For when he commands a trumpet to be sounded, the congregation to be gathered together, fasting to be appointed, and the rest that follow: he speaks of things received in common custom. He had a little before said, that examination is appointed of the wicked deeds of the people, and had declared that the day of judgment was now at hand, and had summoned them being accused to plead their cause: then he cries out that they should haste to sackcloth and ashes, to weeping and fasting: that is, that they should also with outward testimonies throw themselves down before the Lord. Sackcloth and ashes perhaps did more agree with those times: but there is no doubt that the calling together, and weeping and fasting and such like do likewise pertain also to our age, so often as the state of our things does so require. For since it is a holy exercise, both to humble men, and to confess humility, why should we less use it than the old people did in like necessity? We read that not only the people of Israel, which were informed and instructed by the word of God, but also the Ninevites which had no doctrine but the preaching of Jonah, fasted in token of sorrow. What cause is there therefore why we should not do the same? But it is an outward ceremony, which was with the rest ended in Christ. Indeed even at this day it is, as it always has been, a very good help to the faithful, and a profitable admonition, to stir up themselves, that they should not with too great carelessness and sluggishness more and more provoke God when they are chastised with his scourges. Therefore Christ when he excuses his apostles for that they fast not, does not say that fasting is abrogated: but he appoints it to times of calamity, and joins it with mourning. The time shall come (says he) when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them.

But that there should be no error in the name, let us define what fasting is. For we do not here understand by it only abstinence and sparing in meat and drink, but a certain other thing. The life of the godly ought indeed to be tempered with honest sparing and sobriety, that so near as is possible it may in the whole course thereof bear a certain resemblance of fasting. But beside this there is another fasting for a time, when we withdraw any thing of our accustomed diet, either for one day or for a certain time, and do charge ourselves with a stricter and severer abstinence in diet than ordinary. This consists in three things, in time, in quality of meats, and in smallness of quantity. I mean by time, that we should use those doings fasting, for which fasting is ordained. As for example, if a man fast for common prayer: that he come empty to it. Quality stands in this, that all daintiness should be absent, and being content with common and baser meats, we should not stir up appetite with delicacies. The rule of quantity is in this that we eat more sparingly and less than we are accustomed, only for necessity, and not also for pleasure.

But we must always principally beware, that no superstition creep upon us, as it has heretofore happened to the great hurt of the Church. For it were much better that there were no use at all of fasting, than that it should be diligently kept, and in the meantime be corrupted with false and hurtful opinions, into which the world sometimes falls, unless the pastors do with great faithfulness and wisdom prevent it. The first point therefore is, that they should always enforce that which Joel teaches, that they should cut their hearts and not their garments: that is, that they should admonish the people, that God does not greatly esteem fasting of itself, unless there be an inward affection of the heart, a true disliking of sin and of himself, true humbling, and true sorrow through the fear of God: indeed that fasting is profitable for no other cause, but that it is joined to these as an inferior help. For God abhors nothing more than when men, in setting signs and an outward show in place of innocence of heart, labor with false color to deceive themselves. Therefore Isaiah most sharply inveighs against this hypocrisy, that the Jews thought that they had satisfied God, when they had only fasted, however they did nourish ungodliness and unclean thoughts in their heart. Is it (says he) such a fasting which the Lord requires? And so forth as follows. Therefore the hypocritical fasting is not only an unprofitable and superfluous wearying, but also a great abomination. Another evil near to this is chiefly to be taken heed of, that it be not taken for a meritorious work, or a form of worshipping God. For since it is a thing of itself indifferent, and has no value but by reason of those ends which it ought to have respect to, it is a most hurtful superstition, to confound it with the works commanded of God and necessary of themselves without other respect. Such was in old time the dotage of the Manichees: whom when Augustine confutes, he does plainly enough teach, that fasting is to be judged by no other ends than those which I have spoken of, and is no otherwise allowed of God, unless it be referred to the same. The third error is indeed not so ungodly, yet it is perilous: to require the keeping of it more precisely and rigorously as it were one of the chief duties, and so to advance it with immeasurable praises, that men should think they have done some excellent thing when they have fasted. In which behalf I dare not altogether excuse the old fathers, but that they have sown some seeds of superstition, and given occasion to the tyranny which has risen since. There are found indeed sometimes in them sound and wise sentences of fasting, but afterward we now and then meet with immeasurable praises of fasting which advance it among the chief virtues.

And at that time the superstitious observing of Lent was everywhere grown in use: because both the common people thought that they did therein some notable service to God, and the pastors did commend it for a holy following of Christ: whereas it is plain, that Christ did not fast to prescribe an example to others, but that in so beginning the preaching of the Gospel, he might in very deed prove that it was not a doctrine of men, but descended from heaven. And it is marvelous, that so gross an error, which is refuted with so many and so evident reasons, could creep into men of so sharp judgment. For Christ did not fast often (which he must needs have done if he would have set forth a law of yearly fasting) but only once when he prepared himself to the publishing of the Gospel. And he fasted not after the manner of men, as it was fitting that he should have done if he would have provoked men to follow him: but rather he shows an example, whereby he may rather draw men to wonder at him than stir them up to follow him. Finally there is no other cause of this fasting, than of that which Moses fasted when he received the law at the hand of the Lord. For since the miracle was shown in Moses to establish the authority of the law, it ought not to have been omitted in Christ, lest the Gospel should seem to give place to the law. But since that time it never came in any man's mind under color of following of Moses to require such a form of fasting in the people of Israel. Neither did any of the holy prophets and fathers follow it, when yet they had mind and zeal enough for godly exercises. For, that which is said of Elijah, that he passed forty days without food and drink, tended to no other end but that the people should know that he was stirred up to be a restorer of the law from which almost all Israel had departed. Therefore it was a mere wrongful zeal and full of superstition, that they did set forth fasting with the title and color of following of Christ. However in the manner of fasting there was then great diversity, as Cassiodorus recounts out of Socrates in the ninth book of his history. For the Romans (says he) had but three weeks, but in these there was a continual fasting, except on the Sunday and Saturday. The Slavonians and Greeks had six weeks: others had seven: but their fasting was by divided times. And they disagreed no less in difference of meats. Some did eat nothing but bread and water: some added herbs: some did not abstain from fish and fowl: some had no difference in meats. Of this diversity Augustine also makes mention in the latter epistle to January.

Then followed worse times, and to the preposterous zeal of the people was added both ignorance and rudeness of the Bishops, and a lust to bear rule, and a tyrannous rigor. There were made wicked laws, which strain consciences with pernicious bonds. The eating of flesh was forbidden, as though it defiled a man. There were added opinions full of sacrilege one upon another, till they came to the bottom of all errors. And that no perverseness should be omitted, they began with a most fond pretense of abstinence to mock God. For in the most exquisite daintiness of fare is sought the praise of fasting: no delicates do then suffice, there is never greater plenty, or diversity, or sweetness of meats. In such and so gorgeous preparation they think that they serve God rightly. I speak not how they never more foully glut themselves, than when they would be counted most holy men. Briefly, they count it the greatest worshiping of God to abstain from flesh, and (these excepted) to flow full of all kind of dainties. On the other side they think this the extremest ungodliness, and such as scarcely may be recompensed with death, if a man taste never so little a piece of bacon or unsavory flesh with brown bread. Jerome tells, that even in his time were some that with such follies did mock God: which because they would not eat oil, caused most dainty meats from every place to be brought them: indeed to oppress nature with violence, they abstained from drinking of water, but caused sweet and costly sippings to be made for them, which they did not drink out of a cup, but out of a shell. Which fault was then in a few, at this day it is a common fault among all rich men, that they fast to no other end but that they may banquet more sumptuously and daintily. But I will not waste many words in a matter not doubtful. Only this I say, that both in fasting and in all other parts of discipline, the papists so have nothing right, nothing pure, nothing well framed and orderly, whereby they may have any occasion to be proud, as though there were anything remaining among them worthy of praise.

There follows another part of discipline, which peculiarly belongs to the clergy. That is contained in the canons which the old Bishops have made over themselves and their order. As these be: that no clerk should give himself to hunting, to [reconstructed: dicing], nor to banketting: that none should occupy usury, or merchandise: that none should be present at wanton dancings: and such other ordinances. There were also added penalties: whereby the authority of the canons was established, that none should break them unpunished. For this end to every Bishop was committed the government of his own clergy, that they should rule their clerks according to the canons, and hold them in their duty. For this end were ordained yearly overseeings and synods, that if any were negligent in his duty, he should be admonished: if any had offended, he should be punished according to the measure of his offence. The Bishops also themselves had yearly their provincial Synods, and in the old time yearly two Synods, by which they were judged if they had done anything beside their duty. For if any Bishop were too hard or violent against his clergy, they might appeal to those Synods, although there were but one that complained. The severest punishment was that he which had offended should be removed from his office, and for a time be deprived of the Communion. And because that same was a continual order, they never used to dismiss any Synod, but that they appointed a place and time for the next Synod. For, to gather a general Council pertained to the Emperor only, as all the old summonings of Councils do testify. So long as this severity flourished, the clerks did require in word no more of the people, than themselves did perform in example and deed. Indeed they were much more rigorous to themselves than to the people. And truly so it is fitting, that the people should be ruled with a gentler and looser discipline, as I may so term it: but the clerks should use sharper judgments among themselves, and should less bear with themselves, than with other men. How all this has grown out of use, it is no need to rehearse, when at this day nothing can be imagined more unbridled and dissolute than the clergy, and they have broken forth to so great licentiousness, that the whole world cries out of it. That all antiquity should not seem to be utterly buried among them, I grant indeed that they do with certain shadows deceive the eyes of the simple: but those are such as come no nearer to the ancient manners, than the counterfeiting of an ape approaches to that which men do by reason and advice. There is a notable place in Xenophon, where he teaches how foully the Persians had swerved from the ordinances of their elders, and were fallen from the rigorous kind of life, to softness and daintiness, that yet they covered this shame, saying that they diligently kept the ancient usages. For when in the time of Cyrus sobriety and temperance so far flourished that men needed not to wipe, indeed and it was accounted a shame: with posterity this continued a religious observation, that no man should draw snot out at his nostrils, but it was lawful to suck it up, and feed within even till they were rotten the stinking humors which they had gathered by gluttonous eating. So by the old order it is unlawful to bring wine-pots to the board: but to swill in wine that they need to be carried away drunk, is tolerable. It was ordained to eat but once in a day: this these good successors have not abrogated, but they gave leave to continue their surfeiting from midday to midnight. The custom was that men should make an end of their day's journey fasting. But it was at liberty and [reconstructed: usually] the custom, for avoiding of weariness, to shorten their journey to two hours. Whenever the papists shall pretend their bastard rules, to show themselves to be like to the holy fathers: this example shall sufficiently reprove their fond counterfeiting that no painter can more lively express it.

In one thing they are too rigorous and unyielding, that they do not permit priests to marry. But how great liberty there is among them to practice whoredom unpunished is not necessary to be spoken: and bearing themselves bold upon their stinking unmarried life, they have hardened themselves to all wicked doings. But this forbidding plainly shows how pestilent all their traditions are, because it has not only spoiled the Church of good and fit pastors, but also has brought in a horrible sink of mischiefs, and thrown many souls into the gulf of desperation. Truly, the forbidding of marriage to priests has been done by wicked tyranny, not only against the word of God, but also against all equity. First, to forbid that which the Lord had left at liberty was by no means lawful for men. Again, that God has expressly provided by his word that this liberty should not be broken is so evident that it needs no long demonstration. I speak not of how Paul in many places commands a Bishop to be the husband of one wife. But what could be more vehemently spoken, than where he pronounces by the Holy Spirit, that there shall be in the last times wicked men that shall forbid marriage: and he calls them not only deceivers, but devils? This therefore is a prophecy, this is a holy oracle of the Holy Spirit, with which he willed to arm the Church beforehand against dangers, that the forbidding of marriage is the doctrine of devils. But they think that they have cleverly escaped when they wrest this sentence to Montanus, the Tatians, Encratites, and other old heretics. They only (say they) condemned marriage: but we do not condemn it, but debar the clergy from it, for whom we think it not to be convenient. As though, although this prophecy was first fulfilled in those aforesaid men, it might not also be applied to these: or as though this childish foolish subtlety were worth the hearing, that they say that they forbid it not, because they forbid it not to all. For it is all one as if a tyrant would affirm that it is not an unjust law, with the injustice of which one part [illegible] of the city is oppressed.

They object, that the priest does by some mark differ from the people. As though the Lord did not also foresee this — with what ornaments priests ought to excel. So they accuse the Apostle of troubling the order and confounding the comeliness of the Church, which when he portrayed out the complete form of a good Bishop, dared to set marriage among the other gifts which he required in him. I know how they expound this, namely that none is to be chosen that has had a second wife. And I grant that this is not a new exposition: but that it is a false exposition appears by the text itself, because he by and by after sets out what qualities the wives of Bishops and Deacons ought to be. Paul reckons marriage among the virtues of a Bishop: these men teach that it is an intolerable fault in the order of the clergy. And, in God's name, not contented with this general disparagement, they call it in their canons uncleanness and defiling of the flesh. Let every man think with himself out of what workshop these things have come: Christ vouchsafes so to honor marriage that he wills it to be an image of his holy union with the Church. What could be spoken more honorably to set out the dignity of marriage? With what face therefore shall that be called unclean or defiled wherein shines a likeness of the spiritual grace of Christ?

But now when their forbidding so evidently fights with the word of God, yet they find in the Scriptures something with which to defend it. The Levitical priests were bound to lie apart from their wives, as often as it came to their turns to minister, that they might handle the holy things pure and undefiled. Therefore it would be very unseemly, that our holy things, since they are both much more noble and daily, should be handled by married men. As though the person of the minister of the Gospel were all one as was that of the Levitical Priesthood. For they, as figures, represented Christ, who being the mediator of God and men should with most complete purity reconcile the Father to us. But when sinners could not in every respect express the figure of his holiness, yet that they might with certain rough outlines yield a shadow of him, they were commanded to purify themselves beyond the manner of men, when they came to the Sanctuary: namely because they then properly figured Christ, for as peacemakers to reconcile the people to God they appeared at the tabernacle — the image of the heavenly judgment seat. Because the pastors of the Church do not bear this person at this day, therefore they are vainly compared with them. Therefore the Apostle does without exception boldly pronounce, that marriage is honorable among all men, but that for whoremongers and adulterers abides the judgment of God. And the Apostles themselves did with their own example approve that marriage is not unfit for the holiness of any office, however excellent. For Paul witnesses that they did not only keep wives, but also carried them about with them.

Again it was a marvelous shamelessness that they dared set out this comeliness of chastity as a necessary thing, to the great reproach of the old Church: which when it abounded with singular learning of God, yet excelled more in holiness. For if they do not regard the Apostles (as they are sometimes accustomed stoutly to despise them) what, I beseech you, will they do to all the old fathers, whom it is certain to have not only suffered, but also allowed marriage in the order of Bishops? They indeed nourished a filthy profaning of holy things, because the mysteries of the Lord were not rightly revered among them. It was moved indeed in the Nicene Synod to have unmarried life commanded: as there are always some superstitious men, who do ever invent some new thing, to bring themselves into admiration. But what was decreed? The sentence of Paphnutius was assented to, which pronounced that a man's lying with his own wife is chastity. Therefore marriage remained holy among them: neither did it turn them to any shame, nor was thought to spot the ministry.

Then followed times, in which too superstitious observation of single life grew in force. Hereupon came those often and unmeasurably advanced praises of virginity, so that scarcely any other virtue was thought among the people to be compared with it. And although marriage was not condemned for unclean, yet the dignity thereof was so diminished, and the holiness of it obscured, that he seemed not to aspire with a courage strong enough to perfection, that did not refrain himself from it. Hereupon came those canons whereby it was first forbidden that they which were come to the degree of Priesthood should not contract marriage: then, that none should be taken into that order but unmarried men, or such as did forsake marriage together with their wives. These things, because they seemed to procure reverence to Priesthood, were (I grant) even from antiquity received with great well liking. But if the adversaries object antiquity against me, first I answer that this liberty remained both under the Apostles and in certain ages after them, that Bishops might be married: that the Apostles themselves, and other Pastors of great authority which succeeded in their places, used the same without sticking at it. The example of that ancienter Church ought worthily to be of greater weight with us, than that we should think that to be either unlawful or uncomely for us which was then with praise received and used. Secondly I say that the age which for immeasurable affection to virginity began to be partial against marriage, did not so lay upon Priests the law of unmarried life, as though it were a thing necessary of itself, but because they preferred unmarried men above the married. Finally I answer that they did not so require it that they did with force and necessity constrain them to continence which were not fit to keep it. For when they punished whoredoms with most severe laws, of them that contracted marriage they decreed no more but that they should give over the execution of their office.

Therefore whenever the defenders of this new tyranny shall seek the pretense of antiquity to defend their unmarried life: so often we shall answer them with requiring them, that they restore the old chasteness in their Priests: that they remove adulterers and whoremongers: that they suffer not those in whom they suffer not honest and chaste use of marriage bed, to run unpunished into all kind of lust: that they call again the discontinued discipline, whereby all wantonnesses may be restrained: that they deliver the Church from this so wicked filthiness, wherewith it has been long deformed. When they have granted this, then they must again be put in mind that they boast not that thing for necessary, which being of itself at liberty hangs upon the profit of the Church. Yet I say not this for that I think that in any condition place is to be given to those canons which lay the bond of unmarried life upon the order of Priests: but that the wiser sort may understand with what face our enemies do slander holy marriage in Priests, by objecting the name of antiquity. As touching the fathers, whose writings remain, even they when they speak of their own judgment, except Jerome, did not with so great spitefulness deface the honesty of marriage. We shall be content with one commendation of Chrysostom: because he, since he was a principal esteemer of virginity, cannot be thought to have been more lavish than others in commendation of marriage. Thus he says: The first degree of chastity is pure virginity: the second is faithful marriage. Therefore the second kind of virginity is the chaste love of matrimony.

Church discipline, the discussion of which we have saved for this point, must now be briefly described before we move on to the remaining topics. For the most part it rests on the power of the keys and spiritual jurisdiction. To make this easier to understand, let us divide the church into two main groups: the clergy and the people. By 'clergy' I mean, in the usual sense, those who perform public ministry in the church. We will first speak of the common discipline to which all should be subject, and then turn to the clergy, who — beyond that common discipline — have a particular discipline of their own. Because many people, out of hatred for discipline, recoil even at the word: let them hear this. If no community — not even a household with only a few members — can be maintained in good order without discipline, then discipline is far more necessary in the church, whose order ought to be the most excellent of all. Therefore, as the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the church, discipline is like the sinews — by which the members of the body are held together, each in its proper place. Whoever desires to abolish discipline, or hinders its restoration — whether deliberately or carelessly — is truly working toward the complete ruin of the church. For what will happen if every person is free to do whatever he pleases? That is exactly what would happen if the preaching of doctrine were not supported by private admonitions, corrections, and other aids that sustain the teaching and prevent it from being ignored. Discipline, then, is like a bridle to hold back and restrain those who stubbornly resist Christ; like a spur to stir up those who are too sluggish; and sometimes, like a father's rod, by which those who have fallen more seriously may be corrected with mercy and in the gentleness of Christ's Spirit. Since we now see the beginning of a terrible ruin in the church — because there is no care or order to keep the people in check — the urgent need for a remedy is plain. This is the only remedy: the one Christ has commanded and that has always been used among godly people.

The foundation of discipline is that private admonitions must have their place. That is: if any person neglects his duty, lives recklessly or dishonorably, or has done something deserving of correction, he should allow himself to be admonished — and every person should make it his practice to admonish his brother when the need arises. Above all, pastors and elders must be watchful in this, since their office is not only to preach to the congregation but to warn and exhort in every household when general teaching has not been sufficient. Paul teaches this when he describes how he taught privately from house to house, and declares that he is innocent of the blood of all people because he never stopped, day and night with tears, admonishing each person individually. For teaching gains its force and authority when the minister not only declares to the whole congregation what their duty is to Christ, but also has the responsibility and means to call to account those he sees are either disobedient to the teaching or negligent. If someone stubbornly refuses or, by continuing in his faults, despises such admonitions, then after a second admonition with witnesses present, Christ commands that the matter be brought before the church — that is, the assembly of elders — where the person is to be more solemnly admonished with public authority, so that, if he has any reverence for the church, he may submit and obey. But if even this does not subdue him and he continues in his wickedness, Christ commands that, as a despiser of the church, he be put out of the fellowship of the faithful.

But because Christ speaks here only of secret faults, we must draw this distinction: some sins are private, and some are public or openly known. Regarding the first kind, Christ says to every private person: 'Rebuke him between you and him alone.' Regarding open sins, Paul says in his letter to Timothy: 'Rebuke them before everyone, so that the rest may stand in fear.' Christ had previously said: 'If your brother has sinned against you.' The phrase 'against you' — unless you want to argue for argument's sake — can only mean that it is known to you privately, with no others aware of it. What the apostle teaches Timothy about openly rebuking those who sin openly, he himself practiced with Peter. When Peter sinned in a way that caused a public offense, Paul did not admonish him privately — he brought him forward before the whole church. Therefore the right order is this: for private faults, follow the steps Christ set out; for open and public offenses, proceed immediately to the church's solemn rebuke.

Here is another distinction to make: some sins are failures or faults, while others are wicked acts or serious offenses. For correcting this latter kind, admonishment and rebuke alone are not sufficient — a more severe remedy is needed. Paul demonstrates this: when he learned of the incest committed by the Corinthian, he did not merely rebuke him with words but punished him with excommunication. We now begin to see more clearly how the spiritual jurisdiction of the church — which punishes sins according to the word of the Lord — is the best safeguard of health, the foundation of order, and the bond of unity. When the church therefore excludes from her fellowship open adulterers, fornicators, thieves, robbers, troublemakers, perjurers, false witnesses, and others like them — along with obstinate people who, when properly admonished even for minor faults, show contempt for God and His judgment — she is not acting without authority. She is exercising the jurisdiction given to her by the Lord. Furthermore, so that no one should despise such judgment of the church or think little of being condemned by the united voice of the faithful, the Lord has testified that such judgment is nothing other than a pronouncement of His own sentence, and that whatever they do on earth is confirmed in heaven. For they have the word of the Lord by which they may condemn the obstinate, and the word by which they may receive the repentant back into favor. Those who think churches can long stand without this bond of discipline are deceived — unless we are willing to do without the help the Lord Himself saw that we would need. How great that necessity is will become clearer as we consider the many uses of discipline.

There are three purposes the church has in view in such corrections and excommunications. The first is that those who lead a filthy and sinful life should not be counted among Christians — to God's dishonor — as though His holy church were a gathering of wicked people. Since the church is the body of Christ, it cannot be defiled by such corrupt members without some shame falling on the Head. Therefore, to prevent anything in the church that could stain His holy name with reproach, those whose conduct would bring scandal on the Christian name must be removed from the household of faith. Consideration must also be given to the Lord's Supper, that it not be profaned by being given indiscriminately to all. For it is absolutely true that the one entrusted with distributing it, if he knowingly and willingly admits an unworthy person when he could lawfully exclude him, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he had thrown the Lord's body to dogs. Chrysostom therefore sharply rebukes the priests who, fearing powerful men, dare not exclude anyone. 'The blood,' he says, 'shall be required at your hands. If you fear man, he will mock you; if you fear God, you will be respected even among men. Let us not fear clubs or purple robes or crowns — we have a greater power here. I would rather give my own body to death and let my blood be shed than be made a participant in this defilement.' Therefore, so that this most holy mystery is not stained with scandal, great care in distributing it is required — and that care cannot be exercised without the church's jurisdiction. The second purpose is to prevent the good from being corrupted by continual association with the wicked — as so easily happens. For, given our natural tendency to go astray, nothing is easier than being led away from the right path by bad examples. The apostle touches on this purpose when he commands the Corinthians to remove the incestuous man from their community. 'A little leaven,' he says, 'corrupts the whole batch of dough.' He saw such great danger in this that he forbade even ordinary social contact with such a person. 'If anyone among you who is called a brother is a fornicator, or greedy, or an idolater, or a drunkard, or a slanderer — do not even eat with such a person.' The third purpose is that those disciplined may be brought to shame and thus begin to repent of their wickedness. It benefits even them to have their sin corrected — so that the experience of the rod may awaken those who, if handled too gently, would only become more obstinate. The apostle has this in mind when he says: 'If anyone does not obey our teaching, take note of that person and have nothing to do with him, so that he may be put to shame.' And in another place, when he writes that he has delivered the Corinthian to Satan so that his spirit might be saved on the day of the Lord — that is, as I understand it, handed over to condemnation for a time so that he might be saved eternally. He says he delivers him to Satan because the devil is outside the church, just as Christ is within it. As for those who interpret this as referring to some physical affliction, I consider that interpretation quite uncertain.

With these purposes set before us, we now need to consider how the church carries out this aspect of discipline — that which consists in jurisdiction. Let us keep the earlier distinction: some sins are public, others are private or more hidden. Public sins are those committed openly, giving offense to the whole church — not witnessed by just one or two people. By private I mean not sins that are entirely hidden from others (as the sins of hypocrites are, which do not come before the church's judgment), but those of a middle kind — not without witnesses, yet not publicly known. The first kind does not require the steps Christ describes; when such a case comes to light, the church should do her duty by summoning the offender and correcting him in proportion to the offense. In the second kind, following Christ's rule, the matter does not come before the church until obstinacy is also present. Once the case has come to light, the further distinction between wicked acts and ordinary faults must also be observed. For lighter sins, such severe measures are not appropriate — a verbal correction is sufficient, and one that is gentle and fatherly: not to harden or crush the offender, but to bring him to himself, so that he is more glad than sorry to have been corrected. But serious offenses require a sharper remedy. It is not enough for the person who, by a wicked deed of bad example, has gravely offended the church to receive only a verbal rebuke — he must for a time be excluded from the Lord's Supper until he has given evidence of his repentance. With the Corinthian offender, Paul used not only verbal rebuke but expelled him from the church, and he also rebuked the Corinthians for having tolerated him so long. The ancient and better church maintained this order when proper governance flourished: if anyone had done a wicked deed by which offense had spread, he was first commanded to abstain from the Lord's Supper. Then he was required to humble himself before God and testify to his repentance before the church. There were also certain solemn practices imposed on those who had fallen as evidence of their repentance. When they had done this to the church's satisfaction, the bishop received them back through the laying on of hands. Cyprian often calls this restoration 'peace' and describes the practice briefly. He writes: 'They perform penance for a set period, then they come to confession, and by the laying on of hands of the bishop and the clergy they receive permission to come to communion.' Yet the bishop and clergy exercised control over reconciliation in such a way that they still required the consent of the people, as he shows in another place.

No one was exempt from this discipline — even princes, along with common people, submitted to it. And rightly so, since it was clearly the discipline of Christ, to whom it is fitting that all scepters and crowns bow. So when Theodosius was barred by Ambrose from the communion because of the massacre committed at Thessalonica, he set aside all the royal insignia with which he was clothed, publicly lamented in the church the sin that had been brought upon him through the deception of others, and begged for forgiveness with groaning and tears. Great kings should not consider it any dishonor to humbly bow before Christ the King of kings, and they should not resent being subject to the church's judgment. For since at their own courts they hear nothing but flattery, it is more than necessary for them to be rebuked by the Lord through the mouths of priests. Rather, they ought to desire that the priests spare them nothing — so that the Lord may spare them. I will not speak here of who should exercise this jurisdiction, as that is addressed elsewhere. I will add only this: the lawful way to proceed in excommunicating someone is the method Paul describes — the elders must not act alone on their own, but with the church informed and approving. That is to say, the congregation does not govern the process, but serves as witness and guardian to ensure that nothing is done by a few out of personal bias. The entire proceeding, besides the invocation of God's name, must be carried out with such gravity as befits the presence of Christ — so that it is beyond doubt that He Himself presides over and directs the judgment.

One thing must not be passed over: the severity that becomes the church must always be joined with a spirit of gentleness. We must always be careful, as Paul teaches, that the one being punished is not overwhelmed with sorrow — for then what was meant as a remedy becomes destruction. A rule of moderation is best drawn from the purpose of discipline. Since excommunication requires that the sinner be brought to repentance and bad examples be removed — so that neither Christ's name be spoken against nor others be provoked to follow those examples — keeping these aims in view will help us easily judge how far severity ought to go and where it should stop. Therefore, when a sinner gives evidence of his repentance and by this testimony, as far as he is able, removes the offense, he must not be pressed any further. If he is pressed further, the rigor has exceeded its bounds. In this respect, the excessive severity of the ancient church fathers cannot be excused — it both departed from the Lord's prescribed order and was dangerously harmful. When they burdened a sinner with solemn penance and exclusion from the Lord's Supper for sometimes seven years, sometimes four, sometimes three, and sometimes for life — what else could follow but either great hypocrisy or utter despair? Likewise, the practice of refusing any second repentance to those who had fallen a second time and casting them out of the church permanently was neither beneficial nor reasonable. Any person who weighs the matter with sound judgment will see the lack of wisdom in these practices. I am more inclined to disapprove of the public system itself than to condemn everyone who practiced it — since it is clear that many of them disliked it but went along with it because they could not change it. Cyprian himself makes clear how much he went along with this severity against his own wishes. He writes: 'My patience and gentleness and kindness are ready for those who come. I wish all to return to the church. I wish all our fellow soldiers to be gathered within the tents of Christ and in the houses of God the Father. I forgive all things, I overlook many things — for zeal and desire to gather the brotherhood together, I do not examine with full judgment even things committed against God. In pardoning faults more than I ought, I am myself almost at fault. I embrace with ready and full love those who return with repentance, confessing their sins with humble and honest satisfaction.' Chrysostom is somewhat stricter, yet even he says: 'If God is so kind, why should His priest seem so harsh?' We also know how gently Augustine dealt with the Donatists — he did not hesitate to receive back into the episcopate those who returned from schism, even immediately upon their repentance. But because a contrary custom had become established, they were forced to set aside their own judgment and follow it.

But just as this gentleness is required of the whole body of the church — that it punish those who have fallen mercifully, not with extreme harshness, but rather confirm love toward them as Paul commands — so also each private person must govern himself with this same mercy and gentleness. It is not our place to write off those expelled from the church as no longer among the elect, or to despair of them as though they were already lost. We may indeed regard them as strangers to the church, and therefore strangers from Christ — but only for as long as they remain separated. Even if during that time they show more signs of stubbornness than of softening, let us still commit them to the Lord's judgment, hoping better of them in time than we can see at present. Let us not cease to pray to God for them. And — to say it all in one word — let us not condemn to destruction the person himself, who is in the hand and judgment of God alone, but rather let us judge by the Lord's law what kind of works each person produces. By following this rule, we stand on God's judgment rather than pronouncing our own. Let us not take more freedom in judging than we ought — lest we confine God's power within boundaries of our making and prescribe limits to His mercy. For at His pleasure, when He sees fit, the worst of people are turned into the best; outsiders are grafted in and foreigners are chosen into the church. This is how the Lord puts human opinion to shame and humbles human rashness — which, if not restrained, presumes to claim more authority in judging than it rightly possesses.

When Christ promises that whatever His people bind on earth will be bound in heaven, He limits this power of binding to the church's censure — by which those who are excommunicated are not cast into everlasting ruin and damnation. Rather, when their lives and conduct are condemned, they are also warned of their own eternal condemnation unless they repent. For excommunication differs from a curse: a curse, removing all possibility of pardon, condemns a person and sentences him to eternal destruction. Excommunication, by contrast, addresses and punishes conduct. And though it does punish the person, it does so in a way that, by warning him of the condemnation to come, calls him back to salvation. If that goal is achieved, reconciliation and restoration to the fellowship is readily given. A formal curse, by contrast, is very rarely — if ever — used. Therefore, although church discipline does not permit close or friendly association with those who are excommunicated, we must still use every available means to bring them to amendment so that they may return to the fellowship and unity of the church — as the apostle also teaches. 'Do not regard them as enemies,' he says, 'but correct them as brothers.' Unless this gentleness is maintained both in private and in public, there is danger that discipline will quickly turn into brutality.

This too is essential to the moderation of discipline, as Augustine argues against the Donatists: private individuals who see faults not being corrected diligently enough by the council of elders should not therefore immediately depart from the church. Likewise, pastors who cannot purge everything that needs correction as fully as they would like should not abandon the ministry or trouble the whole church with unusual harshness. For it is very true what he writes: that whoever either corrects what he can by rebuke, or — when he cannot correct it — excludes the offender while preserving the bond of peace, or — when he cannot exclude without breaking the bond of peace — disapproves with fairness and bears it with steadfastness: that person is free and released from blame. He gives the reason in another place: every godly order and manner of church discipline must always have regard for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace — which the apostle commands us to keep through mutual forbearance. When it is not kept, the medicine of correction ceases to be merely unnecessary; it becomes actively harmful, and is therefore no longer medicine at all. 'The one who diligently considers these things,' he says, 'neither neglects the strictness of discipline in maintaining unity, nor breaks the bond of fellowship by excessive correction.' He grants that not only pastors but every person should labor to see that no fault remains in the church. He plainly declares that whoever neglects to admonish, rebuke, and correct the wicked — even if he does not approve of them or join in their sin — is still guilty before the Lord. And if that person is in a position where he could also exclude them from the sacraments and fails to do so, he now sins not through another's evil but through his own. He only requires that this be done with the discretion the Lord Himself requires, lest in pulling up the weeds, the wheat be damaged. From this he draws Cyprian's conclusion: 'Let a person mercifully correct what he can, and what he cannot, let him patiently endure — and with love groan and lament over it.'

He says this in response to the rigidity of the Donatists, who — when they saw faults in the churches that bishops rebuked in words but did not punish with excommunication (because they judged this approach ineffective) — bitterly attacked the bishops as traitors to discipline and separated themselves from the flock of Christ in an ungodly schism. The Anabaptists do the same today: refusing to acknowledge any congregation as belonging to Christ unless it shines in every point with angelic perfection, they use their zeal as a pretext to tear down all genuine building up. Such people, says Augustine, do not act out of hatred for other people's wickedness, but out of a desire to maintain their own quarrels. They seek either to draw away or at least to divide the weak people, who are snared by the boasting of their name. Swollen with pride, frenzied with stubbornness, treacherous in their slanders, disruptive with their agitations — lest it become obvious that they lack the light of truth — they hide behind a pretense of harsh severity. And the things Scripture commands to be done with measured and restorative discipline for correcting brothers' faults, preserving genuine love, and maintaining the unity of peace: these they twist into sacrilege of schism and grounds for division. This is how Satan transforms himself into an angel of light — using the occasion of what looks like righteous severity to advocate unmerciful cruelty. His only goal is to corrupt and break the bond of peace and unity. While that bond holds fast, all his power to harm Christians is weakened, his traps of treachery are broken, and his plans for destruction come to nothing.

Augustine especially emphasizes this one thing: if the infection of sin has spread through the whole congregation, then a severe yet merciful discipline is necessary. 'For,' he says, 'schemes of separation are vain, harmful, and full of sacrilege — because they are ungodly and proud, and they trouble the weak who are good far more than they reform the hardened who are wicked.' And what he taught others, he himself faithfully practiced. Writing to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, he laments that drunkenness — so severely condemned in Scripture — runs unchecked throughout Africa, and he urges Aurelius to call a council of bishops to provide a remedy. He adds shortly after: 'These things, I think, should be addressed not harshly, not rigidly, not in an imperious manner — more by teaching than by commanding, more by exhortation than by threatening. For this is how we must deal with a crowd of offenders — but severity is to be used against the sins of a few.' Yet he does not mean that bishops should therefore close their eyes or remain silent about public faults simply because they cannot punish them severely — as he himself explains later. Rather, he wants the measure of correction to be so calibrated that, as much as possible, it brings health to the body rather than destruction. He therefore concludes: 'Therefore the apostle's command must in no way be neglected — to separate the wicked when it can be done without endangering the peace. But this must also be kept: that bearing with one another, we should endeavor to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'

The remaining aspect of discipline — which is not strictly part of the power of the keys — consists in this: that pastors, according to the needs of the times, should call the people to fasting, or to public prayers, or to other exercises of humility, repentance, and faith. The word of God prescribes no fixed time, measure, or form for these things; they are left to the church's judgment. The observance of this aspect has always been practiced by the ancient church from the time of the apostles — and it is just as beneficial today. However, the apostles themselves were not its originators — they took their example from the law and the prophets. There we see that whenever any weighty matter arose, the people were assembled, public prayers were called, and fasting was commanded. The apostles therefore followed a practice that was not new to God's people and that they foresaw would be beneficial. The same holds for other exercises designed to stir the people to their duty or to maintain their reverence and obedience. Examples of this are plentiful throughout the sacred histories and need not be collected here. In sum, this is the principle to hold: whenever there arises a controversy of religion that must be resolved by a synod or ecclesiastical judgment; whenever a minister is to be chosen; whenever any difficult or weighty matter is at hand; and again whenever signs of God's wrath appear — such as plague, war, or famine — it is a holy and beneficial practice for every age that pastors call the people to public fasting and special prayers. If anyone refuses to accept the Old Testament evidence as applicable to the Christian church, the apostles themselves also did the same things. As for prayer itself, I think scarcely anyone will raise a question about that. So let us say something about fasting — since many, not understanding its value, consider it unnecessary; some dismiss it entirely as superfluous; and when its proper use is not well understood, it is easy to slide into superstition.

Holy and true fasting serves three purposes. We fast either to weaken and subdue the flesh so it does not grow unruly, or to be better prepared for prayer and holy meditation, or as an expression of our humbling before God when we wish to acknowledge our guilt before Him. The first purpose does not apply as often to public fasting, since people differ greatly in physical condition and health — it therefore fits better with private fasting. The second purpose applies to both: both the whole church and every individual believer needs this kind of preparation for prayer. The third purpose is equally common to both. There will be times when God strikes a nation with war, plague, or some other calamity — in such a shared affliction the whole people must examine themselves and openly confess their guilt. But if the Lord's hand strikes an individual, he must do the same either alone or with his household. This rests primarily on the disposition of the heart. But when the heart is affected as it ought to be, it will almost inevitably express itself outwardly — and especially when the goal is common edification, so that together in public confession of sin all may give praise to God for His righteousness, and each may encourage the others by example.

Therefore fasting, as a sign of humility, has more frequent use in public settings than among private individuals — although it is relevant to both, as already said. So in the discipline we are now discussing: whenever we must make supplication to God in any weighty matter, it is fitting to combine fasting with prayer. When the Antiochians laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, they joined fasting to prayer in order to commend to God more effectively their ministry of such great importance. So also afterward, when they appointed ministers over churches, they regularly prayed with fasting (Acts 14:3; Acts 14:23). In this kind of fasting they had one aim: to be fresher and more undistracted for prayer. Experience confirms this: when the stomach is full, the mind is not lifted toward God as readily — neither carrying itself to prayer with wholehearted and fervent affection, nor sustaining it. This is the sense of what Luke records about Anna: that she served the Lord with fastings and prayers (Luke 2:37). He is not saying that her worship consisted in fasting, but that the holy woman practiced fasting as a way of sustaining herself in prayer. Such also was the fasting of Nehemiah when he prayed to God with earnest zeal for the deliverance of his people (Nehemiah 1:4). For this reason Paul says that it is good for married people to abstain for a time from relations so that they may give themselves more freely to prayer and fasting (1 Corinthians 7:5). By linking fasting with prayer as a supporting aid, he reminds us that fasting has no value except as it serves this purpose. Furthermore, in that same passage, when he gives married couples the rule that they should fulfill their duty to one another, it is clear he is not speaking of daily prayers, but of those that require more earnest and concentrated attention.

Likewise, if plague, famine, or war begins to spread, or if some calamity seems to threaten a country or people — it is the duty of pastors to call the church to fasting, so that they may humbly entreat the Lord to turn away His wrath. For He signals that He is prepared, and in a sense armed for judgment, when He causes any danger to appear. Therefore, just as accused men in former times would let their beards grow long, leave their hair unkempt, and dress in dark clothing to humble themselves and seek the judge's mercy — so when we stand accused before the judgment seat of God, it honors His glory, serves common edification, and is genuinely beneficial and healing for us to present ourselves in a sorrowful manner, pleading to escape His severity. That this was practiced among the people of Israel is easy to gather from the words of Joel. When he commands a trumpet to be sounded, the congregation to be assembled, fasting to be appointed, and the rest that follows — he is speaking of things established in common practice. He had just before announced that the people's wicked deeds had been examined and that the day of judgment was at hand, summoning them as the accused to plead their cause. He then cries out that they should hasten to sackcloth and ashes, to weeping and fasting — that is, that they should also express their prostration before the Lord with outward signs. Sackcloth and ashes may have suited those times more particularly, but there is no doubt that the assembling together, the weeping, the fasting, and the like also apply to our own era whenever our circumstances call for it. For since this is a holy practice — both for humbling people and for confessing that humility — why should we use it less than the ancient people did in similar need? We read that not only the people of Israel, who had been formed and instructed by God's word, but also the Ninevites — who had no teaching other than the preaching of Jonah — fasted as a sign of sorrow. What reason is there, then, for us not to do the same? But, it is said, fasting is an outward ceremony that came to an end, along with the rest, in Christ. Even so, to this day it is — as it has always been — a very good aid for the faithful and a beneficial reminder to rouse themselves, so that they do not by carelessness and sluggishness increasingly provoke God when He chastises them with His afflictions. Therefore when Christ excuses His apostles for not fasting, He does not say that fasting has been abolished — He simply assigns it to times of sorrow and calamity. 'The time will come,' He says, 'when the bridegroom will be taken away from them.'

But to avoid confusion about what fasting means, let us define it clearly. We do not mean here simply abstinence and frugality in food and drink — but something more specific. The life of the godly should certainly be marked by honest restraint and sobriety, so that throughout its entire course it resembles a kind of fasting as much as possible. But beyond this there is another kind of fasting — a temporary fasting in which we cut back from our usual food and drink for a day or a period of time, placing ourselves under a stricter and more austere abstinence than normal. This consists in three things: timing, quality of food, and quantity. By timing I mean that we should engage in the activities for which fasting is appointed while actually fasting — for example, if a person fasts for a time of public prayer, he should come to it empty. Quality means that all rich and delicate food should be absent; we should be content with plain and simple food, and not stimulate the appetite with fine things. The rule of quantity is that we eat more sparingly and less than we are accustomed — only for necessity, not for pleasure.

We must always be especially on guard against superstition creeping in, as it has in the past to the great harm of the church. It would be far better to have no fasting at all than to practice it diligently while at the same time corrupting it with false and harmful ideas — which the world is always prone to fall into unless pastors guard against it with great faithfulness and wisdom. The first priority, therefore, is to insist on what Joel teaches: that people should cut their hearts, not their garments. That is, pastors must warn the people that God places little value on fasting in itself, unless it is accompanied by an inward disposition of the heart — genuine hatred of sin and of oneself, genuine humility, and genuine sorrow arising from the fear of God. Fasting is beneficial for no other reason than that it serves as a supporting aid to these inward realities. For there is nothing God abhors more than when people use outward signs and visible displays in place of genuine purity of heart, laboring under a false pretense to deceive themselves. This is why Isaiah sharply rebukes the Jews' hypocrisy — they thought they had satisfied God by fasting, while continuing to nurture wickedness and impure thoughts in their hearts. 'Is this,' he says, 'the fast the Lord requires?' And so on. Hypocritical fasting, therefore, is not merely unprofitable and pointless effort — it is a great abomination. A related error must also be carefully avoided: that fasting be treated as a meritorious work or a form of worship. Since fasting is in itself a neutral practice and has value only by reference to the ends it is meant to serve, it is most harmful superstition to lump it together with the works God commands as intrinsically necessary. This was the error of the Manichaeans of old, and when Augustine refutes them he teaches plainly enough that fasting is to be judged by no other ends than those I have described — and is acceptable to God only when directed to those ends. The third error, though not as impious, is still dangerous: pressing fasting as one of the chief duties, to be observed with great strictness and rigor, and praising it so extravagantly that people think they have accomplished something remarkable when they have fasted. In this regard I cannot entirely excuse the ancient church fathers — they planted seeds of superstition and provided the occasion for the tyranny that arose later. Sometimes we find sound and wise teachings on fasting in their writings, but then we also encounter excessive praises of fasting that rank it among the chief virtues.

By that time the superstitious observance of Lent had become widespread: the common people thought they were doing something noteworthy in God's service by it, and the pastors commended it as a holy following of Christ. Yet it is plain that Christ did not fast to set an example for others to imitate, but rather to demonstrate at the very outset of His proclamation of the Gospel that this was not a human doctrine but had come down from heaven. It is remarkable that so obvious an error — one refuted by so many clear arguments — could have crept in among people of such sharp judgment. Christ did not fast regularly (which He would necessarily have done if He intended to establish a law of annual fasting), but only once — when He was preparing Himself for the proclamation of the Gospel. Furthermore, He fasted not in the manner of ordinary people, as He would have done if His intention were to provoke others to follow Him. Instead His fast was such as to inspire wonder at Him rather than imitation of Him. And there is no other reason for this fast than for the fast of Moses when he received the law at the Lord's hand. Since the miracle was given through Moses to establish the authority of the law, it could not be absent from Christ — lest the Gospel appear to rank below the law. Yet after Moses' time, no one ever thought to use Moses as a basis for requiring that form of fasting from the people of Israel. None of the holy prophets and fathers followed it — and they certainly had zeal and devotion enough for godly exercises. As for what is said of Elijah — that he went forty days without food and drink — that served no other purpose than to show the people that he had been raised up to restore the law from which almost all Israel had departed. Therefore, presenting fasting under the title and pretext of following Christ was sheer wrongheaded zeal and full of superstition. In the practice of fasting there was, however, great diversity even then, as Cassiodorus records from Socrates in the ninth book of his history. The Romans, he says, fasted only three weeks, but during those weeks the fast was continuous except on Sundays and Saturdays. The Slavonians and Greeks fasted six weeks; others seven — but their fasting was observed at intervals. They differed no less in the kinds of food allowed: some ate nothing but bread and water; some added vegetables; some did not abstain from fish and fowl; some made no distinction in food at all. Augustine also mentions this diversity in his later letter to Januarius.

Then came worse times. To the misguided zeal of the people was added both the ignorance and crudeness of the bishops, along with a lust for control and a tyrannical harshness. Wicked laws were made that bound consciences with destructive requirements. Eating meat was forbidden, as though it made a person unclean. Sacrilegious ideas were piled on top of each other until they reached the bottom of all error. And to leave no form of perverseness untried, they began, under a most absurd pretense of abstinence, to mock God. For what is sought at those times is praise for fasting — amid the finest and most exquisite foods. No delicacies are considered too much; there is never greater abundance, variety, or richness of food. In such lavish preparation they imagine they are serving God rightly. I will not even speak of how they gorge themselves more disgracefully during their would-be holy seasons than at any other time. In short, they consider it the highest form of worshiping God to abstain from meat while indulging freely in every other kind of luxury. Conversely, they treat it as the most extreme wickedness — almost beyond remedy — if a person so much as tastes a tiny piece of bacon or plain meat with coarse bread. Jerome records that even in his time there were some who mocked God with such foolishness: unwilling to eat oil, they had the most lavish delicacies brought to them from every direction. To overcome the natural desire for water, they abstained from drinking it but had sweet and expensive drinks prepared — which they sipped not from a cup, but from a shell. What was then the fault of a few is now the common practice of all wealthy people: they fast for no other reason than to feast more sumptuously and lavishly afterward. But I will not waste many words on a matter that is not in doubt. This much I will say: in fasting as in every other part of discipline, the papists have nothing right, nothing pure, nothing well-ordered — nothing that could give them any reason for pride, as though anything praiseworthy remained among them.

There follows another part of discipline, which belongs specifically to the clergy. This is contained in the canons the ancient bishops established for themselves and their order — such as: no clergy member should engage in hunting, gambling, or excessive banqueting; no one should practice usury or trade; no one should attend immodest dances; and similar ordinances. Penalties were added to give the canons authority, so that none should break them without consequence. To this end, each bishop was entrusted with the governance of his own clergy — to rule his ministers according to the canons and keep them to their duty. For this purpose, yearly reviews and synods were established, so that anyone negligent in his duty would be admonished, and anyone who had offended would be punished in proportion to his offense. The bishops themselves also had their annual provincial synods — and in ancient times, two synods per year — by which they were held accountable if they had done anything contrary to their duty. If any bishop had been too harsh or oppressive toward his clergy, an appeal could be made to those synods even on the complaint of a single person. The most severe punishment was removal from office and temporary exclusion from the Lord's Supper. Because this was a continuous practice, they never dismissed a synod without appointing the time and place for the next one. The calling of a general council belonged to the emperor alone, as all ancient council summons attest. As long as this discipline flourished, the clergy required of the people in words no more than they themselves performed in example and deed. Indeed, they were considerably stricter with themselves than with the people. And rightly so — the people are appropriately governed with a gentler, more lenient discipline, while the clergy must exercise sharper judgment among themselves and be less tolerant of their own failures than of others'. How completely all this has fallen out of use need not be rehearsed, since today nothing can be imagined more unrestrained and dissolute than the clergy — their licentiousness has become so open that the whole world speaks of it. To prevent all antiquity from seeming utterly buried among them, they do maintain certain shadows that deceive the eyes of the simple — but these shadows come no closer to ancient practice than an ape's mimicry comes to what people do through reason and deliberate intention. There is a notable passage in Xenophon where he describes how disgracefully the Persians had departed from the ordinances of their ancestors and had fallen from a rigorous way of life into softness and self-indulgence — while still claiming to keep the ancient customs. In the time of Cyrus, sobriety and self-restraint so thoroughly prevailed that there was no need to wipe one's nose — and to do so was considered shameful. But with later generations this became a pious observance: no one was to blow his nose, but he was free to sniff back the foul humors built up by gluttonous eating until they rotted inside him. The ancient rule forbade bringing wine jars to the table — but drinking until being carried away drunk was perfectly acceptable. The rule was to eat only once a day; these worthy successors did not abolish it, but they allowed the feasting to continue from midday to midnight. The custom was for travelers to complete their day's journey before eating — but it became acceptable, to avoid fatigue, to shorten the journey to two hours. Whenever the papists hold up their counterfeit rules to claim resemblance to the holy fathers, this example will sufficiently expose their foolish imitation — no painter could portray it more vividly.

In one thing they are excessively rigid and unyielding: they do not permit priests to marry. But how freely they allow fornication to go unpunished among themselves need not be spelled out. Emboldened by their supposed celibacy, they have hardened themselves against all manner of wickedness. This prohibition clearly shows how pestilent all their traditions are — it has not only stripped the church of good and qualified pastors, but has introduced a terrible flood of evils and driven many souls into despair. The prohibition of marriage for priests is a wicked tyranny, contrary not only to God's word but to all fairness. First, it was never lawful for men to forbid what the Lord had left free. Furthermore, God has expressly provided by His word that this freedom must not be violated — this is so clear it requires no lengthy demonstration. I will not even mention how Paul in several places commands that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. But what could be said more forcefully than this: the Holy Spirit declares through Paul that in the last times there will be wicked men who forbid marriage — and he calls them not merely deceivers, but agents of the devil. This, then, is a prophecy, a holy word of the Holy Spirit, by which He armed the church beforehand against this danger: the prohibition of marriage is the teaching of demons. They think they have cleverly escaped this by applying the passage to Montanus, the Tatians, the Encratites, and other ancient heretics. 'Only those men condemned marriage outright,' they say. 'We do not condemn it — we simply exclude the clergy from it, for whom we consider it unsuitable.' As though the prophecy, first fulfilled in those ancient heretics, could not also apply to them — or as though the childish evasion were worth hearing, that they claim not to forbid marriage because they do not forbid it to everyone. This is like a tyrant arguing that a law is not unjust simply because it only oppresses one part of the population.

They argue that the priest must be distinguished from the people by some special mark. As though the Lord had not already foreseen this — and established precisely what distinctive qualities priests ought to have. By this they effectively accuse the apostle of disrupting order and defacing the beauty of the church — since when Paul drew out the complete picture of a good bishop, he dared to include marriage among the other qualities he required. I know how they interpret this passage — namely, that only a man who has not had a second wife may be chosen. And I grant that this is not a new interpretation. But that it is a false interpretation is plain from the text itself, which shortly after describes the qualities the wives of bishops and deacons ought to have. Paul counts marriage among the virtues of a bishop; these men teach that it is an intolerable blemish in the clergy. And — good heavens — not content with this general degradation, they call it in their canons 'uncleanness' and 'defilement of the flesh.' Let everyone consider from what workshop these ideas have come. Christ honored marriage so highly that He made it an image of His holy union with the church. What could be said more honorably to establish the dignity of marriage? With what face, then, can that be called unclean or defiled in which shines a likeness of the spiritual grace of Christ?

Now when their prohibition so plainly contradicts the word of God, they nevertheless find something in Scripture to defend it. The Levitical priests were required to be separated from their wives whenever their turn came to minister, so that they might handle the holy things in a state of purity. Therefore, they argue, it would be most unfitting for our sacred rites — which are far more noble and performed daily — to be handled by married men. As though the minister of the Gospel stood in the same position as the Levitical priesthood. Those priests, as symbolic figures, represented Christ — who, as the mediator between God and people, would reconcile the Father to us with complete purity. Since sinners could not in every respect embody the image of His holiness, they were commanded to purify themselves beyond ordinary human practice when they came to the sanctuary — because they were at that moment specifically representing Christ, appearing at the tabernacle as peacemakers to reconcile the people to God, in the image of the heavenly judgment seat. Since the pastors of the church today do not carry that symbolic role, comparing them to the Levitical priests is pointless. Therefore the apostle speaks without qualification and with confidence: marriage is honorable among all people, but for fornicators and adulterers the judgment of God awaits. The apostles themselves confirmed by their own example that marriage is not incompatible with the holiness of any office, however excellent — for Paul testifies that they not only had wives but carried them along on their journeys.

It was also astonishing arrogance for them to present this requirement of celibacy as a necessity — to the great reproach of the ancient church, which, though it excelled in remarkable learning about God, excelled even more in holiness. For if they do not respect the apostles (as they sometimes boldly dismiss them), what will they do with all the ancient fathers, who clearly not only permitted but actively approved of marriage in the episcopal order? Their stance amounts to accusing the ancient church of nurturing a corrupt profaning of sacred things, because the Lord's mysteries were not properly revered among them. The question of requiring celibacy was raised at the Nicene Synod — as there are always certain overly scrupulous people who invent new things to draw admiration to themselves. But what was actually decreed? The council agreed with the judgment of Paphnutius, who declared that a man's living with his own wife is chastity. Therefore marriage remained holy among them — it brought them no shame and was not considered to tarnish the ministry.

Then came times in which an excessively superstitious devotion to celibacy took hold. With it came those frequent and extravagant praises of virginity, to the point where the people could scarcely think any other virtue comparable to it. And although marriage was not condemned as unclean, its dignity was so diminished and its holiness so obscured that a person who did not abstain from marriage seemed not to have enough ambition for perfection. From this arose the canons that first forbade those who had already been ordained as priests from marrying, and then refused ordination to any but unmarried men or those who had left their wives altogether. These things, because they appeared to add dignity to the priesthood, were received with great approval — I grant — even from ancient times. But if our opponents appeal to antiquity against us, my first answer is this: the freedom for bishops to be married remained both in the apostles' time and for some ages afterward. The apostles themselves, and other highly authoritative pastors who succeeded them, made use of this freedom without hesitation. The example of that earlier church ought to carry more weight with us than to make us think something is either unlawful or unsuitable that was then practiced with approval. My second point is that the era which, out of an exaggerated love for virginity, became biased against marriage, did not impose the requirement of celibacy on priests as though it were intrinsically necessary — they simply preferred unmarried men over married ones. My third answer is that they did not enforce this so strictly as to compel with force and necessity those who were not suited for celibacy to remain continent. For while they punished fornication with very severe laws, of those who contracted marriage they decreed no more than that they must step down from their office.

Therefore, whenever the defenders of this new tyranny appeal to antiquity to justify their celibacy requirement, we will answer them by demanding that they first restore the old purity to their priests: that they remove adulterers and fornicators; that they not allow those who are forbidden the lawful and chaste use of marriage to run unpunished into every form of lust; that they revive the discontinued discipline that once restrained all such licentiousness; and that they free the church from the foul corruption by which it has long been disfigured. When they have done all this, they must then be reminded not to boast as necessary what is in itself free and depends on what is beneficial for the church. I say this not because I think any circumstance justifies imposing the burden of celibacy on the clergy through canons — but so that thoughtful people may see with what face our opponents slander the holy marriage of priests by invoking the name of antiquity. As for the fathers whose writings survive — even they, when expressing their own judgment (with the exception of Jerome), did not so spitefully degrade the honor of marriage. We will be content with one commendation from Chrysostom — because since he was a leading champion of virginity, he cannot be suspected of having been more generous than others in praising marriage. He says this: 'The first degree of chastity is pure virginity; the second is faithful marriage. Therefore, the second kind of virginity is the chaste love of matrimony.'