加爾文基督教要義(78)卷四第十二章 論教會的訓戒及其對制裁和革除的主要用處

第十二章 論教會的訓戒及其對制裁和革除的主要用處
　　我將教會訓戒問題稽延至今，現在只能用幾句話來討論，以便進而討論其他題目。關於訓戒，主要是有賴於鑰匙權，和屬靈的司法權。為求更容易了解這一點，我們要將教會分為兩大部分，即教牧和會眾。「教牧」一辭通指——雖然不甚貼切——一切在教會中供職的。我首先要談到大家應服從的一般訓戒；然後再談到教牧在一般訓戒外所受的特別訓戒。但因有些人恨惡訓戒，甚至討厭這一名字，他們就當留意下面所提的：若是一個社會，甚至一個小家庭，要保持正常狀態，也不能沒有訓戒，那麼教會就更需要訓戒，因為教會是理當最有秩序的。正如基督救人之道，乃是教會的靈魂，照樣訓戒就成了聯繁一切肢體，並保持每一肢體於其適當地位的韌帶。所以，無論是誰，凡想要取消訓戒，或阻擋恢復它的，不管他所作的是出於故意，或是出於疏忽，總是促使教會趨於瓦解之途。倘若人人都任意依循己見，結局一定不堪設想。但是結局不免如此，除非有人以個人的規勸和督責等方法，來貫徹聖道的傳講，使之不歸於徒然。所以訓戒是對拒絕基督聖道的倔強之輩的一種約束，或說是對懈怠萎靡之人的一種激勵；有時它也是慈父手中的杖，使那些犯大罪的人，在慈愛和基督之靈的溫柔氣氛中受懲罰。當我們看到教會因無心或無力使人順服主而臨近可怕的敗壞時，必要有一種補救之法；而訓戒乃是為基督所命令為信徒所採用的唯一補救方法。
　　二、訓戒的第一個基礎，是私人的規勸；那就是說，倘若有人失職，或行為失檢，或生活放蕩，或有該受譴責之處，他就當接受規勸；遇著必要時，人人都當學習規勸他的弟兄；但是牧師和長老，較別人更當殷勤履行此一責任，因為他們被召，是不僅對會眾講道，而且在他們公開的教導不夠發生效力時，也當在各人家裡規勸人。保羅也如此行，他說，他「或在眾人面前，或在各人家裡教導人」，並向人證明，說：「無論何人死亡，罪不在我身上」，因他曾「晝夜不住地流淚，勸戒各人」（徒20： 20，26，31）。因為牧師不僅必須向眾人宣布他們對基督所應盡的本分，而且必須對那些不注重或不服從聖道的人有實行訓戒的方法和權柄，聖道才能獲得完全的威權，併產生應有的效果。倘若有人頑固拒絕這種規勸，或繼續用不軌的行為來輕看規勸，那麼，基督命令我們在見證人面前，再勸告他一次，若是不聽他們，就把他召到教會面前，那就是到長老的會中，受公眾權威更嚴厲的勸告。倘若他尊敬教會，他就會服從；但是，倘若他不聽規勸，執迷不悟，主就命令把他當作輕視教會的人，從信徒的會中驅除（太18：15-17）。
　　三、但是基督在這一段話中，只說到私人的過失，所以必須分辨有些罪乃是私下的，有些罪乃是公開的。關於頭一種罪，基督對各人說：「趁著只有他和你在一處的時候，指出他的錯來」（太18： 15）。關於公開的罪，保羅對提摩太說：「犯罪的人，當在眾人面前責備他，叫其餘的人也可以懼怕」（提前5：10）。關於前者基督曾說過：「倘若你的弟兄得罪你；」凡不好爭辯的人，都懂得這好像是說：「倘若有人得罪你，而只有你知道，沒有別人知道。」但保羅指導提摩太去公開指責當眾犯罪的人，他已從他自己對彼得所行的示範出來了。因為當彼得在眾人面前犯了錯誤，他不私下指責他，卻在教會眾人面前指責他（加2：11，14）。那麼，合法的方式乃是，糾正私人過失，要採取基督所指導的步驟；至於公開的，尤其是冒犯大家的過犯，就須立刻由教會來嚴肅糾正。
　　四、在各種不同的罪中，也必須有所分別；有的是較小的過失，有的是極大的罪行。為糾正嚴重的罪行，光用勸告和譴責，是不夠的，必須用更嚴厲的辦法；正如保羅對那亂倫的哥林多人不以譴責為滿足，倒在罪行一經證實之後，就立刻宣布將他逐出教會。這樣，我們就更明白，教會按主的道糾正罪惡的屬靈司法權，乃是健全教會的最佳保障，秩序的根基，以及合一的連結。因此教會將那些犯通姦，野合，偷竊，搶劫，作亂，偽誓，妄證等等罪行的人，和那些在小過上曾受規勸，卻故意輕視神和他的審判的頑固分子逐出教會，並沒有濫用不合理的權威，而只是行使神所賦予的司法權。神為使人不輕看教會的這判斷，和信徒共同的指責，他曾證實說，這無非是他的判斷，凡他們在地上所行的，必在天上蒙他批准。因為他們有主的道來懲罰悖逆的人；也有主的道來接受悔罪的人。那些相信教會沒有這種訓戒而還能存在的，乃是見解犯了錯誤，因為我們不能安全地廢棄主預先見到那為我們所必須的補救法；它是多麼必須的，可以從它的種種用處上表現出來。
　　五、在糾正和革除的懲戒上，教會有三個目的。第一個目的是要使那些聲名狼藉和罪惡深重的人，不得列於基督徒之數中，以免羞辱神的名，把聖教會看為是惡人和可棄絕的人的巢穴一樣。教會既是基督的身體，若為那些惡劣腐臭的肢體所玷污，就未有不叫元首蒙羞的。因此為求使教會中沒有什麼羞辱基督美名的，就必須將一切聲名狼藉和有損於基督教信仰的人，革除於他的家屬之外。這裡我們也必須特別關心聖餐，不胡亂把它施給人，以致把它褻瀆了。凡是受託發聖餐的人，若明知故犯，容許一個當被拒絕和不配領餐的人來領受，他就是犯了褻瀆神的罪，好像是將主的聖體給狗一樣。因此，屈梭多模很嚴厲地責備一些神甫，因為他們懼怕那有權勢的人，不敢拒絕他們來領聖餐。他說：「神要從你手裡索取人的血。你若懼怕人，人要揶揄你；你若懼怕神，你也必在人中受尊重。我們不要怕穿朝服戴王冠的人。我們在聖事上大有權柄。至於我本人，我寧願捐軀流血，而不願在這褻瀆上有分。」我們為保障這最神聖的聖禮不受誹謗起見，在發聖餐時，必須極其審慎，而這就需要有教會的司法權。第二個目的是要使好人不至因與壞人常在一起而受腐化。因為我們容易趨於錯誤，再沒有什麼比壞樣更易引誘我們離開正直行為的。使徒保羅指示哥林多人革除一個犯亂倫罪的人，就用了這種訓戒。他說：「一點面酵能使全團發起來」（林前5：6）。他從這一方面看到非常大的危險，甚至禁止信徒與惡人往來。「我寫信給你們說，若有人稱為弟兄，是行淫亂的，或貪婪的，或拜偶像的，或辱罵的，或醉酒的，或勒索的，這樣的人，不可與他相交，就是與他吃飯都不可」（林前5：11）。第三個目的是要使那些受制裁或被革除的人，既因自己的卑鄙蒙羞，就可以悔改。這樣，處罰他們的不義，甚至是對他們有益的，刑杖可以喚起悔罪之心，姑息則只足以使之更加頑固。使徒保羅說下面的話，也有同樣的意思。他說：「若有人不聽從我們這信上的話，要記下他，不和他交往，叫他自覺羞愧」（帖后3：14）。當他提到那犯亂倫罪的哥林多人，他又說：「我已經判斷了行這事的人，要把這樣的人交給撒但，使他的靈魂在主耶穌的日子可以得救」（林前5：3，5）。照我所知道的，這就是說，他使那人暫時被定罪，使他的靈魂可以永遠得救。所以他稱之為交給撒但，因為魔鬼是在教會外，而基督是在教會內。有人以為這是說到今生由撒但的差役所加於身體上的刑罰，我認為這說法似乎是非常可疑的。
　　六、我們既已提到訓戒的目的，現在還要檢討教會如何執行這種司法權。第一我們要留意上面所提到的區分，即有些罪是公開的，有些罪是私下不大顯露的。公開的罪不只為一兩人所知，而是公開犯罪，玷辱全教會。所謂私下的罪，我不是指完全不為人所知的罪如假冒為善之人的罪——因為這些罪教會從不過問——而只是指那些並不是沒有見證人，同時卻不是公開的罪。第一種罪並不需要採取基督所列舉的逐漸勸導辦法，而是一經發現，教會就應立刻把犯罪者傳來，按照他所犯的罪予以處分。第二種罪按照基督所指示的規律不必提到教會面前，除非犯罪者不服私人勸告。一旦將犯罪者提交教會裁判的時候，即須注意輕罪和重罪的分別。輕罪則不需過於嚴厲；予以口頭指責也就夠了，用意不是叫他失望沮喪，乃是以慈親般的溫柔，叫他悔悟，使他覺得這種糾正不是苦痛，而是快樂。但是重罪則應受嚴厲處分，因為那犯重罪使教會大大受損的人，也只受口頭的責備，乃是不夠的；他理當暫時被剝奪聖餐，直到他表現相當的悔改。因為保羅不只口頭斥責那哥林多的罪人，而且將他革出教會，並責備哥林多人縱容他太久。這種秩序在古時較純潔的教會中，只要還有合法的教會管理存在，便一向保存著。因為倘若有人犯了足以冒犯人的罪，他就首先被命令停領聖餐，次則在神面前自卑，並在教會面前表明他悔改了。同時還有種種嚴肅的儀式，叫犯罪者履行，用以表明他的悔罪。一旦罪人履行了這些事，使教會滿意，他就受按手禮，再得領受聖餐。這種再得領受聖餐，居普良屢稱為「和好」。他簡略敘述這禮說：「他們花了充分時間行補贖，然後來認罪，由主教和教士們用按手禮恢復領受聖餐的特權。」雖然主教和教士們主持重新收納犯罪者的和好禮，然而必須取得眾人的同意，正如居普良在別處所說明的。
　　七、這種訓戒，沒有人能夠免除；自王公以至庶人都當服從，因為它是基督所立的訓戒，而基督是一切執政掌權者都當順服的。因此，當安波羅修因提阿多修在帖撒羅尼迦所行的大屠殺而拒絕他領聖餐的時候，提阿多修就將他皇帝的位分擱置，在教會中當眾哀哭，承認他受人的欺騙所犯的罪，並呻吟流淚，請求赦免。因為偉大的君王不當以在萬王之王的基督面前匍匐祈求為羞辱，也不當因受教會的裁判而不愉快。他們既然在自己的宮殿中，除阿諛外，鮮少聽到什麼，他們就更需要領受主藉他僕人們的口所給的糾正；他們甚至應當願望牧師不姑息他們，好為主所姑息。我在此不用提到誰應執行此種制裁，因我在別處已經說到了。我只要加上一點，就是革除犯罪會友的合法手續，照著保羅所指示的，不僅當由長老們執行，而且須為教會所知道所贊同；然而會眾不是主持這事的，而是以見證人和守衛者的身分監視這事的，以免少數人由於不正的動機而有所操縱。不只在呼籲神名時，而且在整個程序上，事事都當出以嚴肅，表現基督是在場主持判決。
　　八、但我們應謹記，教會必須寓溫柔於嚴厲之中。因為按照保羅的吩咐，對一個受制裁的人，總需極其謹慎，「免得他憂愁太過，甚至沉淪了」（林后2： 7）；若是這樣，補救就成了毒素。節制所循的規律，可從所要達到的目的推出：逐出教會的目的是叫罪人悔改，除去壞樣，以免基督的名受褻瀆，以免有人效尤；倘若我們能把這些目的放在心裡，就易於知道嚴厲的限度安在。因此，當犯罪者對教會證明了有悔改的心，並盡他所能的塗抹了他對人的冒犯，就不當再對他嚴厲；否則就是過於嚴厲，在這一方面，我們不能原諒古人過於嚴厲，簡直違反主的指示，以致造成最危險的後果。因為他們對一個犯罪者處以嚴厲的補贖，禁止他領聖餐，有時三年，有時四年，有時七年，有時甚至終生；結果若不是叫人假冒為善，就是產生極端的沮喪。再者，當一個人第二次跌倒了，他們就不許他有第二次的悔改，並將他終生逐出教會；這既不是有益的，也不是合理的。凡對此題有健全判斷的，就會發現他們在這一點上缺乏審慎。但是我寧願指責當時的一般作風，而不願指責那些執行的人；因為在他們當中，確實有人對此不滿，但他們隨從習俗，因此他們沒有權柄去改革。居普良說，他之如此嚴厲，並非是由於自願。他說：「我們的忍耐，憐憫，和寬仁對來者不拒。我願意人人都回到教會來。我願意與我們同當兵的，都集合在基督的營中，一切弟兄都被納入父神的家中。我饒恕一切；我掩蓋甚多；因切願將一切弟兄集合，就連他們違背神的罪，我也不加嚴厲檢討；我願意饒恕人的過失，甚於我所當行的，以致不能無錯。我對那些履行了謙卑和誠懇的補贖而來認罪的人，隨時以完全的愛心來接納。」屈梭多模較為嚴厲，然而他也說：「倘若上帝是如此仁愛，他的牧人為什麼定要如此嚴厲呢？」我們也知道奧古斯丁對多納徒派是如何仁厚，他對那些承認己錯的人，在他們悔改之後，毫不猶豫地贊成他們可以立刻恢復他們的主教職。但當時因有一種相反的辦法流行著，這些教父就不得不放棄他們自己的主張，以隨從那已成立的作風。
　　九、既然全教會懲罰一個跌倒的弟兄，必須表示寬大仁慈，不可過於嚴厲，而當依照保羅的吩咐，向他「顯出堅定不移的愛心來」（林后2： 8），那麼，每個人也當表示寬大仁慈。所以對於凡被逐出教會的人，我們不可把他們從選民的數中排除，或把他們看為絕望了。我們固可看他們為教外人，因此為在基督以外的，但這只是當他們被革除的時候。即令他們在那時候表示頑強甚於謙卑，我們仍舊只能讓他們受神的審判，並盼望他們將來能較現在的光景為佳，並且要不住地在神前為他們代禱。總之，我們不要把人判定永死，因他只處於神的手中和權下，我們只當照著主的律法，以判決他的行為為足。我們只要順從這個規律，就是遵守主的判斷，而不是宣布我們自己的判斷。我們最好不要僭越判斷權，免得我們限制神的權柄，並以人的法律來限制神的憐憫；因為神若以為好，最壞的人就可改變為最好的人，教外人就可接納入教會。主這樣行，為要挫折人的意見，壓制人的僭妄，這僭妄若不加以約束，就會濫用判斷權。
　　十、當基督說，凡由他僕人在地上所捆綁的，在天上也要捆綁，他是將這種捆綁許可權於教會的懲戒；把人逐出教會，並非是叫他們永遠沉淪滅亡，而是叫他們因聽到自己的行為和生活被定了罪，就知道他們除非悔改，就會永被定罪。因為逐出教會和咒詛不同。教會當很少使用咒詛，甚至永不使用，因為咒詛阻止一切赦免，判定人永遠滅亡；而逐出教會不過是懲戒他的行為。教會雖然也有處罰，然而這處罰的目的是要以將來的刑罰警告他，好召他迴轉得救。倘若他服從，教會應隨時準備收納他。因此，教會的訓戒雖不許我們與被革除的人發生私交，然而我們須盡所能，促使他們悔改，重返於教會的團契中，正如使徒保羅所教訓我們的，說：「不要以他為仇人，要勸他如弟兄」（帖后3：15）。除非每一個教友和教會全體都有這種體貼的心，我們的訓戒就有速速流於殘酷的危險。
　　十一、在施行訓戒上還有必須特別放寬的一點，是由奧古斯丁與多納徒派爭論時所遵守的，那就是：倘若有人看到長老會議對糾正過失太不努力，他不得因此立刻脫離教會；而牧師們自己倘若不能照著自己心中的願望來改革應行糾正的事，他們也不得因此離棄牧職，或因過於嚴厲，而騷擾全教會。他下面的話是很有道理的：「誰儘力以斥責來加以糾正，或將那不能糾正的加以革除，卻不破壞和平的團結，又或將那非破壞和平的團結便不能加以革除的，則以溫和果斷來加以處分，誰就是能免於咎責的。」他在另一處指明理由說，因為「一切教會訓戒的虔誠秩序和方法，應當常常在和平的團結中保守聖靈所賜合而為一的心；而這合而為一，使徒保羅命令我們要以互相容忍來保守；若沒有這種合一，懲罰的藥劑就不僅是徒然的，甚至是有毒素的，而結果便不成其為藥劑了。」他又說「凡留心考慮這些事的人，既不會為保持合一而忽略嚴格的訓戒，也不會因無節制的糾正而破壞團結。」固然奧氏承認努力澄清教會的瑕疵，不僅是牧師的責任，也是每個教友應去努力負起的責任；他又完全承認，一個人對惡人若忽略規勸，指責，和糾正，這人自己雖不贊成惡人，也不與他同夥，可是在主眼中，這人也是有罪的；但是，凡有職權拒絕罪人參加聖禮的，若不履行職權，這人就不是在別人的罪上有分，而是自己有罪；然而奧氏囑咐我們要聽主的警教：「恐怕薅稗子，連麥子也拔出來」（太13：29）。因此，他與居普良有同樣的結論說：「因此，人要存憐憫的心，糾正他所能的；他所不能的，他要耐心忍受，並以愛心哀痛。」
　　十二、上面奧古斯丁所說的話，是針對多納徒派的嚴厲而說的。這些多納徒派的人看到主教只以口頭指責教會的罪惡，而不施行逐出教會的處分，就認為這不足以產生好的效果，所以很忿怒地反抗主教，認他們為不忠於訓戒之職守，如是激起了不虔敬的分裂，而自行脫離基督的羊群。這種行為亦為今日的重洗派所採取，他們否認任何教會是屬基督的，除非它在各方面表現天使般的完全，他們以熱忱為借口來破壞教會。奧古斯丁說：「這種人激昂起來，並非是因恨惡別人的不義，乃是因自己好爭辯，想以自己誇大的虛妄來牢籠人，引人完全背離正道，或至少把軟弱的眾人分裂；這些人因驕矜而意氣揚揚，因頑固而狂怒無狀，用讒言誹謗來施行陰險，用煽亂來激起騷擾，為求使人不至發覺他們缺乏真理的亮光，乃以嚴厲處分別人為護符來掩飾自己。聖經本來命令我們在糾正弟兄的過失所行的事上，不當違反愛心的誠意，擾亂和平的團結，而只當用溫和的補救方法。他們卻濫用這些事，作為造成分裂的機會。這樣，撒但就裝作一個光明的天使，把公義的制裁變為殘酷，無非是要破壞教會的和平與團結；這團結若得以保守在基督徒中，撒但危害他們的一切能力，就必削弱，他的陰謀陷井，就必破裂，而他毀滅他們的計劃，也就必歸於徒然。」
　　十三、有一件事由奧古斯丁特別提出，那就是，倘若某種罪傳染到教會全體，就必須用嚴厲和憐憫的心，來施行嚴格的訓戒。他說：「分裂教會的企圖乃是毒狠得罪神的，因為它們是出於人的不虔和驕傲，其擾亂軟弱的善人，甚於糾正膽大的惡人。」奧氏在此處為別人所規定的，他自己也篤實躬行。因為他寫信給迦太基的主教奧熱流（Aurelius），提到醉酒為聖經所嚴厲反對，而這罪盛行於北非而無懲罰，所以勸奧熱流召集一個省區會議，以謀補救之方。他立刻加上說：「我相信這些事不能靠嚴厲或專橫來壓服，而必須視教導勝於命令，勸告勝於恫嚇。因為這是對付多數犯者的方法；嚴厲辦法只能對付少數人的罪。」然而正如他往後所說明的，他不是要主教因著不能用嚴厲來刑罰公眾的罪，就佯為不見；他的意思是說，糾正罪過，須以節制行之，使其對人有益而無害。所以他下結論說：「我們自必遵守使徒保羅叫我們將惡人趕出教會的話（林前5：13），不過我們應當以不擾亂教會的和平為原則，因為這原是使徒保羅的意思；我們也當實行他的另一吩咐，（用愛心互相寬容，用和平彼此聯絡，竭力保守聖靈所賜合而為一的心。弗4：2，3）」。
　　十四、嚴格說來，訓戒的其他部分不屬於鑰匙權以內，即如牧師按照時代的需要應當勸勉會眾實行禁食，嚴肅祈禱，或自卑，悔改，和信仰上的一些操練。對這一切，主的道既未規定時間，限度，和方式，教會可自行裁決。這些非常有益的事，古代教會從使徒的時候起也常常遵行。但使徒自己並不是這些事的創始者，他們不過從律法和先知的榜樣中採取了這些事。因為我們從律法和先知書上發現，每遇有大事發生時，領袖便召集百姓，吩咐他們禁食祈禱．所以眾使徒乃是隨著上帝的子民所慣行的事，和他們預先看為有益的事去行。而其他鼓勵百姓盡責和順服的操練，也同此一理。這種例子在教會歷史中，不勝枚舉。總而言之，每逢有宗教爭端發生而須由會議裁決時，每逢選主教牧時，每逢有重大或艱難事件待決時，又每逢發現神忿怒之象，諸如飢荒，瘟疫，或戰爭時，總要由牧師勸勉百姓大家禁食，懇切禱告；這乃是虔誠的風習，也是在各時代都有益的。有人若以為從舊約上引來的例證為不合基督教會之用，就須知道眾使徒也顯然這樣作了。關於祈禱，我想很少有人要提出爭論。因此我們只須對禁食有所說明，因為許多人既不知道它的用途，就以為它是不必要的，還有人棄絕它為多餘的舉動；在另一方面，若不明白它的用途，就容易流於迷信。
　　十五、聖潔合法的禁食是要達到三個目的。我們實行禁食，或是為克制肉體，使它不至於放縱，或是為祈禱和虔誠的默想作準備，或是我們想在神的面前承認自己的罪，表明我們在他面前謙卑。第一個目的不常適用於大眾的禁食中，因為眾人的體質和健康是不一樣的；因此它只適用於私人的禁食中。第二個目的適用於眾人和個人，這種祈禱的準備工夫對教會全體，和對信徒個人，都是必須的。第三個目的也是如此。因為神有時用戰爭，瘟疫或其他災禍，來折磨一個國家；在這種共同的災禍中，全國人民都認罪，乃是最適當的。當主的手管教一個人時，他自己或同全家的人也應當同樣認罪。固然認罪主要是在乎人的心，但當心中受感動時，就不能不表之於外，特別是假如這能促進大家的德行；因之大家藉著公開認罪，就可共同承認神的公義，用榜樣彼此互相鼓勵。
　　十六、所以作為謙卑表示的禁食，用之於公眾方面，比較用之於私人方面為多。但正如我們所提到的，它是適用於兩方面。因此，為要實行我們現在所討論的訓戒起見，每當有重大事情，要向神祈禱時，使信眾聯合禁食禱告，乃是合理的。例如當安提阿的信徒「按手在保羅和巴拿巴的頭上」時，為要更能使他們極重要的聖職蒙神喜悅起見，他們就「禁食禱告」（徒11：2，3）。保羅和巴拿巴後來「在各教會中選立長老」，也「禁食禱告」 （徒14：23）。這禁食的唯一目的，乃是叫自己更殷勤禱告。我們從經驗發現，飽餐之後，心志不易趨向神，所以不能深入祈禱，更不能認真熱忱地繼續祈禱。從此我們可以了解路加論亞拿的話，說，她「禁食祈禱事奉上帝」（路2：37）。他並不以為對上帝的崇拜，是在於禁食，但表示那聖婦人藉著這種方法，使自己習於恆切禱告。當尼希米以非常的熱忱來祈求神拯救他的百姓時，他也這樣禁食（尼1：4）。保羅因為這個緣故宣稱信徒要暫時捨棄合法的快樂，「為要專心禱告」（林前7：5）。他將禁食與禱告連在一起，藉以襄助祈禱，並表明禁食，除為此一目的以外，本身並不重要。此外，從他在那裡對夫妻的指導來說，「夫妻不可彼此虧負」，可見他不是指每日的禱告而言，乃是指那需要特別誠懇注意的禱告而言。
　　十七、照樣，一有戰爭，瘟疫，或飢荒，或其他災禍威脅一個國家人民時，牧師就也有責任，敦促教會禁食，好藉著謙卑的懇求來減少神的忿怒，因為每當神使災禍臨到時，他是表示在施行報應。所以正如古時犯人囚首披髮，身披喪服，為要邀裁判官的憐憫，照樣，我們作犯人站在神的審判台前，也當用外表的憂戚來邀神減少嚴厲的懲罰，而這乃是能增進神的光榮和一般的德行，並對我們自己有益的。這種辦法通行於以色列人中，由先知約珥的話就易於推論到，因為他命令「吹角，分定禁食的日子，宣告嚴肅會」（珥2：15），並指點一些別的事，便都是說到當時所通行的事。在前他已經提及百姓要因罪受審，已經宣布主的日子近了，並且已經將百姓當作罪犯召集，叫他們出庭為自己作答；然後他警告他們要披麻蒙灰，痛哭禁食，那就是匍匐在主台前，用外表的行為來表示謙卑。也許披麻蒙灰更適合於當時，但是無疑的，聚集眾人，痛哭禁食，和其他類似的舉動，在我們今日遇著情況有需要時，乃是同樣適合的。因為這既是一種聖潔的舉措，很合於使人謙卑，並承認自己的恥辱，那麼我們為何不同古人在有同樣需要的時候應用它呢？我們知道那表示憂戚的禁食，不僅行之於那由神的話所組成所治理的以色列人的教會，也行之於那除聽過約拿的講道外再沒有受過別的教訓的尼尼微人（拿3：5）。那麼，我們為何不去照樣行呢？但是，有人要說，這是一種表面的儀式，同其他儀式一樣，都因基督而終止了。我要回答說，就在今日，像在各時代一樣，這對信徒乃是一種極好的幫助，和有益的規勸，能使他們在受神懲罰時，可以激勵他們，不因疏忽而再惹動神的忿怒。因此，基督原諒使徒不禁食，並不是將禁食廢止，而是指明禁食乃是在災難時舉行的，且是與憂戚相連的。他說：「但日子將到，新郎要離開他們」（太9：15；路5：34，35）。
　　十八、為求不誤解禁食一辭，我們要給它一個定義。因為我們不以它是專指對飲食加以節制和免除，而是另有所指。信徒生活真當儉約樸質，盡量有長久禁食的樣子。但除此之外，還有一種暫時的禁食，那即是我們一天或一時將某事從平日的生活上除去，在飲食上較平常更為節制。這種節制包括三件事，即時間，飲食的品質，和分量。所謂時間，乃是指禁食時，我們當有其所以禁食的屬靈操練。例如，若有人禁食是為嚴肅禱告，那麼他在尚未完畢祈禱時，就不當進食。在品質上須杜絕珍饈美味，而以粗糙簡單食物為滿足，以免刺激味覺。在分量上須較平常吃得少些，只是為需要，而不是為愉快。
　　十九、但最要緊的，乃是我們要特別警防那向來對教會大有害的迷信。寧可廢止禁食，而不可殷勤遵行它，用一種虛假有害的意見敗壞它。除非牧師極其信實謹慎地加以防止，否則世人便老是要陷入迷信。他們所首當注意並常常敦促人的，就是約珥的話：「你們要撕裂心腸，不撕裂衣服」（珥2： 13）。那就是說：他們當勸告人民說，神不看重禁食，除非我們禁食時，也誠心誠意，恨惡罪惡，痛恨自己，真實自卑，又從敬畏上帝的心中，發出真正的憂傷；並且禁食除為協助這些事以外，並沒有別的用處。因為神所最憎惡的，無過於人企圖用外表的形式，而不以純潔的心來對待他。所以他嚴厲指責猶太人的這種假冒為善，因為他們以為只要禁食，就可以使神滿意，其實他們心中懷著不虔敬和不純潔的思想。「主說，這樣禁食，豈是我所揀選的么？」（賽58：5）。因此，假冒為善的人之禁食不只是多餘無用的煩勞，而且是極可憎惡的。與此相連的，還有另一種罪惡，最須儆醒提防，以免把它當作一種有功德的行為，或對神的一種崇拜。因為禁食的本身，既是不足輕重的，並且除非它能使人達到所要達到的目的，它是沒有別的價值的，那麼把它與那些為神所命令和本為必要的行為相混合，乃是一種極有害的迷信。這正是從前摩尼教徒所有的愚妄。奧古斯丁駁斥他們，極其清楚表明，禁食除為達到上述我所提到的目的外，沒有別的價值可言；除非是為著這些目的，它就不能蒙神讚許。第三種錯誤固然不是很壞的，然而若把禁食當作一種主要的責任，來雷厲奉行，且用無微不至的讚美，來把它推薦給人，使人自以為禁了食，乃是做了一椿極高貴的事，那麼禁食就不免有危險。在這一方面，我不敢完全原諒古教父，他們曾撒下了一些迷信的種子，使後來專制有產生的機會。他們的著作對禁食一題，有些合理健全的說法，但也包含一些過度的讚美，將它升為一種最大的美德了。
　　二十、當時遵守大齋節，迷信也普遍流行，因為一般人民都以此為行了順服上帝的大事，而牧師們又將此稱讚為模仿基督的聖范。其實基督禁食，並非為別人立榜樣，乃是於開始傳福音之前禁食，以便證明他的教訓不是出於人的造作，而是從天上來的啟示。真奇怪，甚至辨別敏捷的人也曾懷抱這樣一個為多數有力的論據所駁斥的大錯。因為基督若要為周年禁食節設立法則的話，它就必須常常禁食，但他只有一次禁食，即在他準備開始傳福音的時候。倘若他想激發人模仿他，他就應當照人的樣子禁食，但他並未如此行，反之，他所行的，是使大家崇仰，而非使他們效法。總之，他禁食的理由，正如摩西從神手中領受律法時禁食的理由一樣，以外沒有別的理由。因為那神跡既行在摩西身上，以建立律法的威權，所以它也當行在基督身上，免得福音好像是不如律法。但是從那時候起，從來沒有人想要借口效法摩西，把那種禁食介紹到以色列人當中；聖先知和列祖不拘如何熱心於虔誠的訓練，也未曾仿效去行。因為說以利亞四十天不飲不食，只是要教訓百姓，他被興起，是為要恢復律法，這律法差不多為全以色列民所離棄了。所以，借口效法基督來尊榮大齋節的禁食，不過是一種虛空和迷信的假冒。關於禁食的樣式，就迦修多儒（Casiodorus）在[1]蘇格拉底所著的歷史第九卷上所說，當時確是各有差異。他說：「羅馬人禁食只有三周，但他們的禁食，除在星期日和禮拜六外，是不斷的。以利哩古人和希臘人的禁食有六周，其他的人民有七周；可是他們的禁食是間斷的。在食物的品質上，他們的差異也不小。有的只食麵包和水有的加上蔬菜；有的不反對食魚和家禽；有的各種東西都食。」這種差異也為奧古斯丁於寫給雅努雅流（Januarius）的第二封信上所提到了。
　　二十一、往後的時期就更壞了；在群眾可笑的熱忱外，又加上主教們的無知，與他們控制人的慾望和暴虐嚴厲之心。於是他們訂立不合聖道的法規，如同以鎖鏈來束縛人的良心一樣。肉食在禁止之列，好像肉食會玷污他們一般。但各種褻瀆神的意見繼續增加，直到他們的錯誤如海洋一般廣大。他們為求使腐敗應有盡有，就以極可笑的虛假節制來戲弄上帝。因為他們在享受各種珍饈美味時，還尋求禁食的美名；可是珍饈無以復加；他們的食物也從來沒有比那樣品類更繁多，味道更佳美的了。這種優越的享受，他們稱之為禁食；又認為那是對神合理的事奉。我且不提那些想要做最偉大聖徒的人，在大齋節中，比在任何時候，更加饕餮。總之，他們認為不吃肉，就算是最崇敬神了，除不吃肉外，各種珍饈都可盡量享用。在另一方面，嘗點火腿，或鹹肉與褐色麵包，他們就認為是最不虔敬的行為，死有餘辜。耶柔米述及，即在他那時代就有些人用以下可笑的事，來戲弄上帝：他們不用油，卻買從各國運來的最珍美的食物；他們違反自然不飲水，卻購買最高最貴的酒，不用杯來飲，而以貝殼來喝。當時這只是少數人的惡行，如今卻成了一般有錢人的通病；他們禁食的目的不過是要享受非常的珍饈美味而已。但我不要耗費許多話在這樣一種彰明昭著的罪行上。我只說，教皇黨徒不管是在禁食這件事上，或是在別的訓戒方面，都沒有什麼是誠懇，正當，有條理的，是足以自豪，使人稱讚的。
　　二十二、教會還有訓戒的第二部分，特別涉及教牧們。這種訓戒載在教條中，是古時主教們加之於他們自身和同工的。即如，教牧不得把時間用於遊獵，賭博，和筵宴上面；也不得從事勒索或營業；更不得加入淫蕩的跳舞等等。更且附有處分，以貫徹教條的威權，以免有人肆無忌憚。為此，主教都有責管理屬下教士，照著教條治理他們，使他們盡忠職守。為求達到此目的，他們就設立了每年的巡視和會議，若發現有失職的人，就規勸他，若有犯過的人，就照所犯的糾正他。主教也有他們的省會議，一年舉行一次，古時甚至一年舉行兩次。主教如有失職之處，就在這會議中受裁判。因為倘若主教對教士過於嚴厲，教士就有權向這種會議控訴他，即令控訴的只有一人。最嚴厲的處分乃是將犯者褫除職務，並暫時停止領聖餐。因為這是一種有效的常規，所以省教區會議必須先規定下屆會議的時間地點才散會。因為召集一個全體教會會議，照一切古代記載，乃屬於皇帝的特權。當這種嚴厲制度持續的時候，教士對百姓所要求的，並不多於他們自己的行為所表現的。其實他們對自己比對平信徒為嚴，因為平信徒受比較寬柔的訓戒，教士卻深自檢討，較之他人更不放鬆，乃是理所當然的。這一切制度久被廢棄，是不必說的，因為今日教士的淫逸放蕩，真是不堪設想；他們的放蕩到了如此程度，以致舉世的人都反對他們。我承認他們為求表示並沒有完全忘記古代的遺範，就拿一些影子來欺騙愚人的耳目，但這些影子與古代遺範相似，像猿猴模仿有思考和理智的人一樣。謝挪芬（Xenophon）有段名言，論到波斯人如何從他們祖宗的道德和嚴肅生活墮落到奢侈淫逸，但他們為求遮掩自己的羞辱，還殷勤地遵守古風。例如在古列王的時候，風氣是如此嚴肅有節制，他們認為拭鼻是不需要的，甚至認為是可恥的；他們的後人也謹守此種行動，但是他們將從饕餮所產生的鼻液吞入，保留臭液，直到發腐，還認為是可以的。又照古時規矩，不當在席上傳杯，但後人卻不反對喝酒，甚至沉醉。古時風氣每日只吃一餐，這些優秀的繼承人不棄古風，但他們宴飲，從正午直至深夜。古時法律吩咐人行軍，必禁食到一天完了，他們仍保守此風，但為避免疲勞，他們就將行軍縮短為兩個鐘頭。當教皇黨徒拿出他們墮落的法規來，表明自己與聖教父相似時，波斯人的這種作風就十足代表他們可笑的模仿，這是任何畫師，不能畫得更維妙維肖的。
　　二十三、對一件事，他們十分嚴格不放鬆，就是不許神甫結婚。然而姦淫在他們當中怎樣盛行而無懲罰，乃是不待言的；他們既因這種污穢的獨身而膽大起來了，就無惡不作。禁止結婚一事，足以顯明他們的一切遺傳，是何其有害；因為這種制度不但將正直能幹的牧師從教會中剝奪了，而且造成了一種可怕的極惡深淵，將許多人陷入絕望的無底坑中。禁止神甫結婚，確是邪惡的暴虐行為，不僅違反神的道，且不符合公義的原則。第一，對凡是為主所准許有自由的事，人加以禁止，乃是很不合法的。第二，神顯然在他的道中言明，這種自由不容破壞，這是十分明白，不用多加證明的。我且不提保羅屢次所給的指導，乃是作監督的只「作一個婦人的丈夫」（提前3：2；多1：6）；但他最有力的表示無過於他宣布從聖靈所得的一個啟示說：「在後來的時候，必有人離棄真道，禁止嫁娶，」他認為這些人不僅是騙子，而且是傳播「鬼魔的道理」（提前4：1，3）。所以這是預言，是聖靈的神聖訓諭，藉此他從起初便要教會謹防危險，把禁止嫁娶看為鬼魔的道理。但是，我們的對敵說，這不是指他們而說的，而是指孟他努（Montanus），他提安派（Tatianists），禁戒派（Encratites）以及古時別的異端派而說的。他們說，這是指那些完全反對嫁娶的人而說的；我們並不反對嫁娶，不過禁止教士結婚，因為他們不宜於結婚。這好像是說，這些預言已在古時的異端派身上應驗了，不能在他們身上再應驗；又好像他們的這種幼稚謬論——說他們既不禁止眾人嫁娶，所以他們並沒有禁止婚嫁——是值得一顧似的。這好像是一個暴君爭辯說，他的法律只壓迫國中一部分的人民，所以法律並沒有不公義之處。
　　二十四、他們提出反對論調，說教士和平信徒當中，理當有一種辨別的標記。這好像是說，主沒有預先見到，什麼是神甫應當出類撥萃的真實標記。他們這樣申辯，就是指責使徒保羅，認為他在說明一個良好監督的完全模範時，竟敢提到婚娶為必具的德行之一，擾亂了教會的秩序，並破壞了教會的禮節。我知道他們把保羅的話解釋為指第二次結婚的人，不得被選為監督。我承認這種解釋不是新創的，但它的錯誤可從對照上下文顯明出來；因為保羅立刻在後面又提到凡是監督和執事的妻子，應有什麼品格。保羅將婚娶算為監督的德行之一，這些人卻教訓人說，婚娶為教士中不可有的敗德；他們還不以此普通的誹謗為滿足，還稱婚娶為肉體的污穢不潔，因為這乃是他們的一個教皇敘利修（Syricuis）的話，記載於他們的教條上。我們每個人都當忖度，這些事是從何而來的。基督樂於尊重婚姻，甚至以它比為自己與教會的神聖結合。讚美婚姻的尊嚴，還有甚於此的嗎？既然婚姻與基督的靈恩相似，又怎能稱它為污穢不潔呢？
　　二十五、雖然禁止婚娶是明明違反聖經的，然而他們卻在聖經中找證據來辯護。他們說，利未族的祭司每逢輪到供職聖壇時，不許與妻子同居，好使他們清潔無疵，便於獻祭；因此，我們的聖餐既遠較獻祭為重，又須日日施行，若讓結過婚的人來舉行，那是很不合理的。這好像是說，傳福音的牧職和利未族的祭司職是同一職務。其實，利未族的祭司乃是預表基督，這基督是人與神間的中保，用他的完全聖潔來使天父與人和好。既然罪人不能在各方面預表他的聖潔，然而為求有微弱的影兒起見，所以吩咐祭司每逢接近聖所的時候，要自潔超乎常人。這是因為在那些時候，他們是正式代表基督，來到那預表天庭的帳幕，作為人與神和好的居間人。如今教會中的牧師既沒有承擔這種職務，所以這種比擬是不倫不類的。因為使徒保羅很有把握，毫無例外宣布說：「婚姻，人人都當尊重；但苟合行淫的人神必要審判」 （來13：4）。而眾使徒也以身作則，證明婚娶與任何高尚的聖職並非不相宜，因為保羅證明，他們不僅有妻，而且帶著妻子，一同往來（林前9：5）。
　　二十六、他們堅持這種外表的貞操為一件必須的事，以至大大侮辱那特別富於神的知識和以聖潔著稱的古代教會，這也暴露他們的極端鹵莽。因為我們的對敵對於使徒們既常硬心予以藐視，對於那不僅容忍，而且贊成主教結婚的教父，要說什麼呢？他們不免要說，這些教父行了褻瀆神的事，因為照他們的觀點來說，教父並沒有用他們的規法來潔凈身體，施行聖禮。在尼西亞會議中有人鼓吹把獨身主義定為規法，因為世上從來就不缺乏溺於迷信，想用一些新奇的捏造，叫人稱讚自己的小人。但會中的決議到底是怎麼樣呢？會中一致同意怕弗努丟（Paphnutius）的話：「人與妻子同居，是貞節的。」因此，婚娶在他們當中繼續被視為神聖，並未被認為對他們是羞辱，或對聖職是瑕疵。
　　二十七、以後各時代對獨身主義起了一種充滿迷信的景仰，因之就有了對童貞的種種盛譽，一般人認為再沒有什麼德行能與童貞相比。雖然婚嫁未被貶為不潔，然而它的尊嚴已被貶損，它的神聖已被掩蔽，而凡不棄絕婚嫁的人，都被認為是不堅貞求達完全的。從此就產生了教條，禁止神甫結婚，以後又產生教條，不許已婚的人做神甫，只有未曾結過婚，或誓絕與妻子同居的人，才可做神甫。只因為這些事似乎可以增加神甫的尊榮，所以它們甚至在最早的時候就大受歡迎。我們的對敵要以古事為證來反對我們。我要回答說：第一，在使徒時期和以後幾個時期中，主教可以自由婚娶；使徒們自已和繼承他們的那些最有名的牧者，也都曾使用這自由權，沒有任何阻難。我們應當尊重初期教會的榜樣，不把它所接收和實行的事看為不相宜和不合法的事。第二，即令在那迷信童貞的時期，對婚娶雖漸漸減少嘉許，但並未曾把獨身當作規法，來強加於神甫身上，視為絕對必須，而只是因為他們自己寧願獨身而不婚娶。最後，這條規法並沒有強迫那些不能守獨身的人克制自己，因為當時雖對犯姦淫的神甫予以極嚴厲的處分，但對那些已婚的，則只予以撤職而已。
　　二十八、因此，每當這種現代專制的鼓吹者，想借口古事來辯護他們的獨身主義時，我們就不得不答覆他們說：他們理當使他們的神甫恢復古時的貞操；將一切淫亂的免職；不任憑那些被禁不得享受正常婚姻生活的任意放蕩，逍遙法外；又恢復業已廢棄的訓戒，藉以抑制一切猥褻；並挽救教會脫離那久已摧殘它的深重邪惡。當他們承認這一切后，我們仍須規勸他們，不要將那本來由人自擇，和以教會之方便為轉移的獨身生活，認為是必須的。然而我提到這些事，並非是認為我們當在某種條件下，接收那些強迫教士守獨身的教條，而是要使明達人察知，我們的對敵援引古時的權威，來羞辱神甫的聖潔婚娶，乃是怎樣無恥。古代教父現存的著作很多，除耶柔米外，他們發表自己的意見時，並不對婚嫁的好處加以貶損。我們只要引用屈梭多模的一句話就夠了，因為他是一位讚美童貞的主要人物，他對婚娶當然不會比別人更加褒獎。他說：「第一等貞操是純粹的童貞；其次乃是信實的婚姻生活。因此，第二種童貞即是結婚生活的貞信之愛。」
　　註釋：
　　————————
　　[1] 按此人與古希臘哲人蘇格拉底同姓名，但此為古羅馬一教會史家

[本話題由 追求永生 於 2010-01-23 02:17:14 編輯]

CHAPTER 12.
OF THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND EXCOMMUNICATION.

This chapter consists of two parts:—I. The first part of ecclesiastical discipline, which respects the people, and is called common, consists of two parts, the former depending on the power of the keys, which is considered, sec. 1-14; the latter consisting in the appointment of times for fasting and prayer, sec. 14-21. II. The second part of ecclesiastical discipline relating to the clergy, sec. 22-28.

Sections.

1. Of the power of the keys, or the common discipline of the Church. Necessity and very great utility of this discipline.

2. Its various degrees. 1. Private admonition. 2. Rebukes before witnesses. 3. Excommunication.

3. Different degrees of delinquency. Modes of procedure in both kinds of chastisement.

4. Delicts to be distinguished from flagitious wickedness. The last to be more severely punished.

5. Ends of this discipline. 1. That the wicked may not, by being admitted to the Lord』s Table, put insult on Christ. 2. That they may not corrupt others. 3. That they themselves may repent.

6. In what way sins public as well as secret are to be corrected. Trivial and grave offences.

7. No person, not even the sovereign, exempted from this discipline. By whom and in what way it ought to be exercised.

8. In what spirit discipline is to be exercised. In what respect some of the ancient Christians exercised it too rigorously. This done more from custom than in accordance with their own sentiments. This shown from Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Augustine.

9. Moderation to be used, not only by the whole Church, but by each individual member.

10. Our Saviour』s words concerning binding and loosing wrested if otherwise understood. Difference between anathema and excommunication. Anathema rarely if ever to be used.

11. Excessive rigour to be avoided, as well by private individuals as by pastors.

12. In this respect the Donatists erred most grievously, as do also the Anabaptists in the present day. Portraiture by Augustine.

13. Moderation especially to be used when not a few individuals, but the great body of the people, have gone astray.

14. A second part of common discipline relating to fastings, prayer, and other holy exercises. These used by believers under both dispensations. To what purposes applied. Of Fasting.

15. Three ends of fasting. The first refers more especially to private fasting. Second and third ends.

16. Public fasting and prayer appointed by pastors on any great emergency.

17. Examples of this under the Law.

18. Fasting consists chiefly in three things—viz. time, the quality, and sparing use of food.

19. To prevent superstition, three things to be inculcated. 1. The heart to be rent, not the garments. 2. Fasting not to be regarded as a meritorious work or kind of divine worship. 3. Abstinence must not be immoderately extolled.

20. Owing to an excess of this kind the observance of Lent was established. This superstitious observance refuted by three arguments. It was indeed used by the ancients, but on different grounds.

245321. Laws afterwards made to regulate the choice of food. Various abuses even in the time of Jerome. Practically there is no common ecclesiastical discipline in the Papacy.

22. The second part of discipline having reference to the clergy. What its nature, and how strict it formerly was. How miserably neglected in the present day. An example which may suit the Papists.

23. Of the celibacy of priests, in which Papists place the whole force of ecclesiastical discipline. This impious tyranny refuted from Scripture. An objection of the Papists disposed of.

24. An argument for the celibacy of priests answered.

25. Another argument answered.

26. Another argument answered.

27. An argument drawn from the commendation of virginity as superior to marriage. Answer.

28. The subject of celibacy concluded. This error not favoured by all ancient writers.

1. The discipline of the Church, the consideration of which has been deferred till now, must be briefly explained, that we may be able to pass to other matters. Now discipline depends in a very great measure on the power of the keys and on spiritual jurisdiction. That this may be more easily understood, let us divide the Church into two principal classes—viz. clergy and people. The term clergy I use in the common acceptation for those who perform a public ministry in the Church.591591   French, 「J』use de ce mot de Cleres pource qu』il est commun, combien qu』il soit impropre; par lequel j』entens ceux qui ont office et ministere en l』Eglise.」—I use this word Clergy because it is common, though it is improper; by it I mean those who have an office and ministry in the Church. We shall speak first of the common discipline to which all ought to be subject, and then proceed to the clergy, who have besides that common discipline one peculiar to themselves. But as some, from hatred of discipline, are averse to the very name, for their sake we observe,—If no society, nay, no house with even a moderate family, can be kept in a right state without discipline, much more necessary is it in the Church, whose state ought to be the best ordered possible. Hence as the saving doctrine of Christ is the life of the Church, so discipline is, as it were, its sinews; for to it it is owing that the members of the body adhere together, each in its own place. Wherefore, all who either wish that discipline were abolished, or who impede the restoration of it, whether they do this of design or through thoughtlessness, certainly aim at the complete devastation of the Church. For what will be the result if every one is allowed to do as he pleases? But this must happen if to the preaching of the gospel are not added private admonition, correction, and similar methods of maintaining doctrine, and not allowing it to become lethargic. Discipline, therefore, is a kind of curb to restrain and tame those who war against the doctrine of Christ, or it is a kind of stimulus by which the indifferent are aroused; sometimes, also, it is a kind of fatherly rod, by which those who have made some more grievous lapse are chastised in mercy with the meekness of the spirit of Christ. Since, then, we already see some beginnings of a fearful devastation in the Church from the total want of care and method in managing the people, necessity itself cries 2454aloud that there is need of a remedy. Now the only remedy is this which Christ enjoins, and the pious have always had in use.

2. The first foundation of discipline is to provide for private admonition; that is, if any one does not do his duty spontaneously, or behaves insolently, or lives not quite honestly, or commits something worthy of blame, he must allow himself to be admonished; and every one must study to admonish his brother when the case requires. Here especially is there occasion for the vigilance of pastors and presbyters, whose duty is not only to preach to the people, but to exhort and admonish from house to house, whenever their hearers have not profited sufficiently by general teaching; as Paul shows, when he relates that he taught 「publicly, and from house to house,」 and testifies that he is 「pure from the blood of all men,」 because he had not shunned to declare 「all the counsel of God」 (Acts 20:20, 26, 27) Then does doctrine obtain force and authority, not only when the minister publicly expounds to all what they owe to Christ, but has the right and means of exacting this from those whom he may observe to be sluggish or disobedient to his doctrine. Should any one either perversely reject such admonitions, or by persisting in his faults, show that he contemns them, the injunction of Christ is, that after he has been a second time admonished before witnesses, he is to be summoned to the bar of the Church, which is the consistory of elders, and there admonished more sharply, as by public authority, that if he reverence the Church he may submit and obey (Mt. 18:15, 17). If even in this way he is not subdued, but persists in his iniquity, he is then, as a despiser of the Church, to be debarred from the society of believers.

3. Put as our Saviour is not there speaking of secret faults merely, we must attend to the distinction that some sins are private, others public or openly manifest. Of the former, Christ says to every private individual, 「go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone」 (Mt. 18:15). Of open sins Paul says to Timothy, 「Those that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear」 (1 Tim. 5:20). Our Saviour had previously used the words, 「If thy brother shall trespass against thee」 This clause, unless you would be captious, you cannot understand otherwise than, If this happens in a manner known to yourself, others not being privy to it. The injunction which Paul gave to Timothy to rebuke those openly who sin openly, he himself followed with Peter (Gal. 2:14). For when Peter sinned so as to give public offence, he did not admonish him apart, but brought him forward in face of the Church. The legitimate course, therefore, will be to proceed in correcting secret faults by the steps mentioned by Christ, and in open sins, accompanied with public scandal, to proceed at once to solemn correction by the Church.

4. Another distinction to be attended to is, that some sins are mere delinquencies, others crimes and flagrant iniquities. In correcting the latter, it is necessary to employ not only admonition or 2455rebuke, but a sharper remedy, as Paul shows when he not only verbally rebukes the incestuous Corinthian, but punishes him with excommunication, as soon as he was informed of his crime (1 Cor. 5:4). Now then we begin better to perceive how the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which animadverts on sins according to the word of the Lord, is at once the best help to sound doctrine, the best foundation of order, and the best bond of unity. Therefore, when the Church banishes from its fellowship open adulterers, fornicators, thieves, robbers, the seditious, the perjured, false witnesses, and others of that description; likewise the contumacious, who, when duly admonished for lighter faults, hold God and his tribunal in derision, instead of arrogating to itself anything that is unreasonable, it exercises a jurisdiction which it has received from the Lord. Moreover, lest any one should despise the judgment of the Church, or count it a small matter to be condemned by the suffrages of the faithful, the Lord has declared that it is nothing else than the promulgation of his own sentence, and that that which they do on earth is ratified in heaven. For they act by the word of the Lord in condemning the perverse, and by the word of the Lord in taking the penitent back into favour (John 20:23). Those, I say, who trust that churches can long stand without this bond of discipline are mistaken, unless, indeed, we can with impunity dispense with a help which the Lord foresaw would be necessary. And, indeed, the greatness of the necessity will be better perceived by its manifold uses.

5. There are three ends to which the Church has respect in thus correcting and excommunicating. The first is, that God may not be insulted by the name of Christians being given to those who lead shameful and flagitious lives, as if his holy Church were a combination of the wicked and abandoned. For seeing that the Church is the body of Christ, she cannot be defiled by such fetid and putrid members, without bringing some disgrace on her Head. Therefore that there may be nothing in the Church to bring disgrace on his sacred name, those whose turpitude might throw infamy on the name must be expelled from his family. And here, also, regard must be had to the Lord』s Supper, which might he profaned by a promiscuous admission.592592   Vide Cyril in Joann. cap. 50, et Luther, de Commun. Populi, tom. 2 For it is most true, that he who is intrusted with the dispensation of it, if he knowingly and willingly admits any unworthy person whom he ought and is able to repel, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he had cast the Lord』s body to dogs. Wherefore, Chrysostom bitterly inveighs against priests, who, from fear of the great, dare not keep any one back. 「Blood (says he, Hom. 83, in Mt.) will be required at your hands. If you fear man, he will mock you, but if you fear God, you will be respected also by men. Let us not tremble at fasces, purple, or diadems; our power here is greater. Assuredly I will sooner give up my body to death, and allow my blood to be shed, than be a partaker of that pollution.」 Therefore, lest this most sacred mystery should be exposed to ignominy, great selection is 2456required in dispensing it, and this cannot be except by the jurisdiction of the Church. A second end of discipline is, that the good may not, as usually happens, be corrupted by constant communication with the wicked. For such is our proneness to go astray, that nothing is easier than to seduce us from the right course by bad example. To this use of discipline the apostle referred when he commanded the Corinthians to discard the incestuous man from their society. 「A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump」 (1 Cor. 5:6) And so much danger did he foresee here, that he prohibited them from keeping company with such persons. 「If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one, no not to eat」 (1 Cor. 5:11). A third end of discipline is, that the sinner may be ashamed, and begin to repent of his turpitude. Hence it is for their interest also that their iniquity should be chastised, that whereas they would have become more obstinate by indulgence, they may be aroused by the rod. This the apostle intimates when he thus writes —「If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed」 (2 Thess. 3:14). Again, when he says that he had delivered the Corinthian to Satan, 「that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus」 (1 Cor. 5:5); that is, as I interpret it, he gave him over to temporal condemnation, that he might be made safe for eternity. And he says that he gave him over to Satan because the devil is without the Church, as Christ is in the Church. Some interpret this of a certain infliction on the flesh, but this interpretation seems to me most improbable. (August. de Verb. Apostol. Serm. 68)

6. These being the ends proposed, it remains to see in what way the Church is to execute this part of discipline, which consists in jurisdiction. And, first, let us remember the division above laid down, that some sins are public, others private or secret. Public are those which are done not before one or two witnesses, but openly, and to the offence of the whole Church. By secret, I mean not such as are altogether concealed from men, such as those of hypocrites (for these fall not under the judgment of the Church), but those of an intermediate description, which are not without witnesses, and yet are not public. The former class requires not the different steps which Christ enumerates; but whenever anything of the kind occurs, the Church ought to do her duty by summoning the offender, and correcting him according to his fault. In the second class, the matter comes not before the Church, unless there is contumacy, according to the rule of Christ. In taking cognisance of offences, it is necessary to attend to the distinction between delinquencies and flagrant iniquities. In lighter offences there is not so much occasion for severity, but verbal chastisement is sufficient, and that gentle and fatherly, so as not to exasperate or confound the offender, but to bring him back to himself, so that he may rather rejoice than be grieved at the correction. Flagrant iniquities require a sharper 2457remedy. It is not sufficient verbally to rebuke him who, by some open act of evil example, has grievously offended the Church; but he ought for a time to be denied the communion of the Supper, until he gives proof of repentance. Paul does not merely administer a verbal rebuke to the Corinthian, but discards him from the Church, and reprimands the Corinthians for having borne with him so long (1 Cor. 5:5). This was the method observed by the ancient and purer Church, when legitimate government was in vigour. When any one was guilty of some flagrant iniquity, and thereby caused scandal, he was first ordered to abstain from participation in the sacred Supper, and thereafter to humble himself before God, and testify his penitence before the Church. There were, moreover, solemn rites, which, as indications of repentance, were wont to be prescribed to those who had lapsed. When the penitent had thus made satisfaction to the Church, he was received into favour by the laying on of hands. This admission often receives the name of peace from Cyprian, who briefly describes the form.593593   Cyprian, Lib. 1 Ep. 2; Lib. 3 Ep. 14, 26. 「They act as penitents for a certain time, next they come to confession, and receive the right of communion by the laying on of hands of the bishop and clergy.」 Although the bishop with the clergy thus superintended the restoration of the penitent, the consent of the people was at the same time required, as he elsewhere explains.

7. So far was any one from being exempted from this discipline, that even princes submitted to it in common with their subjects; and justly, since it is the discipline of Christ, to whom all sceptres and diadems should be subject. Thus Theodosius,594594   Ambros. Lib. 1 Ep. 3; et Oratio habita in Funere Theodosii. when excommunicated by Ambrose, because of the slaughter perpetrated at Thessalonica, laid aside all the royal insignia with which he was surrounded, and publicly in the Church bewailed the sin into which he had been betrayed by the fraud of others, with groans and tears imploring pardon. Great kings should not think it a disgrace to them to prostrate themselves suppliantly before Christ, the King of kings; nor ought they to be displeased at being judged by the Church. For seeing they seldom hear anything in their courts but mere flattery, the more necessary is it that the Lord should correct them by the mouth of his priests. Nay, they ought rather to wish the priests not to spare them, in order that the Lord may spare. I here say nothing as to those by whom the jurisdiction ought to be exercised, because it has been said elsewhere (Chap. 11 sec. 5, 6). I only add, that the legitimate course to be taken in excommunication, as shown by Paul, is not for the elders alone to act apart from others, but with the knowledge and approbation of the Church, so that the body of the people, without regulating the procedure, may, as witnesses and guardians, observe it, and prevent the few from doing anything capriciously. Throughout the whole procedure, in addition to invocation of the name of God, there should be a gravity bespeaking the presence 2458of Christ, and leaving no room to doubt that he is presiding over his own tribunal.

8. It ought not, however, to be omitted, that the Church, in exercising severity, ought to accompany it with the spirit of meekness. For, as Paul enjoins, we must always take care that he on whom discipline is exercised be not 「swallowed up with overmuch sorrow」 (2 Cor. 2:7): for in this way, instead of cure there would be destruction. The rule of moderation will be best obtained from the end contemplated. For the object of excommunication being to bring the sinner to repentance and remove bad examples, in order that the name of Christ may not be evil spoken of, nor others tempted to the same evil courses: if we consider this, we shall easily understand how far severity should be carried, and at what point it ought to cease. Therefore, when the sinner gives the Church evidence of his repentance, and by this evidence does what in him lies to obliterate the offence, he ought not on any account to be urged farther. If he is urged, the rigour now exceeds due measure. In this respect it is impossible to excuse the excessive austerity of the ancients, which was altogether at variance with the injunction of our Lord, and strangely perilous. For when they enjoined a formal repentance, and excluded from communion for three, or four, or seven years, or for life, what could the result be, but either great hypocrisy or very great despair? In like manner, when any one who had again lapsed was not admitted to a second repentance, but ejected from the Church, to the end of his life (August. Ep. 54), this was neither useful nor agreeable to reason. Whosoever, therefore, looks at the matter with sound judgment, will here regret a want of prudence. Here, however, I rather disapprove of the public custom, than blame those who complied with it. Some of them certainly disapproved of it, but submitted to what they were unable to correct. Cyprian, indeed, declares that it was not with his own will he was thus rigorous. 「Our patience, facility, and humanity (he says, Lib. 1 Ep. 3), are ready to all who come. I wish all to be brought back into the Church: I wish all our fellow-soldiers to be contained within the camp of Christ and the mansions of God the Father. I forgive all; I disguise much; from an earnest desire of collecting the brotherhood, I do not minutely scrutinise all the faults which have been committed against God. I myself often err, by forgiving offences more than I ought. Those returning in repentance, and those confessing their sins with simple and humble satisfaction, I embrace with prompt and full delight.」 Chrysostom, who is somewhat more severe, still speaks thus: 「If God is so kind, why should his priest wish to appear austere?」 We know, moreover, how indulgently Augustine treated the Donatists; not hesitating to admit any who returned from schism to their bishopric, as soon as they declared their repentance. But, as a contrary method had prevailed, they were compelled to follow it, and give up their own judgment.

9. But as the whole body of the Church are required to act thus 2459mildly, and not to carry their rigour against those who have lapsed to an extreme, but rather to act charitably towards them, according to the precept of Paul, so every private individual ought proportionately to accommodate himself to this clemency and humanity. Such as have, therefore, been expelled from the Church, it belongs not to us to expunge from the number of the elect, or to despair of, as if they were already lost. We may lawfully judge them aliens from the Church, and so aliens from Christ, but only during the time of their excommunication. If then, also, they give greater evidence of petulance than of humility, still let us commit them to the judgment of the Lord, hoping better of them in future than we see at present, and not ceasing to pray to God for them. And (to sum up in one word) let us not consign to destruction their person, which is in the hand, and subject to the decision, of the Lord alone; but let us merely estimate the character of each man』s acts according to the law of the Lord. In following this rule, we abide by the divine judgment rather than give any judgment of our own. Let us not arrogate to ourselves greater liberty in judging, if we would not limit the power of God, and give the law to his mercy. Whenever it seems good to Him, the worst are changed into the best; aliens are ingrafted, and strangers are adopted into the Church. This the Lord does, that he may disappoint the thoughts of men, and confound their rashness; a rashness which, if not curbed, would usurp a power of judging to which it has no title.

10. For when our Saviour promises that what his servants bound on earth should be bound in heaven (Mt. 18:18), he confines the power of binding to the censure of the Church, which does not consign those who are excommunicated to perpetual ruin and damnation, but assures them, when they hear their life and manners condemned, that perpetual damnation will follow if they do not repent. Excommunication differs from anathema in this, that the latter completely excluding pardon, dooms and devotes the individual to eternal destruction, whereas the former rather rebukes and animadverts upon his manners; and although it also punishes, it is to bring him to salvation, by forewarning him of his future doom. If it succeeds, reconciliation and restoration to communion are ready to be given. Moreover, anathema is rarely if ever to be used. Hence, though ecclesiastical discipline does not allow us to be on familiar and intimate terms with excommunicated persons, still we ought to strive by all possible means to bring them to a better mind, and recover them to the fellowship and unity of the Church: as the apostle also says, 「Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother」 (2 Thess. 3:15). If this humanity be not observed in private as well as public, the danger is, that our discipline shall degenerate into destruction.595

11. Another special requisite to moderation of discipline is, as Augustine discourses against the Donatists, that private individuals must not, when they see vices less carefully corrected by the Council of Elders, immediately separate themselves from the Church; nor must pastors themselves, when unable to reform all things which need correction to the extent which they could wish, cast up their ministry, or by unwonted severity throw the whole Church into confusion. What Augustine says is perfectly true: 「Whoever corrects what he can, by rebuking it, or without violating the bond of peace, excludes what he cannot correct, or unjustly condemns while he patiently tolerates what he is unable to exclude without violating the bond of peace, is free and exempted from the curse」 (August. contra Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 4). He elsewhere gives the reason. 「Every pious reason and mode of ecclesiastical discipline ought always to have regard to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This the apostle commands us to keep by bearing mutually with each other. If it is not kept, the medicine of discipline begins to be not only superfluous, but even pernicious, and therefore ceases to be medicine」 (Ibid. Lib. 3 c. 1). 「He who diligently considers these things, neither in the preservation of unity neglects strictness of discipline, nor by intemperate correction bursts the bond of society」 (Ibid. cap. 2). He confesses, indeed, that pastors ought not only to exert themselves in removing every defect from the Church, but that every individual ought to his utmost to do so; nor does he disguise the fact, that he who neglects to admonish, accuse, and correct the bad, although he neither favours them, nor sins with them, is guilty before the Lord; and if he conducts himself so that though he can exclude them from partaking of the Supper, he does it not, then the sin is no longer that of other men, but his own. Only he would have that prudence used which our Lord also requires, 「lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them」 (Mt. 13:29). Hence he infers from Cyprian, 「Let a man then mercifully correct what he can; what he cannot correct, let him bear patiently, and in love bewail and lament.」

12. This he says on account of the moroseness of the Donatists, who, when they saw faults in the Church which the bishops indeed rebuked verbally, but did not punish with excommunication (because they did not think that anything would be gained in this way), bitterly inveighed against the bishops as traitors to discipline, and by an impious schism separated themselves from the flock of Christ. Similar, in the present day, is the conduct of the Anabaptists, who, acknowledging no assembly of Christ unless conspicuous in all respects for angelic perfection, under pretence of zeal overthrow everything which tends to edification.596596   See a lengthened refutation in Calv. Instructio adv. Anabap. Art. 2. See also Calv. de Cœna Domini. 「Such (says Augustin. contra Parmen. Lib. 3 c. 4), not from hatred of other men』s iniquity, but zeal for their own disputes, ensnaring the weak by the credit of their name, attempt to draw them entirely away, or at least to separate them; 2461swollen with pride, raving with petulance, insidious in calumny, turbulent in sedition. That it may not be seen how void they are of the light of truth, they cover themselves with the shadow of a stern severity: the correction of a brother』s fault, which in Scripture is enjoined to be done with moderation, without impairing the sincerity of love or breaking the bond of peace, they pervert to sacrilegious schism and purposes of excision. Thus Satan transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14) when, under pretext of a just severity, he persuades to savage cruelty, desiring nothing more than to violate and burst the bond of unity and peace; because, when it is maintained, all his power of mischief is feeble, his wily traps are broken, and his schemes of subversion vanish.」

13. One thing Augustine specially commends—viz. that if the contagion of sin has seized the multitude, mercy must accompany living discipline. 「For counsels of separation are vain, sacrilegious, and pernicious, because impious and proud, and do more to disturb the weak good than to correct the wicked proud」 (August. Ep. 64). This which he enjoins on others he himself faithfully practiced. For, writing to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, he complains that drunkenness, which is so severely condemned in Scripture, prevails in Africa with impunity, and advises a council of bishops to be called for the purpose of providing a remedy. He immediately adds, 「In my opinion, such things are not removed by rough, harsh, and imperious measures, but more by teaching than commanding, more by admonishing than threatening. For thus ought we to act with a multitude of offenders. Severity is to be exercised against the sins of a few」 (August. Ep. 64). He does not mean, however, that the bishops were to wink or be silent because they are unable to punish public offences severely, as he himself afterwards explains. But he wishes to temper the mode of correction, so as to give soundness to the body rather than cause destruction. And, accordingly, he thus concludes: 「Wherefore, we must on no account neglect the injunction of the apostle, to separate from the wicked, when it can be done without the risk of violating peace, because he did not wish it to be done otherwise (1 Cor. 5:13); we must also endeavour, by bearing with each other, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace」 (Eph. 4:2).

14. The remaining part of discipline, which is not, strictly speaking, included in the power of the keys, is when pastors, according to the necessity of the times, exhort the people either to fasting and solemn prayer, or to other exercises of humiliation, repentance, and faith, the time, mode, and form of these not being prescribed by the Word of God, but left to the judgment of the Church. As the observance of this part of discipline is useful, so it was always used in the Church, even from the days of the apostles. Indeed, the apostles themselves were not its first authors, but borrowed the example from the Law and Prophets. For we there see,597597   See a striking instance in Ezra 8:21, on the appointment of a fast at the river Ahava, on the return of the people from the Babylonish captivity. that as often as any 2462weighty matter occurred the people were assembled, and supplication and fasting appointed. In this, therefore, the apostles followed a course which was not new to the people of God, and which they foresaw would be useful. A similar account is to be given of the other exercises by which the people may either be aroused to duty, or kept in duty and obedience. We everywhere meet with examples in Sacred History, and it is unnecessary to collect them. In general, we must hold that whenever any religious controversy arises, which either a council or ecclesiastical tribunal behoves to decide;598598   French 「Quand il advient quelque different en Chretienté, qui tire grande consequence.」—When some difference on a matter of great consequence takes place in Christendom. whenever a minister is to be chosen; whenever, in short, any matter of difficulty and great importance is under consideration: on the other hand, when manifestations of the divine anger appear, as pestilence, war, and famine, the sacred and salutary custom of all ages has been for pastors to exhort the people to public fasting and extraordinary prayer. Should any one refuse to admit the passages which are adduced from the Old Testament, as being less applicable to the Christian Church, it is clear that the apostles also acted thus; although, in regard to prayer, I scarcely think any one will be found to stir the question. Let us, therefore, make some observations on fasting, since very many, not understanding what utility there can be in it, judge it not to be very necessary, while others reject it altogether as superfluous. Where its use is not well known it is easy to fall into superstition.

15. A holy and lawful fast has three ends in view. We use it either to mortify and subdue the flesh, that it may not wanton, or to prepare the better for prayer and holy meditation; or to give evidence of humbling ourselves before God, when we would confess our guilt before him. The first end is not very often regarded in public fasting, because all have not the same bodily constitution, nor the same state of health, and hence it is more applicable to private fasting. The second end is common to both, for this preparation for prayer is requisite for the whole Church, as well as for each individual member. The same thing may be said of the third. For it sometimes happens that God smites a nation with war or pestilence, or some kind of calamity. In this common chastisement it behoves the whole people to plead guilty, and confess their guilt. Should the hand of the Lord strike any one in private, then the same thing is to be done by himself alone, or by his family. The thing, indeed, is properly a feeling of the mind. But when the mind is effected as it ought, it cannot but give vent to itself in external manifestation, especially when it tends to the common edification, that all, by openly confessing their sin, may render praise to the divine justice, and by their example mutually encourage each other.

16. Hence fasting, as it is a sign of humiliation, has a more frequent use in public than among private individuals, although as we 2463have said, it is common to both. In regard, then, to the discipline of which we now treat, whenever supplication is to be made to God on any important occasion, it is befitting to appoint a period for fasting and prayer. Thus when the Christians of Antioch laid hands on Barnabas and Paul, that they might the better recommend their ministry, which was of so great importance, they joined fasting and prayer (Acts 13:3). Thus these two apostles afterwards, when they appointed ministers to churches, were wont to use prayer and fasting (Acts 14:23). In general, the only object which they had in fasting was to render themselves more alert and disencumbered for prayer. We certainly experience that after a full meal the mind does not so rise toward God as to be borne along by an earnest and fervent longing for prayer, and perseverance in prayer. In this sense is to be understood the saying of Luke concerning Anna, that she 「served God with fastings and prayers, night and day」 (Luke 2:37). For he does not place the worship of God in fasting, but intimates that in this way the holy woman trained herself to assiduity in prayer. Such was the fast of Nehemiah, when with more intense zeal he prayed to God for the deliverance of his people (Neh. 1:4). For this reason Paul says, that married believers do well to abstain for a season (1 Cor. 7:5), that they may have greater freedom for prayer and fasting, when by joining prayer to fasting, by way of help, he reminds us it is of no importance in itself, save in so far as it refers to this end. Again, when in the same place he enjoins spouses to render due benevolence to each other, it is clear that he is not referring to daily prayer, but prayers which require more than ordinary attention.

17. On the other hand, when pestilence begins to stalk abroad, or famine or war, or when any other disaster seems to impend over a province and people (Esther 4:16), then also it is the duty of pastors to exhort the Church to fasting, that she may suppliantly deprecate the Lord』s anger. For when he makes danger appear, he declares that he is prepared and in a manner armed for vengeance. In like manner, therefore, as persons accused were anciently wont, in order to excite the commiseration of the judge, to humble themselves suppliantly with long beard, dishevelled hair, and coarse garments, so when we are charged before the divine tribunal, to deprecate his severity in humble raiment is equally for his glory and the public edification, and useful and salutary to ourselves. And that this was common among the Israelites we may infer from the words of Joel. For when he says, 「Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly,」 &c. (Joel 2:15), he speaks as of things received by common custom. A little before he had said that the people were to be tried for their wickedness, and that the day of judgment was at hand, and he had summoned them as criminals to plead their cause: then he exclaims that they should hasten to sackcloth and ashes, to weeping and fasting; that is, humble themselves before God with external manifestations. The sackcloth and ashes, indeed, were perhaps 2464more suitable for those times, but the assembly, and weeping and fasting, and the like, undoubtedly belong, in an equal degree, to our age, whenever the condition of our affairs so requires. For seeing it is a holy exercise both for men to humble themselves, and confess their humility, why should we in similar necessity use this less than did those of old? We read not only that the Israelitish Church, formed and constituted by the word of God, fasted in token of sadness, but the Ninevites also, whose only teaching had been the preaching of Jonah.599599   1 Sam. 7:6; 31:13; 2 Kings 1:12; Jonah 3:5. Why, therefore, should not we do the same? But it is an external ceremony, which, like other ceremonies, terminated in Christ. Nay, in the present day it is an admirable help to believers, as it always was, and a useful admonition to arouse them, lest by too great security and sloth they provoke the Lord more and more when they are chastened by his rod. Accordingly, when our Saviour excuses his apostles for not fasting, he does not say that fasting was abrogated, but reserves it for calamitous times, and conjoins it with mourning. 「The days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them」 (Mt. 9:35; Luke 5:34).

18. But that there maybe no error in the name, let us define what fasting is; for we do not understand by it simply a restrained and sparing use of food, but something else. The life of the pious should be tempered with frugality and sobriety, so as to exhibit, as much as may be, a kind of fasting during the whole course of life. But there is another temporary fast, when we retrench somewhat from our accustomed mode of living, either for one day or a certain period, and prescribe to ourselves a stricter and severer restraint in the use of that ordinary food. This consists in three things—viz. the time, the quality of food, and the sparing use of it. By the time I mean, that while fasting we are to perform those actions for the sake of which the fast is instituted. For example, when a man fasts because of solemn prayer, he should engage in it without having taken food. The quality consists in putting all luxury aside, and, being contented with common and meaner food, so as not to excite our palate by dainties. In regard to quantity, we must eat more lightly and sparingly, only for necessity and not for pleasure.

19. But the first thing always to be avoided is, the encroachment of superstition, as formerly happened, to the great injury of the Church. It would have been much better to have had no fasting at all, than have it carefully observed, but at the same time corrupted by false and pernicious opinions, into which the world is ever and anon falling, unless pastors obviate them by the greatest fidelity and prudence. The first thing is constantly to urge the injunction of Joel, 「Rend your heart, and not your garments」 (Joel 2:13); that is, to remind the people that fasting in itself is not of great value in the sight of God, unless accompanied with internal affection of the heart, true dissatisfaction with sin and with one』s self, true humiliation, and true grief, from the fear of God; nay, that fasting is useful 2465for no other reason than because it is added to these as an inferior help. There is nothing which God more abominates than when men endeavour to cloak themselves by substituting signs and external appearance for integrity of heart. Accordingly, Isaiah inveighs most bitterly against the hypocrisy of the Jews, in thinking that they had satisfied God when they had merely fasted, whatever might be the impiety and impure thoughts which they cherished in their hearts. 「Is it such a fast that I have chosen?」 (Isa. 58:5) See also what follows. The fast of hypocrites is, therefore, not only useless and superfluous fatigue, but the greatest abomination. Another evil akin to this, and greatly to be avoided, is, to regard fasting as a meritorious work and species of divine worship. For seeing it is a thing which is in itself indifferent, and has no importance except on account of those ends to which it ought to have respect, it is a most pernicious superstition to confound it with the works enjoined by God, and which are necessary in themselves without reference to anything else. Such was anciently the dream of the Manichees, in refuting whom Augustine clearly shows,600600   August de Morib. Manich. Lib. 2 c. 13; et cont. Faustum, Lib. 30 that fasting is to be estimated entirely by those ends which I have mentioned, and cannot be approved by God, unless in so far as it refers to them. Another error, not indeed so impious, but perilous, is to exact it with greater strictness and severity as one of the principal duties, and extol it with such extravagant encomiums as to make men imagine that they have done something admirable when they have fasted. In this respect I dare not entirely excuse ancient writers601601   See Chrysostom. Homil. sub. initium Quadragesimæ, where he terms fasting a cure of souls and ablution for sins. from having sown some seeds of superstition, and given occasion to the tyranny which afterwards arose. We sometimes meet with sound and prudent sentiments on fasting, but we also ever and anon meet with extravagant praises, lauding it as one of the cardinal virtues.

20. Then the superstitious observance of Lent had everywhere prevailed: for both the vulgar imagined that they thereby perform some excellent service to God, and pastors commended it as a holy imitation of Christ; though it is plain that Christ did not fast to set an example to others, but, by thus commencing the preaching of the gospel, meant to prove that his doctrine was not of men, but had come from heaven. And it is strange how men of acute judgment could fall into this gross delusion, which so many clear reasons refute: for Christ did not fast repeatedly (which he must have done had he meant to lay down a law for an anniversary fast), but once only, when preparing for the promulgation of the gospel. Nor does he fast after the manner of men, as he would have done had he meant to invite men to imitation; he rather gives an example, by which he may raise all to admire rather than study to imitate him. In short, the nature of his fast is not different from that which Moses observed 2466when he received the law at the hand of the Lord (Exod. 24:18; 34:28). For, seeing that that miracle was performed in Moses to establish the law, it behoved not to be omitted in Christ, lest the gospel should seem inferior to the law. But from that day, it never occurred to any one, under pretence of imitating Moses, to set up a similar form of fast among the Israelites. Nor did any of the holy prophets and fathers follow it, though they had inclination and zeal enough for all pious exercises; for though it is said of Elijah that he passed forty days without meat and drink (1 Kings 19:8), this was merely in order that the people might recognise that he was raised up to maintain the law, from which almost the whole of Israel had revolted. It was therefore merely false zeal, replete with superstition, which set up a fast under the title and pretext of imitating Christ; although there was then a strange diversity in the mode of the fast, as is related by Cassiodorus in the ninth book of the History of Socrates: 「The Romans,」 says he, 「had only three weeks, but their fast was continuous, except on the Lord』s day and the Sabbath. The Greeks and Illyrians had, some six, others seven, but the fast was at intervals. Nor did they differ less in the kind of food: some used only bread and water, others added vegetables; others had no objection to fish and fowls; others made no difference in their food.」 Augustine also makes mention of this difference in his latter epistle to Januarius.

21. Worse times followed. To the absurd zeal of the vulgar were added rudeness and ignorance in the bishops, lust of power, and tyrannical rigour. Impious laws were passed, binding the conscience in deadly chains. The eating of flesh was forbidden, as if a man were contaminated by it. Sacrilegious opinions were added, one after another, until all became an abyss of error. And that no kind of depravity might be omitted, they began, under a most absurd pretence of abstinence, to make a mock of God;602602   Bernard in Serm. 1 in die Paschæ, censures, among others, princes also, for longing, during the season of Lent, for the approaching festival of our Lord』s resurrection, that they might indulge more freely.603603   121 D121 Bernard censures, among others, princes also, for longing, during the season of Lent, for the approaching festival of our Lord』s resurrection, that they might indulge more freely. for in the most exquisite delicacies they seek the praise of fasting: no dainties now suffice; never was there greater abundance or variety or savouriness of food. In this splendid display they think that they serve God. I do not mention that at no time do those who would be thought the holiest of them wallow more foully. In short, the highest worship of God is to abstain from flesh, and, with this reservation, to indulge in delicacies of every kind. On the other hand, it is the greatest impiety, impiety scarcely to be expiated by death, for any one to taste the smallest portion of bacon or rancid flesh with his bread. Jerome, writing to Nepotian, relates, that even in his day there were some who mocked God with such follies: those who would not even put oil in their food caused the greatest delicacies to be procured from every quarter; nay, that they might do violence to nature, abstained from drinking water, and caused sweet and costly 2467potions to be made for them, which they drank, not out of a cup, but a shell. What was then the fault of a few is now common among all the rich: they do not fast for any other purpose than to feast more richly and luxuriously. But I am unwilling to waste many words on a subject as to which there can be no doubt. All I say is, that, as well in fasts as in all other parts of discipline, the Papists are so far from having anything right, anything sincere, anything duly framed and ordered, that they have no occasion to plume themselves as if anything was left them that is worthy of praise.

22. We come now to the second part of discipline, which relates specially to the clergy. It is contained in the canons, which the ancient bishops framed for themselves and their order: for instance, let no clergyman spend his time in hunting, in gaming, or in feasting; let none engage in usury or in trade; let none be present at lascivious dances, and the like. Penalties also were added to give a sanction to the authority of the canons, that none might violate them with impunity. With this view, each bishop was intrusted with the superintendence of his own clergy, that he might govern them according to the canons, and keep them to their duty. For this purpose, certain annual visitations and synods were appointed, that if any one was negligent in his office he might be admonished; if any one sinned, he might be punished according to his fault. The bishops also had their provincial synods once, anciently twice, a-year, by which they were tried, if they had done anything contrary to their duty. For if any bishop had been too harsh or violent with his clergy, there was an appeal to the synod, though only one individual complained. The severest punishment was deposition from office, and exclusion, for a time, from communion. But as this was the uniform arrangement, no synod rose without fixing the time and place of the next meeting. To call a universal council belonged to the emperor alone, as all the ancient summonings testify. As long as this strictness was in force, the clergy demanded no more in word from the people than they performed in act and by example; nay, they were more strict against themselves than the vulgar; and, indeed, it is becoming that the people should be ruled by a kindlier, and, if I may so speak, laxer discipline; that the clergy should be stricter in their censures, and less indulgent to themselves than to others. How this whole procedure became obsolete it is needless to relate, since, in the present day, nothing can be imagined more lawless and dissolute than this order, whose licentiousness is so extreme that the whole world is crying out. I admit that, in order not to seem to have lost all sight of antiquity, they, by certain shadows, deceive the eyes of the simple; but these no more resemble ancient customs than the mimicry of an ape resembles what men do by reason and counsel. There is a memorable passage in Xenophon, in which he mentions, that when the Persians had shamefully degenerated from the customs of their ancestors, and had fallen away from an austere mode of life to luxury and effeminacy, they still, to hide the disgrace, 2468were sedulously observant of ancient rites (Cyrop. Lib. 8). For while, in the time of Cyrus, sobriety and temperance so flourished that no Persian required to wipe his nose, and it was even deemed disgraceful to do so, it remained with their posterity, as a point of religion, not to remove the mucus from the nostril, though they were allowed to nourish within, even to putridity, those fetid humours which they had contracted by gluttony. In like manner, according to the ancient custom, it was unlawful to use cups at table; but it was quite tolerable to swallow wine so as to make it necessary to be carried off drunk. It was enjoined to use only one meal a-day: this these good successors did not abrograte, but they continued their surfeit from mid-day to midnight. To finish the day』s march, fasting, as the law enjoined it, was the uniform custom; but in order to avoid lassitude, the allowed and usual custom was to limit the march to two hours. As often as the degenerate Papists obtrude their rules that they may show their resemblance to the holy fathers, this example will serve to expose their ridiculous imitation. Indeed, no painter could paint them more to the life.

23. In one thing they are more than rigid and inexorable—in not permitting priests to marry. It is of no consequence to mention with what impunity whoredom prevails among them, and how, trusting to their vile celibacy, they have become callous to all kinds of iniquity. The prohibition, however, clearly shows how pestiferous all traditions are, since this one has not only deprived the Church of fit and honest pastors, but has introduced a fearful sink of iniquity, and plunged many souls into the gulf of despair. Certainly, when marriage was interdicted to priests, it was done with impious tyranny, not only contrary to the word of God, but contrary to all justice. First, men had no title whatever to forbid what God had left free; secondly, it is too clear to make it necessary to give any lengthened proof that God has expressly provided in his Word that this liberty shall not be infringed. I omit Paul』s injunction, in numerous passages, that a bishop be the husband of one wife; but what could be stronger than his declaration, that in the latter days there would be impious men 「forbidding to marry」? (1 Tim. 4:3) Such persons he calls not only impostors, but devils. We have therefore a prophecy, a sacred oracle of the Holy Spirit, intended to warn the Church from the outset against perils, and declaring that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils. They think that they get finely off when they wrest this passage, and apply it to Montanus, the Tatians, the Encratites, and other ancient heretics. These (they say) alone condemned marriage; we by no means condemn it, but only deny it to the ecclesiastical order, in whom we think it not befitting. As if, even granting that this prophecy was primarily fulfilled in those heretics, it is not applicable also to themselves; or, as if one could listen to the childish quibble that they do not forbid marriage, because they do not forbid it to all. This is just as if a tyrant were to 2469contend that a law is not unjust because its injustice presses only on a part of the state.

24. They object that there ought to be some distinguishing mark between the clergy and the people; as if the Lord had not provided the ornaments in which priests ought to excel. Thus they charge the apostle with having disturbed the ecclesiastical order, and destroyed its ornament, when, in drawing the picture of a perfect bishop, he presumed to set down marriage among the other endowments which he required of them. I am aware of the mode in which they expound this—viz. that no one was to be appointed a bishop who had a second wife. This interpretation, I admit, is not new; but its unsoundness is plain from the immediate context, which prescribes the kind of wives whom bishops and deacons ought to have. Paul enumerates marriage among the qualities of a bishop; those men declare that, in the ecclesiastical order, marriage is an intolerable vice; and, indeed, not content with this general vituperation, they term it, in their canons, the uncleanness and pollution of the flesh (Siric. ad Episc. Hispaniar.). Let every one consider with himself from what forge these things have come. Christ deigns so to honour marriage as to make it an image of his sacred union with the Church. What greater eulogy could be pronounced on the dignity of marriage? How, then, dare they have the effrontery to give the name of unclean and polluted to that which furnishes a bright representation of the spiritual grace of Christ?

25. Though their prohibition is thus clearly repugnant to the word of God, they, however, find something in the Scriptures to defend it. The Levitical priests, as often as their ministerial course returned, behoved to keep apart from their wives, that they might be pure and immaculate in handling sacred things; and it were therefore very indecorous that our sacred things, which are more noble, and are ministered every day, should be handled by those who are married: as if the evangelical ministry were of the same character as the Levitical priesthood. These, as types, represented Christ, who, as Mediator between God and men, was, by his own spotless purity, to reconcile us to the Father. But as sinners could not in every respect exhibit a type of his holiness, that they might, however, shadow it forth by certain lineaments, they were enjoined to purify themselves beyond the manner of men when they approached the sanctuary, inasmuch as they then properly prefigured Christ appearing in the tabernacle, an image of the heavenly tribunal, as pacificators, to reconcile men to God. As ecclesiastical pastors do not sustain this character in the present day, the comparison is made in vain. Wherefore the apostle declares distinctly, without reservation, 「Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge」 (Heb. 13:4). And the apostles showed, by their own example, that marriage is not unbefitting the holiness of any function, however excellent; for Paul 2470declares, that they not only retained their wives, but led them about with them (1 Cor. 9:5).

26. Then how great the effrontery when, in holding forth this ornament of chastity as a matter of necessity, they throw the greatest obloquy on the primitive Church, which, while it abounded in admirable divine erudition, excelled more in holiness. For if they pay no regard to the apostles (they are sometimes wont strenuously to contemn them), what, I ask, will they make of all the ancient fathers, who, it is certain, not only tolerated marriage in the episcopal order, but also approved it? They, forsooth, encouraged a foul profanation of sacred things when the mysteries of the Lord were thus irregularly performed by them. In the Council of Nice, indeed, there was some question of proclaiming celibacy: as there are never wanting little men of superstitious minds, who are always devising some novelty as a means of gaining admiration for themselves. What was resolved? The opinion of Paphnutius was adopted, who pronounced legitimate conjugal intercourse to be chastity (Hist. Trip. Lib. 2 c. 14). The marriage of priests, therefore, continued sacred, and was neither regarded as a disgrace, nor thought to cast any stain on their ministry.

27. In the times which succeeded, a too superstitious admiration of celibacy prevailed. Hence, ever and anon, unmeasured encomiums were pronounced on virginity, so that it became the vulgar belief that scarcely any virtue was to be compared to it. And although marriage was not condemned as impurity, yet its dignity was lessened, and its sanctity obscured; so that he who did not refrain from it was deemed not to have a mind strong enough to aspire to perfection. Hence those canons which enacted, first, that those who had attained the priesthood should not contract marriage; and, secondly, that none should be admitted to that order but the unmarried, or those who, with the consent of their wives, renounced the marriage-bed. These enactments, as they seemed to procure reverence for the priesthood, were, I admit, received even in ancient times with great applause. But if my opponents plead antiquity, my first answer is, that both under the apostles, and for several ages after, bishops were at liberty to have wives: that the apostles themselves, and other pastors of primitive authority who succeeded them, had no difficulty in using this liberty, and that the example of the primitive Church ought justly to have more weight than allow us to think that what was then received and used with commendation is either illicit or unbecoming. My second answer is, that the age, which, from an immoderate affection for virginity, began to be less favourable to marriage, did not bind a law of celibacy on the priests, as if the thing were necessary in itself, but gave a preference to the unmarried over the married. My last answer is, that they did not exact this so rigidly as to make continence necessary and compulsory on those who were unfit for it. For while the strictest laws were made against 2471fornication, it was only enacted with regard to those who contracted marriage that they should be superseded in their office.

28. Therefore, as often as the defenders of this new tyranny appeal to antiquity in defence of their celibacy, so often should we call upon them to restore the ancient chastity of their priests, to put away adulterers and whoremongers, not to allow those whom they deny an honourable and chaste use of marriage, to rush with impunity into every kind of lust, to bring back that obsolete discipline by which all licentiousness is restrained, and free the Church from the flagitious turpitude by which it has long been deformed. When they have conceded this, they will next require to be reminded not to represent as necessary that which, being in itself free, depends on the utility of the Church. I do not, however, speak thus as if I thought that on any condition whatever effect should be given to those canons which lay a bond of celibacy on the ecclesiastical order, but that the better-hearted may understand the effrontery of our enemies in employing the name of antiquity to defame the holy marriage of priests. In regard to the Fathers, whose writings are extant, none of them, when they spoke their own mind, with the exception of Jerome, thus malignantly detracted from the honour of marriage. We will be contented with a single passage from Chrysostom, because he being a special admirer of virginity, cannot be thought to be more lavish than others in praise of matrimony. Chrysostom thus speaks: 「The first degree of chastity is pure virginity; the second, faithful marriage. Therefore, a chaste love of matrimony is the second species of virginity」 (Chrysost. Hom. de Invent. Crucis.).