Gibson on Article XXXIII: Of Excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided

Except for a slight alteration in the form of the title,^ there has been no change in this Article since it was first published in 1553. There is nothing to suggest this Article in the Confession of Augsburg, and though the Reformatio Legum Ecdesiasticarum contains a long section of sixteen chapters — ” De Excommunicatione ” — there is nothing in it corresponding to the language of the Article before us, and its provisions are only of historical interest, as they never obtained any legal force. The object of the Article is to assert the right of the Church to exercise discipline, and to exclude unworthy members from the body. Such a right is inherent in a visible society such as the Church claims to be. Indeed the very notion of a definite society, with its rules and officers, implies the existence of a

• Excommunicati vitandi sunt. Excommunicate persons are to be avoided. 1553 and 1563.

i’

power to decide upon the terms of membership, and to expel disloyal and improper persons. This power we find was exercised by the Jewish Church. It is foreshadowed in the words used when first circumcision is established as the sign of the covenant : ” The uncircumcised man-child … shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant” (Gen. xviL 14). The same threat is repeated in connection with the command to observe the Sabbath in Ex. xxxL 14, and there is coupled with a command to inflict capital punishment on the transgressor. As might be expected, a more definite reference to something like a formal sentence of excommunication is found after the return from the Captivity, when Ezra made proclamation ” that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and elders, all his substance should be forfeited (DIITJ, ava6€fiaTia6j]a€Tai), and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away” (Ezra x. 8). And from this time onwards exclusion from the congregation (iKKXijaia) took its place among the Jews as a recognised method of enforcing discipline. As such it is frequently referred to in the New Testament. See S. Luke vi 22 a<popLcr(oai.v vfiasi) ; S. John ix. 2 2 (diroa-wa/ycoyo; yiprjTac), xii 42, xvL 2. And that our Lord intended

See also Ex. xii. 15, 19, xxx. 33, 38 ; Lev. vii. 20, etc. Its proper meaning, according to Delitzsch, is the “being snatched away by direct Divine judgment” New Commentary on Genesis, vol. ii. p. 36). Temporary exclusion from the congregation was, however, definitely ordered by the law in certain cases, e.g. in the case of Miriam, Num. xii. 14, 15, ifffopiad-fp-u (<a Tj irap€ixo\ri%j and in the case of the leper. Lev. xiii. 6 seq, (dopcet).

It is generally stated that there were three stages of Jewish excommunication (to which our Lord’s words, i<poplff<t)ffiv, dveuUauciyy iK- d&lt;t)<Tiv, in S. Luke vi. 22, are thought to correspond), viz. ii;, separation ; Din, or dvddefMj a severer sentence, involving additional penalties and accompanied by a solemn malediction ; and Ntv, an entire cutting off

that such a power should be exercised by the Church which He came to found is shown by the very definite words which He Himself used in speaking of the erring brother, when He gave to His Church the power of binding and loosing.

” If thy brother sin against thee, go show him his fault between thee and him alone : if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the Church : and if he refuse to hear the Church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican” (S. Matt, xviii 15-17).

This is the great passage on which the Church has always based her claim to exercise such discipline ; and in close accordance with its terms she has always held that the sentence should not be inflicted without warning, and that the effect of private expostulation must first be tried.

Passing from the Gospels to the Epistles, we find various allusions to the existence of the power of excommunication in the Church, and two clear cases of the exercise of the power by the Apostle Paul. The first of these is that of the incestuous man at Corinth. In regard to him S. Paul writes as follows : ” Ye are pufiTed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him

from the congregation. Schiirer, however, shows that this is a mistake, and that hV and ; are really synonymous, so that in reality only two kinds can be distinguished, n or temporary exclusion, and the dtti or permanent ban dvdde/w.). The Jevnsh People in the Time ofChrtHf Div. II. voL iL p. 60.

< i

that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, … to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened ” (1 Cor. V. 2-7).

The whole passage is especially instructive. It not only shows us the infliction of a solemn judicial sentence of exclusion from the body of the faithful (the phrase ” to deliver to Satan ” is explained below), but it further explains the reasons for it. It was inflicted partly for the sake of the faithful generally, to save the body from the danger of the evil influence spreading further,^ partly also for the sake of the individual, that the temporal judgments inflicted upon him might bring him to a better mind, and so ” the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is generally thought to contain the conclusion of the history. The offender was overwhelmed with sorrow, and brought to a true repentance. Accordingly S. Paul pronounces his punishment ” sufficient,” and writes to the Corinthians to “forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow,” adding these words: “To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the person of Christ ” (2 Cor. ii 5-ll).2

^ Godet, however, denies altogether that vers. 6-8 bear on the subject of the incestuous man. Comment, in loc., and see EUicott, in loc,

The other case of formal excommunication by S. Paul is that of Hymenaeus and Alexander, who had ” made shipwreck concerning the faith”; “whom,” says the Apostle, “I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme ” (1 Tim. L 19, 20).^

It will be noticed that in both these cases the same expression is employed — ” to deliver to Satan.” It has been doubted whether (1) this denotes simple excommunication, regarded as the reversal of that translation from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto Grod, which had taken place when the persons referred to had been admitted into the Church, or whether (2) something more is implied, as the authoritative infliction of bodily disease or death. On the whole, remembering the language used elsewhere by S. Paul on the power of darkness which worketh in the children of disobedience,* there seems to be no sufficient reason to think that anything more than the penalty of excommunication is intended.^ But, however this may be, the later Church never ventured to adopt the formula in inflicting her sentences.*

Although these are the only two cases of actual excommunication mentioned in the New Testament, there are several apostolic precepts which bear directly upon the subject, and furnish ample warrant for the exercise of the power by the Church in later ages. Of these the most important are the following : —

• If the Hymenaeus who taught that the resurrection was already passed (2 Tim. ii. 17, 18) be the same person, we should gather that in his case the sentence failed to bring him to repentance.

^ See especially Col. i. 12, 13 ; Eph. ii. 1-6, vi. 12 ; Acts xxvi. 18.

• It is possible, however, that such powers as those exercised by the Apostles on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 1 seq.) and Elynias (xiii. 10) may be referred to.

Kom. xvi. 17: “Mark them which are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned ; and turn away from them.”

2 Thess. iii. 14: “If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed.”

Titus iii 10: “A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse ; knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned.”

2 John 10: “If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting : for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works.” ^

To these should be added the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians in which S. Paul says of any one, whether angel or man, who should preach another gospel, ” let him be accursed ” {dvdOcfia eo-To)), Gal. L 8, 9 ; and 1 Cor. xvi 22 : “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. Maranatha ” ; for though the phrase refers to spiritual condition rather than to ecclesiastical censure, yet it certainly suggested the later ecclesiastical sense in which the word meant ” excommunicated.” *

With, then, the very definite command of her Lord before her, and guided by the practice and injvmctions of the Apostle, it is no wonder that the Christian Church from the first felt it right to exclude unworthy members from Communion, and that gradually there grew up a method of formal excommunication, with an elaborate system of penitential discipline to be undergone before the excommunicated person could be restored to the peace of the Church. The well-known stories of S.

John fleeing from the bath when the heretic Cerinthus entered, with the exclamation that he feared lest the bath might fall in when Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, was within, and of Polycarp refusing to acknowledge Marcion except as ” the first-born of Satan,” testify to a determination to hold no communion with heretics.^ In the third century S. Cyprian speaks expressly of those who were guilty of heinous sins being forbidden Communion, and separated from the body of Christ ;2 and the troubles which arose in connection with those who had lapsed during the Decian persecution brought the whole subject prominently before the Church, and compelled her to consider carefully the terms on which readmission to Church privileges might be granted. Rather later than this we come across indications of the division of penitents into distmct classes, with a separate discipline for each ; » and though the particular system has varied from time to time, being administered sometimes publicly,* sometimes privately,^ the Church has, through all changes, claimed the right to decide on her

Both stories are told in Irenaeus, Adv. ffcer. III. iii.

’ De Oratione Dominica^ c. xviii.

*Thu8 from the time of the Novatian schism until the days of Nectarius, 391, there was at Byzantium a public officer termed the Penitentiary, whose duty it was to determine what offences excluded from Holy Communion, and what crimes were too scandalous for public acknowledgment. See Socrates, H. E. V. xix., and Sozomen, VII. xvi.

terms of Communion, to reject the unworthy, and exclude them from fellowship, and also, on their repentance, to admit them once more and remove the sentence.^ There is no need here to give the history of the penitential discipline of the Church, and of the various changes through which it passed.^ It will be sufficient to notice how the claim to exercise it was preserved and reasserted in the Church of England in the sixteenth century. We have already seen how the right use of ecclesiastical discipline was generally mentioned among the notes of the Church in the various descriptions and definitions of it that were drawn up.* Very clear is the statement of the Catechism which was issued with the Articles in 1553, and which gives as the last of the marks of the Church ” brotherly correction and excommunication, or banishing those out of the Church that will not amend their lives. This mark the holy Fathers termed discipline.” * Equally clear is the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer.

Excommunications are to be publicly read out in church after the Nicene Creed.^ The Office for the Burial of the Dead is not to be used for those that die excommunicate ; ^ and precise rules are laid down direct-

c. iv. V.

« Reference may be made to the great work of Morinus, De Disciplina in Administr. Sacram. Pcenit. : Bingham’s Antiquities, Bks. xvi. and xvii. ; Marshall’s Penitential Discipline ; as well as to the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, arts. •‘Excommunication” and “Penitence.”

5 “Briefs, Citations, and Excommunications read.” Rubric after the Nicene Creed, dating from 1662.

« ” Here is to be noted that the OflBce ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves.” Rubric before the order for the Burial of the Dead. Although this rubric was only inserted in 1662, it simply embodies the

ing the curate to refuse to admit to Communion any ” notorious evil liver,” as well as ” those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign.” These “disciplinary rubrics” have stood before the Order of Holy Communion since 1549, with the exception of the final clause in the latter of them, which was only added at the last revision in 1662: “Provided that every minister so repelling any, as is specified in this or the next preceding paragraph of this rubric, shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary within fourteen days after at the furthest. And the Ordinary shall proceed against the offending person according to the canon.” The canon here referred to is the 109th of the series of 1604: “Notorious crimes and scandals to be certified into Ecclesiastical Courts by presentment.” Nor is this the only canon in the series which bears upon the subject before us. A large number of others speak of excommimication as due to

(1) impugners of the laws relating to the Church ;i

(2) schismatics;* and (3) offenders generally against religion, morality, and good order in church.^ The sixty -fifth requires ” ministers solemnly to denounce recusants and excommunicates”; and the sixty-eighth prohibits the clergy from refusing to use the Burial Office, ” except the party deceased were denounced excommunicated, majori eoccommunicatione^ for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to testify of his repentance.” Thus this canon explicitly recognises the distinction, which has come down from comparatively early days, between two kinds of excommunication. What is called the lesser excommunication deprives the offender of the use of sacraments and

ancient rule of the Church. Cf. the Council of Braga (563), Canons xv. xvi, xvii. See Hefele, vol. iv. p. 385. ^ Canons ii.-viii. ^ Canons ix.-xii. ^ Canon cix.

Divine worship. It is inflicted by a formal sentence passed by judges ecclesiastical on such persons as are guilty of obstinacy or disobedience in not appearing upon a citation, or not submitting to penance or other injunction of the Court. By the greater excommunication, inflicted for graver offences against morality and faith, the oiBfender is not only deprived of the use of the sacraments and benefits of Divine offices, but is further excluded from the society of the faithful. And it is clearly to this that the Article before us is referring, for it says that the excommunicated person ought to be taken

of the whole maltitude of the faithfal as an

heathen and publican. Such was and still remains the law of the Church ; but the civil pains and penalties involved in excommunication, which rendered it so formidable a weapon, not only before but also after the Reformation, have been almost entirely extinguished. Matrimonial and other partly civil matters have been withdrawn from the Ecclesiastical Courts, and by Act of Parliament a summary process of signification for contempt of Court has been substituted for excommunication as a means of enforcing civil processes. But the Act which thus abolishes civil penalties attaching to excommunication says definitely that ” nothing in this Act contained shall prevent any Ecclesiastical Court from pronouncing or declaring persons to be excommunicate in definitive sentences, or in interlocutory decrees having the force and effect of definitive sentences, such sentences and decrees being pronounced as spiritual censures for offences of ecclesiastical cognisance in the same manner as such Court might lawfully have pronounced or declared the same had this Act not been passed.”^ Thus the right of the Church to pronounce through her

proper courts and officers sentences of spiritual censui’e remains unimpaired, and though her disciplinary powers over the laity are but seldom exercised, yet circumstances may easily render a revival of them an absolute necessity. There is probably no desire on the part of any one that the legal consequences of excommunication should be revived, — it was largely owing to the disastrous confusion between things spiritual and secular that excommunication fell into such discredit, — but the restoration of something corresponding to the godly discipline of the primitive Church is, as we are reminded by the Commination Service every year, a thing that is ” much to be wished.”

Notes

• -* It ought to be said that some writers hold that this passage refers to the case of an entirely different person from the man spoken of in 1 Cor. V. See Godet, Commentary on 1 Corinthians ^ vol. i. p. 269.
• See Bingham, Antiquities, Bk. xvi. c. ii. ; and for patristic comments on the phrase, cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. larapcLs.
• It may be added that 3 John 10 possibly implies a power of excommunication, which was wrongly used by Diotrephes. * See Lightfoot, Epistle to the OalcUians, p. 77.
• Thus the Councils of Neo-Caesarea (a.d. 314) and Ancyra (314) refer to the paOfioL of penance as if they were well known, and allude to the stages by name (see Neo-Caes. 5, Ancyr. 4, etc.). The four stages, according to the complete system, which was, however, seldom enforced, are these — (1) Mourners, jUvUeSy irpoaKXaLovres \ (2) hearers, avdientes^ dKf>oibfi€»oi ; (3) kneelers, substrcUi, inrorlTTovTes ; (4) bystanders, consistentes, <rvvi<rrafUv<H. See the article “Penitence” in the Dictumary of Christum ArUiquities, vol. ii. p. 1591 seq,, with the references there given.
• On the decline of public penance, and the introduction of the “Penitentials,” see Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 1596.
• For the medieval forms of pronouncing excommunication and of reconciliation, see Martene, De ArUiquis Ecdesict Hitibus, Lib. III.
• See above, pp. 495, 496.
• See Liturgies of Edward VI. (Parker Society) p. 513.
• 53 George in. c. 127 ; and on the whole subject, so far as legal questions are concerned, see Phillimore’s iS<i;c/maatica/ Law, p. 1417 8M[.