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

1. When we were treating of the Romish® Sacraments, we divided Penance 1nto private and public. Public censure of a church, especially that ignominious excison, which seemed to degrade a man from the society of Christians, to that of malignant spirits, has been always interesting; from the infinite importance of such a degrada- tion, and its powerful influence on the mind.

This Article may be conceived as including the whole subje& of Church-Discipline. As all penal- ties are submitted to, in a church properly fo

called, independent of all political fares, through the dread of excommunication. In the twentieth

Article we spoke of ceremonies, &c. but nothing

of Discipline.

11. Imprecations,

Art. xx v. Sect. 1v.

—

—F7 1 r 1 CES -

\ j

410 BOOK IV. ART. XXXIII, SECT, 11.

11. Imprecations, of a direful nature, were in use amongstꝰ the Heathens, and exclusion from sacred rites, was also practised ©. —What Cæsar says of the religious discipline of the ancient Druzds, bears a strong resemblance to that in later times“.

The Jeros had the punishment of excifion, by the Law of Moses:— they were for some offences, „cut off from the Coupregation*®,” And the Rab. bins have multiplied excisions greatly *. Their method of supplying the loss of their criminal jurisdiction, while they were in captivity at Baby- lon, was curious. They inflicted imaginary punish- ments, in the belief, that they would be realized by Jehovah; as, for instance, if a man committed an offence which, by the Law was punished by foning, they had a confidence, that when he was sentenced, he would providentially be killed by a stone. i

Ezra x. 8. and Nehemiah xiii. 28, 29. give some notion of penal separation; but the exclu- fions or separations there spoken of seem to have been calm and quiet. Some of the feparations, or anathemas, denoted by m, were attended with execrations b. — Avoiding an offender, under sentence, was usual. Degrees of excommunication, or ex- cition, are differently described, but there seem to have been a greater and a Jess.—In the time of Christ, some were cast out of the Jewish® Syza-

gogue;

d Potter’s Antiquities, Vol. 1. page 245. © Wilson’s Archzol. Dict. under Excommunication.

© Exod, xii. 19. There is a number of texts in the Concord- ance under cut-off,

[…]

s Forbes, 12. 3. 14.— Limborch, 7. 8. 12. | d John ix. 22. 34. = Xii. 42,— xvi. 2, Luke vi. 22.

BOOK IV. 111. 411

gogne;— the word F Sννο, John ix 34. is, in the margin, translated, ** excommunicated.” I do not distinguish between ecclesiastical and civil expul- fion amongst the Jews, as they were under a Theocracy.

111. The first Christians carried on the ex- pressions to which they had been accustomed as Jews; and in some degree, followed the Jewish practices. We had occasion to say something of this in explaining the word © accursed in the eighteenth Article. — But what 1s contained in scripture must not be enlarged upon here, as it belongs, properly, to our Proof.

The discipline of the early churches was mild, without being remiss, or unequal : free from every idea of partiality, or interest. No offender was allowed to effer money, or other presents. And the dignity of religious society was not let down, when the greatest personages* stood in need of reproof, or correction. |

A learned man’ says, that excommunications began with Victor and Zephyrinus Bishops of Rome: and that private pique occasioned them. He was no friend to ecclesiastical punishments. — Tertullian“, mentions the exclusion of Valentine and Marcion. Cave places Valentine in 120, Marcion in 130, and Victor in 192.

From the Canons of the Council of Nice, in 325, we see, that offenders were excluded, as peni- tents indeed, for a long term, (that of ven years is mentioned once); but that the Bishops, on per- ceiving strong marks of genuine remorse, had some

| discretionary i Art. xv111, Set. vill.

• An instance or two might be read out of Bingham, (Vol 2, page $0. col. 2. being part of 16. 3. 5.) : that of Valentinian, and that of 7heodo/rus the Great.

| Selden, =See Neal, 2. page 194.

• See Bingham, 16. 2. 13.

412 BOOK IV. ART XXXIIT. SECT. It,

discretionary power of shortening“ the penitence, — One of our excommunications is not supposed to continue so long as one of these. About this time, the penitents used to come to the churches, and within them as far as they were permitted, shedding tears, and shewing other signs of great contritionꝰ.

The fault mentioned in our Article, of encourap- ing those who are under censure, is one which was always noticed. We find in Cyprian’s time, that the encourager shared the same fate with the first” offender.

Augustin seems to have had an idea, that a Christian who died obstinate, and refused to be reconciled to the Church, was guilty of the fin against the Holy Ghost chat fin was sometimes thought to be final impenitence .- Dr. Fulke thinks, that such obstinate person must have died an Heathen”. Yet the ancient Church used fome- times to let offenders die under its displeasure, though it gave them hopes of forgiveness from God, and prayed for them.—(Bingham, 16. 2. 16. end.

The distinction between a less and a greater excommunication, seems to suit the difference of offences, and to have prevailed at* all times : the less being exclusion from sacraments, &c. as a tem- porary punishment, intended to make an offender serIous,

First Council of Nice, Canon eleventh. »This is mentioned in Dr, Priestley’s Hist. Corr. Vol. 2. page 169.

Þ See Forbes, 12. 3. 2.— The fame thing is said by Thomas a Becket, as decreed by some eighth Synod ; fee John Fox, Vol. 1. page 286.

4 Art. xv1. Sect. 1v. Note.

On Rhem. Test, Matt. xii. 31. — Wheatly on Common Prayer, page 465.

s Forbes, 12. Jo 10, — Bingham, 16. 2. 7. — 16. 3.85 Blackstone and Burn.

BOOK IV, ART, XXXITL. SECT. 111. 413

setious, humble, pemitent, and alarmed about his eternal salvation; and at the same time to prevent his corrupting the good; — the greater being an unlimited exclusion from all intercourse with the regular and pious; the cutting off of one whose reformation seemed quite desperate : and that in terrorem, meant sometimes, perhaps, as a fort of foretaste of future condemnation. So that the less excommunication seems to have had chiefly in view the good of the offender; the greater, the good of the community.

In order to get an idea of Christian excommuni- cation in the fourth, fifth and sixth - Centuries, it may be sufficient to keep in mind this distinction; and to read the Form by which Synefrus* passes sentence of the greater excommunication on An- dronicus. From which it appears,

1. That when an offender was excommunicated in one church, public notice was given to other churches.

2. That one excommunicated by one church, was considered as excommunicated by all.

3. That if any church received the offender, it shared in his censure, fo far as to be thought to deserve excommunication, though that punish- ment did not extend to Bodies Corporate“.

4. That the offender was not only excluded from the Sacrament, but from private, familiar, convivial intercourse; from marriage and Christian burial. Sometimes the prononncing of such sen- tence seems to have been attended with execrations*.

Yet this expulsion was not considered as annul- ling Baptism; so that a person, if received back

| | into © See Synes. Ep. 58. page 199. translated in Bingham, 16. 2. 8. — Cave places him in 410.

« Bingham, 16. 3. 7,—Burn’s Eccles. Law. * Bingham, Vol. 2. page 44. col. 2. part of 16. 2. 17,

IE 2 8 *

• • A Sas. . […] A E

— U =

LY -

AY

nets — —— r

_ Ar r rr

—

— tag a

2 —— de —

=

• […] l * 3: 2 — . — n 1

414 BOOK VI. AR r. XxxxI II. SECT. iv.

into the church, need be re-baptized. Nor as taking away natural and civil? rights. The of- fender was sometimes prayed * for.—His children were educated as Christians.

As ecclesiastical society has no coercive power, no power over person or property, when a sentence was past, before any Nation was Christian, there was a difficulty in getting it forced. Application was made in this case, to Heathen powers. The Emperor Aurelia* is mentioned“ as having lent his civil power to enforce the sentence of a Chril. tian community.

Iv. In the following centuries, as reason grew weaker, and superstition stronger, excommunica- tion kept assuming a very terrible appearance; and as jt was religiously obeyed, its effects were truly tremendous. But if men are too often threatened, though they may shrink for a while, they will begin to look about for means of escaping the storm ;— and those who are to execute threats will grow re- miss. When excommunication$ came to be often repeated, they began to lose their terrors; and as it is human to run from one extreme to another, they at length came, perhaps, to be 709 little re- garded. But this observation includes some length of time.

Excommunication rose to a great height in the ninth Century®, but sil higher in the eleventh, twelith and thirteenth.— Then it was reckoned a more terrible punishment, than death itself. It dissolved all those conucxions and mutual obliga- tions, by which the world 1s generally kept from running into anarchy and disorder; the connexions of conlanguinity and affinity; the obligations of

Y Bingham, 16. 2. 5. 2 Forbes, 12. 3. 2.

4 A. D. 270—275. d Bingham, 16. 2. 3. © Chambers’s Dictionary.

BOOK IV. ART. xxXI II. SECT. 1v. 415

civil authority and subjection.— The practice of issuing national Interdicts is said to have begun about the year 1160; but I will read to you Fox’s account of the excommunication of the Emperor Henry IV. by Hildebrand, (or Gregory VII.) in the year 1076 or 1077, as the first instance of the kind;—and Hume’s account of the Excommuni- cation of King John of England, in the year 1206, as connected with ourselves“.

Nor has there been greater extravagance in the effects of excommunication, than in the manner in which it has been been conducted. Ceremonies have been used, more suitable to the orgies of the Furies, than to supporting the kingdom of the Prince of Peace: torches, bells, trampling underꝰ foot, execrations composed and recited in set forms, have served to express the rage of the super- stitious zealots, and to annoy the wretched de- linquents.— The Dead have not been suffered to rest in quiet: and Brute animals, such as rats, flies, caterpillars, have had excommunication denounced against them.—As these could not be ejected out of any Christian community, I should rather have called it 1mprecation : However, as a sentence was to be past, it was right to give the rei fair play.— It is said, that an Advocate was allowed thele little intruding animals; an instance, if true, of wonder- tul candour and fair dealing !

Indeed,

For the instances here mentioned, see Bingham, 16. 3. 7.

and 16. 2. 5.—Fox’s Acts and Monuments, Vol. 1. page 231. 234.—-And Hume’s History of England, A. D. 1206.

e Chambers’s Di&. from Fevret, a Lawyer of Dijon, who died in 1661, and is {aid to have written a good Treatise de Abusu. (Ladvocat). — Of insult to the dead, the instance of Wickliffe has been mentioned, when we spoke of the Council of Constance, Sess. 8. Art. x x1. Sect. 11, —Fox, 1. 515.— Bingham, 16. 3. 12,—Burnet, page 460. octavo.

+5

ca

TY 2 . * — at dan

r

—

SS — r

—

oy > — *

R — PI — FRO — IS 8

416 BOOK IV. ART, XxXXI II. SECT. v.

Indeed, in more ancient times, when it was the custom to recite aloud the names of all those de- parted Christians who had distinguished themselves, and who had been recorded in the Diptychs, or folding books, it was sometimes found, or thought, necessary to correct the* Lists : sometimes a name was to be inserted, even though the person had been under censure, if unjustly; and fo, some- times, a name was to be erased, it any unknown offence appeared: such erasing would be a kind of anathema. But it posthumous praise be thought worth giving, it implies that posthumous blame is to be given also, when deserved.

The meaning of cursing by Bell, book, and caudle, may be guessed at from what has been said, but will read Dr. Priestley’s® short account of it.

The Schoolmen enter into nice questions concern— ing excommunication; and it is a subject not barren !—They endeavour to investigate how far God will confirm an erroneous or oppressive sen- tence;—how a good man 1s to behave under such ab sentence ; what effect any sentence, just or un-

just, is to have upon a man’s friends or relations;

with what limitations and restrictions he 1s to be avoided, &c. &c. We are told by Burn, that the Synod held at

London in 1126, agreed to receive no unknown

communicants at any church, for fear of, receiving such as had been excommunicated.

v. I imagine we may conceive Excommunica- tion as in considerable force in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but that force rather decaying. Wickliffe was excommunicated by the Pope; and in the Council of Constance we find sev eral propositions

condemned,

f Bingham, 16. 3. 12. | s Hist, Corr. Vol. 2. page 179. b Forbes, 12. 4. 41. &c.

BOOK IV, v. 417

condemned, in which he had afferted; that he ought to account* such Excommunication for nothing. Se ing .

By the time of the twenty-fifth Session of the Council of Trent, the Romanists began to adopt some moderation and caution on this subject: and even to assign experience as the ground of their moderation: cum experientia doceat fi temerè, aut levibus ex rebus incutiatur, magis contemni quam formidari, et perniciem potitis parere quam salu- tem.—Still they retained the method of excom- munication, in both degrees. Excommunicatus vero quicunque, fi post legitimas monitiones non resipuerit, non solùm ad sacramenta et commu- nionem fidehum ac familiaritatem non recipiatur, &c. but at last he may be prosecuted for Heresy; which offence would be punished by death.

While on the subject of the Romanists, I will just add, that their Sacrament of Penance, and particularly Confession, supersedesł, in modern times, other kinds of discipline: — and that Dupiu makes no objection to this Article.

Since the Romanists appear to have been so moderate at the time when the Reformed Churches compiled their Confessions, we cannot expect to find in those Confessions any great asperity against the Church of Rome. That of Augsburg ® refers to past grievances ; but I do not perceive that an other does; except that of Wittemberg, in blaming the Romish Theory. Several of them seem de- . firous to represent the Church of Christ as having

more business with teaching, comforting, or kindly

rebuking, than with excommunicating. His king-

dorm, i Baxter on Councils, page 432. * Burnet, 1 Third Append, to Mosheim.

= Syntagma, page 59.

VOL, 1V. D

• VE “5 - — . - […] Rr 2

Fd “uf —

= - 0 — =7T

[

Fg

I

r

— =

4:8 BOOK Iv. ART. XXX111. SECT. v.

dom, say they, is not of this world; the winireu, of Christians is in Heaven“. But I will mention a few particular remarks, which I made in running over the confessions of the reformed. —The Het. vetic Confession is very wary : cautious of plucking up Corn with the Tares.—The Englisi (by Bishop Jewel) is for removing Scandals, for the sake of the good’: and understands, by the Keys (as the ancients did) the true sense of Scripture.— The Scotch excludes from Sacraments by making ex- amination necessary for admission.— The Dutch is for discipline, and for rebukes from the Senate or Presbytery. But gets off by saying, that all i// o well when good Elections are made.— The Con- 2 Argentinensis (Strasburg) declines severity.— That of Augsburg enters fully into the difference between civil and ecclesiastical power, and mixed; is mild, but allows of expulsion, fine vi humana, sed verbo: it is for warding off Heresy.— The Saxon holds the mild doctrine. And that of Wit. temberg is more intent on denying the rectitude of the Papal ecclesiastical government, than on de- fining a more perfect scheme .

The Socinians, in their Racovian Catechism, speak as if they would avoid the company of an offender, and yet take some opportunity of admo- nishing him as a brother. Or if this does not reclaim him, then they would bani/t him from the Church of Christ, and no longer own him for a brother, but count him for an Alien“.

I do not recollect anything in the time of Henry VIII. worth mentioning : private discipline seems

2 John xviii. 36. —Phil, iii. 20.

_ » Syntagma, page 63. 116. | P For these passages, see Syntagma, page 156. 179, 235. Co.

98. 183, (the paging begins a second time). 1 De Eccleha Christi, Cap. 3. page 346.

BOOK IV, ART. XXXIII. SECT, vi. 419

seems to have consisted in Confession ; and public, in burning Heretics. |

In the reign of Edward VI. the Reformatio Legum takes very great notice of Excommunica- tion; and gives Forms“ of great Jength, considering the size of the whole Code of Laws. And there are two* short chapters on the principal business of our Article, encouraging offenders under sentence of excommunication.—The punishments seem very severe.

In one of the Canons* of James I. offenders are ordered to be denounced four times a year.

vi. When we come lower, we should divide English Christians into three sorts; Era/tians, Puri- tans, and Moderate Church of England men.

Some were called Era/tians, from following the notions of one Erastus, a German, who died in 1582. He was a Physician, but wrote some trea- tiles on Church-government. On Excommuni- cation, and the power of the Keys. He reduces all Church power to persuasion; no one, he holds, should be kept from the Sacrament, but only per- suaded that he ought not to receive it unworthily. Christianity is offered to all. As some provision must be made for ecclesiastical offences, he ranks them with civil ones; and holds, that all offences of every kind, are to be punished by the civil Magistrate.—This idea was favoured, in the dis- putes in the time of our Charles the First, by some men of great character and ability; both in Parliament, and in the Assembly of Divines held in 1645. — Selden, Whitlock, and Dr. Lightfoot, are mentioned“ as favouring it.

Opposite : 2 fol. 74. and 80. 6 | Cap. 6. 11. © te page 77. […] Canon 65. * 1 Neal, Vol. 2. page 97.

DD 2 X

[…]

——_— .”

4 Ali 4-= 74 ” - ww — 5 […] -( = 2 -f——-t

2A >.

Iz T —

Opposite to these were the Puritans, or Presbyte- rians, who held, that excommunication ought ta be only of a spiritual nature, and deprive a man only of spiritual* comforts ; but that it was in- tirely in the hands of the Church, and wholly independent on the civil magistrate; and ought not to be administered by Laymen. A party of thee, in 1645, made a ftron — to establish, as their right, a power of excluding any Christian from the Sacrament, subject to no control from the state ; which they were to exercise jure diving; the Assembly and the Parliament saw the necessity of preventing such an imperium in imperio; and the Presbyterians were disappointed.

The third, moderate fort of English Christians allowed, with the Erastians, that a society merely ecclesiastical had no power of touching person or property; and, with the Prespyterians, that such a society is, in its nature, independent on the State; but affirmed, that it is wholly inpracticable for an ecclesiastical sociery to be compoled of the subjects of any State, and to exist within that State, with- out connecting itself with the civil power; without borrowing from it strength and force, and assisting it with good sentiments and principles, productive of obedience for conscience sake .

vii, He who keeps these three sorts of English Christians in his mind, will want very little farther information. It may not however be amiss to mention the modern Bapti//s, They seem* to follow our Saviour’s directions given Matt. xvil. 15—17. exactly, and with very good effect: no wonder; it is an admirable* plan: it is applied to

differences

• Neal, Vol 1. page 354.—See also page 158.

This subject i is treated Book 111. Chap. XIV.

z Wall, 4to. page 453.

2 Dr. Priestley seems to speak of it with pleasure, Hit. Corr. Vol. 2. page 167.

differences between individuals; and if any man is guilty of scandalous immorality, he is excluded from the Brotherhood. The Dissenters complain of our want of strict ness in Church Discipline, and with reason : Dr. Wall laments it, yet makes as good an Apology as the Truth* will allow.

VIII, There has been something greatly dis- tressing in the case of those, who were excommuni- cated by a Church, merely because they preached dofirines contrary to its own, when they thought themselves obliged in Conscience to do. so. To have such people suffer all the rigours of excom- munication, 15 to perpetuate every corruption, and to preclude all improvement.

It is as much the nature of religion to approach gradually towards perfection, as of anything elle. This was the distress of Wichlisfe“ in the fourteenth Century, and of the Puritans * at the beginning of the seventeenth; and very cruel hardships they suffered. Some expedient should have been 1n- vented to make a difference between criminals and conscientious men. We now have one; Tolera- tion* ; and nothing can shew its excellence more clearly, than the distresses now mentioned. The Scripture says, „come out* of her;“ quit a church which really appears effentially corrupt: But there was no way to get out, with tolerable safety, when there was no toleration: nor without making a party large enough to throw all things into confusion.

In

Þ Wall, 4to. page 454. < Wickliffe died in 1384. i

In 1604, Neal 1. page 429.— See Warb. Alliance, page 71; — Book 1. Chap. 5. Sett. 2. | © Book 111. Chap. x1v. Sect. xv, * Rev, xvlii. 4,—2 Cor. vi. 17.

PD 3

422 BOOK IV. ART. xxxII i. SECT. IX.

In Blackstone’s* Commentaries, we find, that both the less and the greater excommunication till subsist in our own country. The less excludin from sacraments; the greater from all Society.— The coercive power 1s lent by the common law ; which excludes the excommunicated from all acts of probus et legalis homo; from the acts of Jury- man, Witness, &c.—Burn gives us good infor- matio nn this matter.

I take Warburton’s Aliiance to be the Book which gives the best idea of the Theory of civil, ecclesiastical, and mixed power, and consequently of Excommunication *.

1x. From History we deduce Explanation.

In the zitle, © excommunicate persons,” may mean persons under either fort of excommunication, the less or the greater :—the greater growing out of the less.

« Open denunciation” —refers to the practice already mentioned; our sixty-fifth Canon was made after our Article. ä

• Of the Church,“ —what is meant by the church, appeared under the nineteenth and twen- tieth Articles; any particular church, considering itself as making a part of the universal church.— And the conduct of the ancient churches towards each other, suits our former accounts very well, as

iven in those Articles.

„ Rightly’”—what we have to do, then, is built upon the supposition that a person is rightly ex- communicated ;—that may save us trouble. It would be a great hardship to be obliged to avoid any one whom we thought injured.—

And

[…]

And who, according to our Article, is to be judge but ourselves *? 91 4

« Cut off,” is a scriptural expression. —Rom. ix. 3.Gal. v. 12.—lIt frequently occurs, as ap- pears from the Concordance. Excision we have had before.

« The unity of the church“ —if a particular church is a constituent part of the universal Church, then cutting off from the part, is cutting off from the whole ; from whatever link an insect is driven, it is driven from the chain. Cyprian wrote, De Unitate Ecclesiæ. Allufion is made to such texts as John xvi. 11. 21, 22.—Eph. iv. 3. „„

„The whole multitude of the faithful,” means all particular churches, constituting together the universal church; the denunciation used to be made to all churches within reach : as we have seen. “As an Heathen and Publican,” regarding any one as an Heathen, 1s regarding him as a Man; which is leaving him all the rights of humanity.— Regarding any one as a Publican, is not what we are obliged to in the literal sense? we cannot be obliged to look upon an excommunicated person, as a collector of taxes; as an exciseman, or custom- house-officer: but only in that light, in which a Publican used to be regarded in our Saviour’s

time l. Our Article is very indulgent in not saying,

that

• Suppose a man thought, with the Erastians, that zo mar was rightly cut off: need he scruple to assent to this Article?

would it not, indeed, be to him à dead Letter? according to

Book 111. Chap. 1x. Sect. 1x.? 25

It is only fair to take the meaning of the word Heathen in the same way; in that light in which the Jews considered it: still from the story of Ss Good Samaritan, an Heathen is a

Man

o

DD 4

• TY PI —©S Be, —¾ü wAooeh-.

r —

0 ; Q Ma

4 ”- — o l r bh […] - . oe» —— *

FAM a : nw, +

—

424 BOOK IV. ART. XXXIII. SECT, x.

that we are to avoid“ an excommunicated person ; or refuse him our company on every occasion : or help to drive him from the Lord’s table.—Our Saviour sate down at meat with Publicans and Sinners, when his business was to endeavour to reform them ®.

« Until,” shews that the excision here spoken of is not final, except the offender chuses to make it so:—his continuance in his state of disgrace, must be solely owing to his refusing to undergo the punishment, or penance, to which he is sentenced.

[…] notification, such as was used when the sentence had patled : the Article says, « by open denunciation.” — The excommunicated are not to be suffered to insinuate themselves gra. dually into the church: as they were excluded, fo they are to be received, by judicial procels.

x. Now proceed we to our Prof. — And what is to be proved? “ Suppose a perlon rightly sus- pended from the use of Christian ordinances, every Christian ought to be cautious of frustrating such discipline.” This must be clear enough in itself ; but still our business seems to be, to take a view of what the Scripture says on the subject; either on the business of /ezting a/ide those whose conti- nuance in Society is likely to do harm: or on the nature of our behaviour towards them, when they are set aside.—I will take some passages in the order in which they lie, without dividing them into two heads. — Matt. xvii. 15—18, — Rom. XVI. 17.—1 Cor, v. 4, 5. 7. 9. 11. 13.— 1 Cor. xv. 33,—XV1. 22.— 2 Cor. il. 10.—2 Cor. vi. 17.—

2 Theil.

m The title mentions avoiding, but no o precise degree of it; ; and we do not subseribe to the titles of the Articles. » Matt, ix. 10. — Xi. 19.

BOOK IV. xI. 425

2 Thess. 11. 6. 14.—2 Tim. ii. 16—18.— Titus 111. 10, 11,—2 John 1. 10, 11, _ | |

xi. I should think that these texts must satisfy any man, that Christian Churches have good rea- son for avoiding, in a considerable degree, those under sentence of excommunication, when there is no ground to suspect the sentence to be unjust.— Some of the expreffions want considering; but they are intelligible enough to be real progfs; some of them were very sparingly used by the ancients*; probably, because their meaning was too indefinite for them to he used without some comment, or doubt; and perhaps becaule they seemed too terrible to be used by Man.

I will fay frankly in what light some of them strike me.

As to Matt, xviii. 15-17. It seems at first to relate only to private wrongs. Your Brother of- fends you; you are first to expostulate with him; if that does not succeed, you are to desire a few friends, men of good character, to be witnesses of your next expostulation; something may have been misunderstood ;—they are not prejudiced against the offender, as you may be supposed to be: nor he against them: he may not be gsiamed to submit to them, though he may to you. If this fail, state the case to the Exxanoiz, to some reputable society ; perhaps to thole with whom you commonly aflo- ciate in religious? worship; and desire their arbi-

tration, o Bingham, 16. 2. 16. .

P Selden says, the Ecclesæ were courts of Law which then sate at Jerusalem ;?*—(he says this in the House of Commons, in 1645 ;—Neal, Vol. 2. quarto, page 194) —But were they Jewisi Courts? then 1 Cor. vi. 1. or rather the same principle, would be against referring to them: and there could not be any Chri/tian Courts of Law so soon. —It does not seem likely, that Christ should send his new Disciples to Fewi/k Courts of Lato. = Yet it may be said he kad no Disciples; or none formed

8 into

7 — Sho LS a […] k… $

426 BOOK iv. ART, XXXIIT. SECT. XI,

tration. If they favour your opinton, you may have confidence in it: and having done every thing in your power towards a reconciliation, you may give it up as desperate, except your adversary makes some submission. And you may avoid the Society of him who was once your Brother, in the same manner in which the strict Fews avoid the company of Idolaters, and of those difreputable persons whom the Romans are com- pelled to employ in collecting their tribute.

F used to think this direction belonged only to individuals; but the words which immediately follow, give it a different appearance. Verily ] fay unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsover ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.” — These words must be a declaration to religious Society. They had indeed been before addrefled* to Peter only; but with some previous declarations; as, that the Church of Christ should be founded on a rock, that no powers should be able to * prevail against it:“ and that Christ would give unto Peter « the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven ;” all which things shew, that Peter was to bind and to loose as a ruler in the Church. — It now therefore seems to me, that, though no plan can be better calculated for deciding differences amongst indivi- duals than the one here proposed, yet an offence, when transferred from the judgment of a few friends to a community, might be changed from a

private into a public wrong, and therefore when sentence

into a Body, But might not Christians, as soon as they ated socially, have something corresponding to Jewish Courts? If they had, the term would be used for them. Compare Matt. v. 41, 22, Still recourse is to be had to arbitration, of men in some sort of public capacity. | Matt. xvi. 19.

BOOK IV. ART. xxx III. SECT. Xt, 427

sentence had been pronounced, al! men might be equally obliged to treat the offender * as an Hea- then man and a Publican.” . Moreover, a good Christian may not -only be offended by wrongs done to himself, but by any bad actions which will bring disgrace upon the Church, or upon Religion. And the process laid down Matt. xviii. 15—17. would be equally applicable to all kinds of offences. “IF

The terms binding and logsing, and *“ the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven,” have occasioned man difsertations, and much controversy. It seems to me as if it were no way necessary to have a precise idea of their meaning.— For whom should it be wanted? not for the Governors of the Church; they can but do their best in using their authority for the good of mankind :—not for the governed; enough is intelligible to convince them, that God will ratify the acts of those, who do every thing faithfully and modestly as his Agents. A short and figurative commission, is not likely to define nicely the extent and nature of the authority which it confers; neither does such defining seem to fall in with the usual methods of Scripture.— Having the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven ap- pears to me to mean, having a power to baptize and admit men into the Christian Religion. But the Christian Religion, though frequently called the Kingdom of Heaven, leads, of course, all things going on regularly, to the kingdom of Heaven above. As to binding and loosing, let it signify what it will, if God binds in Heaven what his Church binds on Earth, and looses in Heaven what his Church looses on Earth, He confirms the acts of his Church; which is our principal con- cern. Let binding mean hing, or excommuni- cating, or cbliging us to do a thing, or let it

mean

428 BOOK IV. ART. xxxiII. SECT. XIL. xIII.

mean forbidding”, the whole sentence comes to the fame thing. God ratifes what his Ministers enact.

x11. Of Rom. xvi. 17. we may remark, that if a Church was well constituted, it might with propriety take cognizance of causing divisions, as an offence or crime; and he who, by a Jury, or Council, or other Judges, should be found guilty of causing divisions, might justly be punished; and particularly, avoided*.

X111. The next part of Scripture to which we come, is the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. In this, the Apostle repeatedly orders an offender to be cast out of the Church: What kind of person he was, and what was the nature of his offence, Mr. Locke has sufficiently explained. But I do not perceive that he has given any opinion with regard to the expression, delivering the Offender unto Satan, Here the whole church of Corinth, including St. Paul’s vote by Proxy, as it were, are to deliver an offender to Satan, in the name and by the powwer of Christ. In 1 Tim. i. 20. St. Paul says, that he himself delivered two offenders to Satan. The end and purpose for which the Church of Corinth were to deliver over their offender, was, © for the destruction of the Flesh, that the Spirit [might] be /aved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” — The end for which St. Paul de- livered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, was, that they might“ learn not to blaspheme.” —Now, how much evil should be referred to Satan, 1s arbitrary: to reject the general belief of the *

r Wotton’s Misna, Vol. 1. page 30g, &c.

It might be considered how far this offence of causing divisions would resemble promoting Sedition; seducing military persons from their allegiance, bringing a malicious prosecution; offering a frivolous petition to our House of Commons, &c. Locke on 1 Cor. v.

BOOK IV. ART. xxxIII. SECT, XIII. 429 of spirits, is narrow-minded, and philosophy falsely so called ;—to refer to them particular events in a literal sense, is superstition; but the usual inde- finite manner of referring evit to them, meann that they may cause evil, you know not how, de- pends upon custom, educacion, fancy. The Jes, religious at the same time and ignorant, referred, in their language, many“ events to them: and the Apostles had no reason to change their expres- sions. Indeed, Wickliffe refers as many things to the agency of Sathanas, as any Jews ever did.— The fa/hiom now is, to take no notice of Spirits as the promoters of evil, or of good. Not that we differ from our predecessors as to any facts, but only as to modes of expression.—St. Paul would {peak to thole who were accustomed to refer evil to Satan, and would therefore naturally use their language. Instances are numerous. It would be natural for him to call depriving any one of Reli- gion, delivering kim to Satan. This may be illus- trated by Acts xxvi. 18. and 1 Pet. v. 8.— As converting any one to the Christian Religion, was turning him © from the power of Satan,” so sus- pending him from the use and exercise of that Religion, was delivering him back to the same power. And Satan, being always, in men’s nations, like a fierce and hungry lion, prowling about, seeking whom he might devour, would be ready to seize upon the prey delivered to him.—Yet this language about Satan was not used as if eve thing said was known to be plain act; but only in a way of eloquence, when some sentimental effect was to be produced; some good principle encouraged, {ome bad one discouraged”, |

Bur

• Art. x. Sect. L. and other places there mentioned. * See Concordance, Satan. 5

Our reasoning here is only an exemplification of the ele- ments laid down in the tenth and seventeenth Articles.

430 BOOK Iv. ART, xXxxIII. SECT. III.

But why is such language used, as that a man was to be delivered to Satan © for the destruction of the Flesh ?”-—or that he might learn not to blaspheme ? The fleh” is often used, in Scrip- ture for the fe/ty appetites ; and nothing could have a stronger tendency to break their force, than the mortification of being disgracefully banished from honourable” society; from those who had shewn constant fidelity and affection; and consigned to ignominious solitude. | I be offender of whom the expression is used, is

called the Fornicator.— The fame kind of mortifi- cation, would lower a man’s spirits, so as to take from him all inclination to blaspheme ; abusive lan-

e proceeds from an insolent and haughty spirit,

(2 Pet. 11. 18.) — Perhaps there is nothing which has a greater effect upon a feeling mind, than a consciousness of having lost the esteem of the wor- thy and benevolent; than being an object of general aversion or contempt; even though softened by gentleness and goodness. Few men are so har- dened as to be able to bear being generally shunned* and

• Rom, viii. 1—13. particularly ver. 5 & 6. and see Park- hurst’s fifth sense of Eae&.—The flesh sometimes signifies the Body; and bodily ills are ascribed to Satan. Job i, and ii. 2.— 2 Cor. xii. 7. (fore eyes): = Ambrose makes «a:0gov mean casti- gatio; see Forbes, 12. 3. 3. | |

Being in the flesh, is being in this Life. Phil. i. 24.— Col. ii. 1. 5.—(All flesh, means all mer)—so 1 Cor. vii. 28. troubles in the Flesh, Mr. Locke calls wor/dly troubles. I sup-

ose melancholy or d:þair might be called troubles in the flesh: q do not think our interpretation of, delivering to Satan, would be materially hurt, by taking fe, in any of these senses. — Something was said of @eopa oaxgxo;, Rom. viii. 6. under Art. 1x. Sect. xx v.

Our familiar language says, being shunned, &c. is 2he Devil: suppose any one was to set on criticising that expression grammatically, as a literal one!—Yet perhaps it would bear criticism as well as, delivering to Satan? — This brings to mind that other familiar phrase, of sending to Coventry, the most severe of punishments to some dispositions.

and avoided. —This mortification, if it took a right course, would put the Spirit in the best way to © be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

x1V, On 1 Cor. xv. 33. I need make no re- marks; it agrees with 1 Cor. v. 6, 7. which is part of St. Paul’s argument for casting out the Corin- thian Fornicator. ;

And 1 Cor. xvi. 22. has been discussed under the eighteenth Article.

2 Cor. ii. 10. is an argument in favour of punish- ing in the name and by the authority of Christ, because it proves that forgiveness may be in his name; and forgiveness unplies previous punish- ment.

2 Cor. vi. 17. is sometimes, I think, used for an argument; but it only orders Christians to sepa- rate themselves from* Idolaters, not from disorderly Christians. |

2 Thess. iii. 6. 14. seems intelligible, and may serve as a comment on 1 Tim, 1. 20. |

2 Tim. ii. 16—18. is not so much a proof in itself, as an auxiliary to 1 Tim. i. 20. Hymenens being mentioned in both. The bad effects of reli - gious error are strongly expressed.

Titus 111. 10, 11. serves to shew, that mere false doctrine may be a sufficient reason for separation.— Unity of Doctrine was proved in the third Book, to be necessary for obtaining the ends of religious Society. |

2 John, verses 10, 11. shews, that the separation for false doctrine, is to be extended to domestic familiarity : private conferences have perverted many : compare 2 Tim. iii. 6. Not that men are always

E to d This agrees with Selden’s observation, Neal, Vol, a. page

194: only he would make all the separations enjoined, to be of thi kind, —Selden’s speech was mentioned before; Sect. xi.

432 BOOK lv. ART. xxx III. SECT, xv.

to refuse their attention to religious argument; but men are not to listen to supposed Heresy lig lxly, without caution and deliberatiou.— I mean not 10 make any caution for one religion more than another. The provision here made, is for the People: they were distinguished from Philosophers in our second Book. | xv. As we have seen the authority on which Christian offenders are suspended from the use of the ordinances of religion, and avoided by their brethren, we should take some notice of those texts of Scripture, which may dispose us to refore hina to his former state, in case of his sincere re- pentance and humiliation ;—as the restoration to tavour seems to make an essential part of our Article. |

Avoiding a person, with a right temper of mind, must fall very far short of depriving him of the rights of umanity. It ought to express no bitter- ness, or acrimony; but a kind concern, a benevo- lent solicitude, an earnestness to rectify every thing wrong, an anxious with for the return of a truly Christian disposition.” The prayers of Cyprian * would be, no doubt, expressive of all this. De- testation of a crime, is always to be distinguished from hatred of the Criminal. From 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13. it appears, that a Christian wife may live with an heathen husband: therefore taking a person as an Heathen, does not extend to diflolving the several relations of human life, —St. Paul, as before mentioned, ordered an offender to be excluded from the Church of Corinth; but in giving his order he said no more than what he thought necessary to make the Corinthians execute it. And when he found they had executed it, nothing can exceed the tenderness which he shewed, left any

| | malevolent © Forbes, 12. 3. 2. |

BOOK IV. ART. XxxxIII. SECT. XVI. 433

malevolent severity should be used, or the offender allowed“ up with over-much sorrow.” He be- came diffideut of his own upright judgment, and extremely cautions lest he should be fempted (tempted by Satan) to indulge his well-grounded indigna- tion so as to delay his forgiveness (as the minister of Christ) longer than necessity required. It is with this idea that he introduces the words, „if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it, in the person of Christ; lest Satan should get an advantage of ey for we are not ignorant of his devices.“

After citing 2 Thess. iii. 14. in order to enable us to punish, we should read the next verse, to prevent all needless severity of punishment; and all use of it on a wrong principle.— As a general

lan of punishing Christian brethren, we may,

stly, take Gal. vi. 1.

So much for direct proof.

xvi. In the way of indirect proof I will only propose one objeftion.’ Is it to be conceived, that when a man 1s cut off from the Church, he really becomes, in all respects, an Heather that would be, according to what has been said under the thirteenth and eighteenth Articles, a thing greatly to be dreaded. To this question I answer, God

must finally judge of that; there will be no wrong at his Tribunal; yet as it is taken for granted that He confirms the acts of his Ministers when they admit men into Christianity, is it to be conceived, that he will make them void, when they exclude | : It seems a thing which offenders have great reason to fear. Even supposing that they are excluded

tor

4 2 Cor. ll. 7. © 2 Cor. ii. 10, 11.—No one can FRA the delicacy and kindness of st. Paul’s sentiments, who reads Mr. Locke .on this passage.

[…] m […] —

tor what is in itself an indifferent action, yet de- stroying or weakening that authority, which has been constituted for the general good, is surely a fault, and one of great importance. Nay, I should say, that if a man was bona fide excommunicated for a right or good action, performed for conscience sake, yet if he did not do all in his power (fo as not to violate duty) both to. avoid offending the sacred Magistrate, and to reconcile himself to those in authority, he would still, though unfortunate in this life, be punishable in the next.

XVII. In making an Application, we may dif. pense with a new form of assent, and also with mutual concessions: but it is not easy to quit the Article without one word concerning Improvement. [ fear it is wanting both in Theory and Practice. — Our ecclesiastical Laws were formed at various times, and on various occasions: so that some of them cannot now be equitably enforced, in their full extent; and to adjust them to the present times, by a comparison of circumstances, would require uncommon ability. This gives room for too much severity in those who are inclined, or interested, to be severe; and for too much lenity in the timid and indolent. The mere attempt to make a new Code, would be attended with good; as it would make our spiritual interests to be better understood than they are at present, more worthily esteemed, and more effect ually promoted.

With regard to practice, I believe every reli- gious man will allow, that the ecclesiastical Magis- trates, whose business it is to visit and correct the Church, frequently do not do it effectually. And what is the reason ? - Because they have imperfect laws; and because they have not the firm support of either the great or the small? What could Hildebrand himself do in such a situation? The

Great

BOOK IV. ART, XXXII1. SECT. XVII. 435

Great are labouring to have all things work to- gether, either for a secure majority in Parliament, or for personal influence, or command*. Eccle- siastics are not to make the Reformation of all men -their sole purpose, because the Great are their Patrons; they must not be wngrateful to those who gave them the dignities they possess : — gave them? 1s that a gift which is conferred by patronage ? is not patronage a trust, a power of naming, for the sole end of promoting the public ood ? | , But as the Great mifake the nature and conse- quences of their power, the inferior orders are careless and negligent about theirs ; they think not of their own real value and importance. Have they not the power of excommunication in them- selves, in a very great degree ? and will even the Great think it prudent to act against the united sense, if plainly rational and virtuous, of the gene- rality of the people? It is not difficult to see, how, in this way, one evil begets a number.— However, in like manner, one good might beget a number, if we could once set the procreation a going. Might not our ecclesiastical Judges imitate our Civil ones? they have no appearance of any respect of persons : They hang the wealthy® Peer as a common felon. — But they are made, it will be urged, independent : by what power ? could not the same give independence to judges eccle-

siastical? but we must not lose ourselves in Utopian speculations.

I conclude

f I fear there are too many instances at present of Patrons embezzling the property of the Church; by making bargains to pay a stipulated sum instead of tithes; or by taking the Church Lands into their own occupation, and confounding them with

their own; or by other unjustifiable measures, 85 Earl Ferrers,

E E 2

—

• […] 8 * 1 […] I 4 ” Fa […] a. * 3 F- - & 1 4 […] 1 n n — F : « - * — . - ”—_ 4” *

4 roy - — - 4 *»

[…]

l — - : Z — : BY = Z 2 — —

—

[…] ů […] ©

— Xi. 2

436 ‘BOOK IV, ART. xxxIII. SECT, XVIL..

I conclude with the testimony of Sir William Blackstone in favour of the highest ecclesiastical Judges, lest what I have said should direct any one’s attention towards zhem, He acknowledges), © to the honour of the spiritual courts,” that « justice is in general” © ably and impartially ad- ministered in those tribunals, especially of the superior kind.“

bd Book 3. Chap. 7.

i This last Section was omitted at Lecture; chiefly for want of time. It did not afterwards seem proper for the beginning of

a Lecture; and was not necessary for Students.

Notes

• Czfar de Bello Gallico, Lib. 6. Cap. 13. (or page 209- Edit. Variorum 1651, Lugd. Bat.) |