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

communion, and deprived of all or certain of hie Christian pri- vileges. It is analogous to a similar mode of proceeoing among the Jews, whereby, under sanction of the Mosaic Law (Exodf. xii. 19. Lev. vii. 20. £&ra x. 8.) a person was con- demned to separation from social intercourse, and exclusion fnym the synagogue. The term employed by St Luke (vi. 22.) is dfopi^effOai, and by St. John (ix. 22.), dnoovvdyiayoi yevattdai,

3. Upon what ground ia the rite of Excommuni- cation claimed hy the Church of Christ ?

The Church claims the right to excommunicate offenders, partly on the authority of Christ and his Apostles, and

Eartly on the principle that such a power is necessarily in- erent in every community in order to its preservation and support. As the civil government has the power of inflicting punishment in proportion to the crimes committed against society at large, so is it essential that the Church should be invested with a like power in cases of any gross violation of the duties of religion. So generally has this principle been un- derstood and acted upon, that even under heathen forms of worship, exclusion from sacred rites was uniformly regarded as a severe and efficacious punishment.

3. Cite an instance of exclusion from religious privileges, as practiced by the Heathen.

[…]

4. Mention such cases of Excommunication as

occur in the ApostoHc history ; give the form under

which the sentence was delivered; and shew that

extreme severity was sometimes exercised by the

Apostles.

o2

The most remarkable instance reeorded in the New Tes- tament is that of the incestuous pei-son, whom St. Paul di- rected the Corinthians to excommunicate; from which it may probably be inferred that irapaSovvcu rif Sarav, to deliver over to Satan (1 Cor. v. 5.K was the usual form in which the sentence was expressed. It is possible howevct that in this particular case, the addition of the words etc oXeOpov TrJQ trapKog indicate some bodily disease, in the infliction of which Satan miht be regarded as the aent. That severe temporal caJiamities,: and sometimes even death itself, were inflicted by the Apostles on notorious sinners, is manifest from the instances of Ananias and Sapphira, of Elymas, and the like. In the case of Hymenrous and Alex- ander (1 Tim. i. 20.), the simple ferm is used without the additional words.

5. Advert to any direct rules^ which the Apos- tles may haye laid down respecting Excommu- nication.

St. Paul directs that those who cause divisions and of- fences contrary to the Apostolic doctrine are to be * marked ’ and ‘avoided’ (Rom. xvi. 17.) ;, and that a heretic after a first and second admonition is to be * rejected’ (Tit. iii. 10.). ’ Whosoever transgresseth, and abidetn not in the doctrine ’ of Christ, receive him not into your house/ says St. John, ‘neither bid him God speed’ (2 John 9, 10.). See also 1 Cor. V. 11. xvi. 22. 2 Thess. lii. 6.

6. Upon what authority is this Article imme- diately grounded ; and how is the precept to be car- ried out ?

Christ himself enjoined his disciples, that when an obsti- nate ofiender refused to listen to the admonitions of the Church, and was consequently excommunicated, he was to be treated as a ’ heathen man and a publican ’ (Matt, xviii. 17.). Hence it follows that, in carrying^ out the censures which she inflicts upon notorious sinners, she is entitled to the co-op- eration of all her members in making the punishment felt, to the extent implied in our Saviour’s precept. In early times, those who gave any countenance to persons under Ecclesias- tical censure, rendered themselves liable to the same punish- ment as the offenders themselves.

7. In what sense is the rule prescribed by omr Lord to be understood t

It is well known that both heathens and publicans were held by the Jews in extreme detestation, and considered to be without the pale of religious society. According to our Lord’s injunction, therefore, no religious communion is to be held with a man who reftises to comply with the endea- Tours which are made to restore him to a sense of duty ’, but his national and civil rights are to remain unmolested.

8. What are the ends and object of Ecclesias- tical penalties ?

Punishments inflicted by the Church are not intended to be vindictive, but admonitory, * that a man may be ashamed ’ of what he has done amiss (2 Thess. iii. 14, 15.) ; that he may be led theraby to repentance, and * learn not to blaspheme ’ (I Tim. i. 20.) ; that nayin^ sufl:ered in the flesh in this world, ’ the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord ’ (1 Cor. v. 6.) ; and that others may be deterred by their example from the commission of similar crimes (1 Tim. v. 20.) Hence they are inflicted in mercy both to the sinner and to others ; and thereby the Church, ‘knowing the terrors of the Lord, per- suades men* (2 Cor. v. 11.)^

9. To what extent are the censures of the Church to be carried ?

Our Lord immediately followed up his instructions res- pecting the treatment of an obstinate oftender, by confirm- ing to his Apostles generally the authority to *bind and loose,’ which lie had previously conferred on Peter together with the * power of the keys.’ Hence it appeal’s that those who have power to inflict, have also the power to remit, the penal- ties of transgression ; so that, when ’ openly reconciled oy pe- nance,’ the penitent is to 1^ ag-ain received in the Church ’ by a judge that hath authority thereto.’ Thus St. Paul directed that the person, who had been excommunicated by the Corinthians, was on repentance to be ‘forgiven, and comforted, lest perhaps he be swallowed up with overmuch

• sorrow,’ and * lest Satan alsa should get an advantage ’ by tempting men to resist an authority unnecessarily severe. He added his own Apostolical sanction for the reversal of the sentence, and forgave the oflenoe ‘in the peirson of

• Christ’ (2 Cor. ii. 7. 10, 11.).

152 QUESTJOrfS AND AITSWERS ON

10. To whom appertains the judicial authority in these matters ?

As the Church, wherein the power of excommunication is vested, must be that particular congre^tion of which the oiFender is a member, acting under the sanction of its bishop ; so the same bishop is the judge by whose authority the sentence is relaxed. Tims it is the angel of the respec- tive Churches mentioned in the Apocalypse, who are made responsible as it were for the corruptions of their chaise : and St. Paul exhorts both Timothy and Titus to rebuke with all authority. See I Tim. v. 20. 2 Tim. iv. 2. Tit. ii. 15. Rev. ii. 14, 15. 20.

11. What are the degrees of severity in senten- ces of Excommunication ?

Excommunication is of two degrees, the lesser and the greater : the former being a sentence of temporary exclusion from the Lord’s Supper; and the latter a deprivation of all religious communion whatsoever, as well as of the society and conversation of the faithful, until the partv be restored by performance of the required penance to the privileges or the Church. [See on Art. xxv. qu. 10 J.

12. Does the English Church still uphold the principle of Excommunication ; and what led to its gradual disuse?

Although the practice of Excommunication has now fal- len almost entirely into disuse, yet our Church both recog* nizes the principle, and asserts the right, not only in this Article, but in ner Rubrics and Canons. See Rubrics to this effect in the Commmunian Service, and the office for the Burial qf the Dead; and Canons ^—12. 65. 68. 85. Its practical discontinuance was consequent upon the mischie- vous purposes to which it was applied by the Popes, in not only depriving mankind of their natural and civil rights, such as filial obedience and the protection of the magistrate ; but in deposing sovereigns, releasing subjects from their allegiance, interdicting whole kingdoms from the use of the sacraments and public worship, and even debarring them from every comfort of social and Christian life.

13. Shew that Excommunication was a pro- minent feature of primitive Ecclesiastical disci- pline.

Ignatius (ad Smym. C. 4.) mentions those, whom Chris- tians ought not only not to receive f huty if possible, not to meet, Tei*tullian (Apol. C. 39.) observes that one object of the Chriatiui assemblies was to eut off from communion in prayer and every holy eatercisey those who had been puilty qf any Jlaprant offence ; and the sentence was pro- nounced by the bishop or pi-esiding minister. See also the Tract, de Pvdicit. C. 14. Cyprian (Epist. 52.) speaks of profane persons Tvithout thepaieqfthe Church ; and Augus- tine (de mor. EcoK I. p. 1146.) describes the Church as a hottse of discipline.