Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

ARTICLE XXXIII

De Excommunicatis vitandis. Qui per publicam Ecclesiæ denunciationem rite ab unitate Ecclesiæ præcisus est et excommunicatus, is ab universa fidelium multitudine, donec per pœnitentiam publice reconciliatus fuerit, arbitrio Judicis competentis, habendus est tanquam Ethnicus et Publicanus.

Of excommunicate persons, how

they are to be avoided.

That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a judge that hath authority thereto.

EXCEPT for a slight alteration in the form of the title,1 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 Ecclesiasticarum 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

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

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 fore-
shadowed in the words used when first circumcision is
established as the sign of the covenant:
"The un-
circumcised man-child. . shall be cut off from his
people; he hath broken My covenant" (Gen. xvii. 14).
The same threat is repeated in connection with the
command to observe the Sabbath in Ex. xxxi. 14, and
there is coupled with a command to inflict capital
punishment on the transgressor.1 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 (D, ȧvaleμationσerai), and him-
self separated from the congregation of those that had
been carried away" (Ezra x. 8). And from this time
onwards exclusion from the congregation (λnoia)
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
(ἀφορίσωσιν ὑμᾶς); S.
yévŋtai), xii. 42, xvi. 2.2

John ix. 22 (ἀποσυνάγωγος
And that our Lord intended

1 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, ¿popiʊOnτW LEW TŶs Tapeμßoλns, and in the case of the leper, Lev. xiii. 5 seq. (ἀφοριεῖ).

2 It is generally stated that there were three stages of Jewish excommunication (to which our Lord's words, ¿poplowoiv, ¿veidiowoly, ¿kBáλwow, in S. Luke vi. 22, are thought to correspond), viz. 7, separation; 0, or åváleμa, a severer sentence, involving additional penalties and accompanied by a solemn malediction; and spy, an entire cutting off

T

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 puffed 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. Schürer, however, shows that this is a mistake, and that and are really synonymous, so that in reality only two kinds can be distinguished, or temporary exclusion, and the on or permanent ban (åváleμa). The Jewish People in the Time of Christ, Div. II. vol. ii. p. 60.

that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus,... to deliver such a one unto Satan før 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,1 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. 5-11).2

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

2 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. 259.

The other case of formal excommunication by S. Paul is that of Hymenæus 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. i. 19, 20).1

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 God, 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,2 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.4

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. these the most important are the following:

Of

1If the Hymenæus 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.

2 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 Elymas (xiii. 10) may be referred to.

See Bingham, Antiquities, Bk. xvi. c. ii.; and for patristic comments on the phrase, cf. Suicer Thesaurus, s.v. Zararâs.

3

« ПредишнаНапред »