The use and effect of excommunication,whilst it was not yet strengthened with the civil power,was no more than that they who were not excommunicate were to avoid the company of them that were.It was not enough to repute them as heathen,that never had been Christians;for with such they might eat and drink,which with excommunicate persons they might not do,as appeareth by the words of St.Paul where he telleth them he had formerly forbidden them to "company with fornicators";but,because that could not be without going out of the world,he restraineth it to such fornicators and otherwise vicious persons as were of the brethren;"with such a one,"he saith,they ought not to keep company,"no not to eat."And this is no more than our Saviour saith,"Let him be to thee as a heathen,and as a publican."For publicans (which signifieth farmers and receivers of the revenue of the Commonwealth)were so hated and detested by the Jews that were to pay it,as that publican and sinner were taken amongst them for the same thing;insomuch as when our Saviour accepted the invitation of Zacchaeus a publican,though it were to convert him,yet it was objected to him as a crime.And therefore,when our Saviour,to heathen,added publican,he did forbid them to eat with a man excommunicate.
As for keeping them out of their synagogues,or places of assembly,they had no power to do it but that of the owner of the place,whether he were Christian or heathen.And because all places are by right in the dominion of the Commonwealth,as well he that was excommunicated as he that never was baptized,might enter into them by commission from the civil magistrate;as Paul before his conversion entered into their synagogues at Damascus,to apprehend Christians,men and women,and to carry them bound to Jerusalem,by commission from the high priest.
By which it appears that upon a Christian that should become an apostate,in a place where the civil power did persecute or not assist the Church,the effect of excommunication had nothing in it,neither of damage in this world nor of terror:not of terror,because of their unbelief;nor of damage,because they returned thereby into the favour of the world;and in the world to come were to be in no worse estate than they which never had believed.The damage redounded rather to the Church,by provocation of them they cast out to a freer execution of their malice.
Excommunication therefore had its effect only upon those that believed that Jesus Christ was to come again in glory to reign over and to judge both the quick and the dead,and should therefore refuse entrance into his kingdom to those whose sins were retained;that is,to those that were excommunicated by the Church.And thence it is that St.Paul calleth excommunication a delivery of the excommunicate person to Satan.For without the kingdom of Christ,all other kingdoms after judgement are comprehended in the kingdom of Satan.This is it that the faithful stood in fear of,as long as they stood excommunicate,that is to say,in an estate wherein their sins were not forgiven.Whereby we may understand that excommunication in the time that Christian religion was not authorized by the civil power was used only for a correction of manners,not of errors in opinion:for it is a punishment whereof none could be sensible but such as believed and expected the coming again of our Saviour to judge the world;and they who so believed needed no other opinion,but only uprightness of life,to be saved.
There lieth excommunication for injustice;as,if thy brother offend thee,tell it him privately,then with witnesses;lastly,tell the Church,and then if he obey not,"Let him be to thee as an heathen man,and a publican."And there lieth excommunication for a scandalous life,as "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator,or covetous,or an idolater,or a drunkard,or an extortioner,with such a one ye are not to eat."But to excommunicate a man that held this foundation,that Jesus was the Christ,for difference of opinion in other points by which that foundation was not destroyed,there appeareth no authority in the Scripture,nor example in the Apostles.There is indeed in St.Paul a text that seemeth to be to the contrary:"A man that is an heretic,after the first and second admonition,reject."For a heretic is he that,being a member of the Church,teacheth nevertheless some private opinion which the Church has forbidden:and such a one,St.Paul adviseth Titus after the first and second admonition,to reject.But to reject in this place is not to excommunicate the man;but to give over admonishing him,to let him alone,to set by disputing with him,as one that is to be convinced only by himself.The same Apostle saith,"Foolish and unlearned questions avoid":The word avoid in this place,and reject in the former,is the same in the original,paraitou,but foolish questions may be set by without excommunication.And again,"Avoid foolish questions,:where the original periistaso (set them by)is equivalent to the former word,reject.There is no other place that can so much as colourably be drawn to countenance the casting out of the Church faithful men,such as believed the foundation,only for a singular superstructure of their own,proceeding perhaps from a good and pious conscience.But,on the contrary,all such places as command avoiding such disputes are written for a lesson to pastors,such as Timothy and Titus were,not to make new articles of faith by determining every small controversy,which oblige men to a needless burden of conscience,or provoke them to break the union of the Church.Which lesson the Apostles themselves observed well.St.
