The most remarkable instance recorded in the New Testament is that of the incestuous person, whom St. Paul directed the Corinthians to excommunicate: from which it may probably be inferred that παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανά, το deliver over to Satan (1 Cor. v. 5.), was the usual form in which the sentence was expressed. It is possible however that in this particular case, the addition of the words els ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκὸς indicate some bodily disease, in the infliction of which Satan might be regarded as the agent. That severe temporal calamities, 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 Hymenæus and Alexander (1 Tim. i. 20.), the simple form is used without the additional words.

5. Advert to any direct rules, which the Apostles may have laid down respecting Excommunication.

St. Paul directs that those who cause divisions and offences 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 abideth 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. iii. 6.

6. Upon what authority is this Article immediately grounded; and how is the precept to be carried out?

Christ himself enjoined his disciples, that when an obstinate offender 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-operation 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 Ecclesiastical censure, rendered themselves liable to the same punishment as the offenders themselves.

7. In what sense is the rule prescribed by our Lord to be understood?

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 refuses to comply with the endeavours 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 Ecclesiastical 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 thereby to repentance, and learn not to blaspheme' (1 Tim. i. 20.); that having suffered in the flesh in this world, the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord' (1 Cor. v. 5.); 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, persuades 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 respecting the treatment of an obstinate offender, by confirming to his Apostles generally the authority to bind and loose,' which he had previously conferred on Peter together with the power of the keys.' Hence it appears that those who have power to inflict, have also the power to remit, the penalties of transgression; so that, when openly reconciled by penance,' the penitent is to be again 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 also 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 offence 'in 'the person of Christ' (2 Cor. ii. 7. 10, 11.).

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

As the Church, wherein the power of excommunication is vested, must be that particular congregation of which the offender is a member, acting under the sanction of its bishop; so the same bishop is the judge by whose authority the sentence is relaxed. Thus it is the angel of the respective Churches mentioned in the Apocalypse, who are made responsible as it were for the corruptions of their charge: and St. Paul exhorts both Timothy and Titus to rebuke with all authority. See 1 Tim. v. 20. 2 Tim. iv. 2. Tit. ii. 15. Rev. ii. 14, 15. 20.

11. What are the degrees of severity in sentences 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 party be restored by performance of the required penance to the privileges of the Church. [See on Art. xxv. qu. 10.].

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 fallen almost entirely into disuse, yet our Church both recognizes the principle, and asserts the right, not only in this Article, but in her Rubrics and canons. See Rubrics to this effect in the Communion Service, and the office for the Burial of the Dead; and Canons 2-12. 65. 68. 85. Its practical discontinuance was consequent upon the mischievous 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 prominent feature of primitive Ecclesiastical discipline.

Ignatius (ad Smyrn. c. 4.) mentions those, whom Christians ought not only not to receive, but, if possible, not to meet. Tertullian (Apol. c. 39.) observes that one object of the Christian assemblies was to cut off from communion in prayer and every holy exercise, those who had been guilty of any flagrant offence; and the sentence was pronounced by the bishop or presiding minister. See also the Tract. de Pudicit. c. 14. Cyprian (Epist. 52.) speaks of profane persons without the pale of the Church; and Augustine (de mor. Eccl. 1. p. 1146.) describes the Church as a house of discipline.

ARTICLE XXXIV.

Of the Traditions of the De Traditionibus Ecclesias

Church.

IT is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like: for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the

ticis.

TRADITIONES atque Cæremonias easdem non omnino necessarium est esse ubique, aut prorsus consimiles: nam et variæ semper fuerunt, et mutari possunt,pro regionum, temporum, et morum diversitate, modo nihil contra verbum Dei instituatur. Traditiones et cæremonias Ecclesiasticas, quæ cum verbo Dei non pugnant, et sunt auctoritate publica institutæ atque probatæ, quisquis privato consilio volens, et data opera, publice violaverit, is, et qui peccat in publicum ordinem Ecclesiæ, quique lædit auctoritatem Magistratus, et qui infirmorum fratrum consci

like, as he that offendeth | entias vulnerat, publice, ut against the common order cæteri timeant, arguendus of the Church, and hurteth est. the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church, ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

Quælibet Ecclesia particularis sive nationalis auctoritatem habet instituendi, mutandi, aut abrogandi cæremonias aut ritus Ecclesiasticos, humana tantum auctoritate institutos, modo omnia ad ædificationem fiant.

1. How many kinds of Traditions are there; and what is the nature of the traditions mentioned in this Article?

Traditions are of two kinds, doctrinal and ceremonial : of which the former are unwritten Articles of faith, said to have been orally transmitted from Christ and his Apostles; and the latter, mere ritual observances of human appointment, adapted to the more decent and orderly celebration of the public worship of God. It is these last which form the subject of the present Article.

2. Whence is it necessary that external ceremonies should differ in different Churches ?

As the Church, on the one hand, is bound to reject all doctrinal traditions which are not in strict accordance with Holy Writ, so, on the other, she has power, as maintained in the twentieth Article, 'to decree rites and ceremonies,' provided that nothing be ordained 'contrary to God's word written.' Now the manners and customs of one nation being not only different from those of another, but those of the same nation being continually liable to change, it was not to be expected that these external forms should be every where alike; nor does the Gospel, which was designed to become the universal religion of mankind, require that they should be either alike in all Churches, or unchangeable at all times.

3. Shew that the ritual observances of a Church