Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
CHAPTER XII.02
The Discipline Of The Church; Its Principal Use In Censures And Excommunication - Reading 02
V. Now, there are three ends proposed by the Church in
those corrections, and in excommunication. The first is, that
those who lead scandalous and flagitious lives, may not, to
the dishonour of God, be numbered among Christians; as if
his holy Church were a conspiracy of wicked and abandoned
men. For as the Church is the body of Christ, it cannot be
contaminated with such foul and putrid members without
some ignominy being reflected upon the Head. That nothing
may exist in the Church, therefore, from which any disgrace
may be thrown upon his venerable name, it is necessary to
expel from his family all those from whose turpitude infamy
would redound to the profession of Christianity. Here it is
also necessary to have particular regard to the Lord’s supper,
that it may not be profaned by a promiscuous administration.
For it is certain that he who is intrusted with the dispensation
of it, if he knowingly and intentionally admit an unworthy
person, whom he might justly reject, is as guilty of sacrilege
as if he were to give the Lord’s body to dogs. Wherefore,
Chrysostom severely inveighs against priests, who, from a fear
of the great and the powerful, did not dare to reject any persons
who presented themselves. “Blood,” says he, “shall be
required at your hands. If you fear man, he will deride you;
if you fear God, you will also be honoured among men. Let
us not be afraid of sceptres, or diadems, or imperial robes; we
have here a great power. As for myself, I will rather give up
my body to death, and suffer my blood to be shed, than I
will be partaker of this pollution.” To guard this most sacred
mystery, therefore, from being reproached, there is need
of great discretion in the administration of it, and this requires
the jurisdiction of the Church. The second end is, that the
good may not be corrupted, as is often the case, by constant
association with the wicked. For, such is our propensity to
error, nothing is more easy than for evil examples to seduce us
from rectitude of conduct. This use of discipline was remarked
by the apostle, when he directed the Corinthians to
expel from their society a person who had been guilty of
incest. “A little leaven,” says he, “leaveneth the whole
lump.” [1048] [1049] [1050] [1051]
VI. Having stated these ends, it remains for us to examine how the Church exercises this branch of discipline, which consists in jurisdiction. In the first place, let us keep in view the distinction before mentioned, that some sins are public, and others private, or more concealed. Public sins are those which are not only known to one or two witnesses, but are committed openly, and to the scandal of the whole Church. By private sins, I mean, not such as are entirely unknown to men, like those of hypocrites,—for these never come under the cognizance of the Church,—but those of an intermediate class, which are not without the knowledge of some witnesses, and yet are not public. The first sort requires not the adoption of the gradual measures enumerated by Christ; but it is the duty of the Church, on the occurrence of any notorious scandal, immediately to summon the offender, and to punish him in proportion to his crime. Sins of the second class, according to the rule of Christ, are not to be brought before the Church, unless they are attended with contumacy, in rejecting private admonition. When they are submitted to the cognizance of the Church, then attention is to be paid to the other distinction, between smaller delinquencies and more atrocious crimes. For slighter offences require not the exertion of extreme severity; it is sufficient to administer verbal castigation, and that with paternal gentleness, not calculated to exasperate or confound the offender, but to bring him to himself, that his correction may be an occasion of joy rather than of sorrow. But it is proper that flagitious crimes should receive severer punishment; for it is not enough for him who has grievously offended the Church by the bad example of an atrocious crime, merely to receive verbal castigation; he ought to be deprived of the communion of the Lord’s supper for a time, till he shall have given satisfactory evidence of repentance. For Paul not only employs verbal reproof against the Corinthian transgressor, but excludes him from the Church, and blames the Corinthians for having tolerated him so long. This order was retained in the ancient and purer Church, while any legitimate government continued. For if any one had perpetrated a crime which was productive of offence, he was commanded, in the first place, to abstain from the Lord’s supper, and, in the next place, to humble himself before God, and to testify his repentance before the Church. There were, likewise, certain solemn rites which it was customary to enjoin upon those who had fallen, as signs of their repentance. When the sinner had performed these for the satisfaction of the Church, he was then, by imposition of hands, readmitted to the communion. This readmission is frequently called peace by Cyprian, who briefly describes the ceremony. “They do penance,” he says, “for a sufficient time; then they come to confession, and by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and clergy, are restored to the privilege of communion.” But though the bishop and clergy presided in the reconciliation of offenders, yet they required the consent of the people; as Cyprian elsewhere states.
VII. From this discipline none were exempted; so that princes and plebeians yielded the same submission to it; and that with the greatest propriety, since it is evidently the discipline of Christ, to whom it is reasonable that all the sceptres and diadems of kings should be subject. Thus Theodosius, when Ambrose excluded him from the privilege of communion, on account of a massacre perpetrated at Thessalonica, laid aside the ensigns of royalty with which he was invested, publicly in the Church bewailed his sin, which the deceitful suggestions of others had tempted him to commit, and implored pardon with groans and tears. For great kings ought not to think it any dishonour to prostrate themselves as suppliants before Christ the King of kings, nor ought they to be displeased at being judged by the Church. As they hear scarcely any thing in their courts but mere flatteries, it is the more highly necessary for them to receive correction from the Lord by the mouth of his ministers; they ought even to wish not to be spared by the pastors, that they may be spared by the Lord. I forbear to mention here by whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised, having spoken of this in another place. I will only add, that the legitimate process in excommunicating an offender, which is pointed out by Paul, requires it to be done, not by the elders alone, but with the knowledge and approbation of the Church: in such a manner, however, that the multitude of the people may not direct the proceeding, but may watch over it as witnesses and guardians, that nothing may be done by a few persons from any improper motive. Beside the invocation of the name of God, the whole of the proceeding ought to be conducted with a gravity declarative of the presence of Christ, that there may be no doubt of his presiding over the sentence.