because Christ was to be in Heaven he assures them ver 19. 20. That whatever Publick Acts of Discipline they did when they were assembled and desired his Confirmation of them he would grant it to them yea when they met together in his Name and by his Authority committed to them did proceed to Censure Offenders he declares he was present there virtually and effectually ver 20. Now here seems to be no room for evasion yet those who love to find knots in the Bulrush do object to this plain Exposition First That this is meant of private Injuries when the Believers had no Judicatures to right them but Jewish or Heathen and though in that Case they were to use this Method yet now Christians have Magistrates and Laws of their own this order is void of it self To which Grotius replys That Christian Tribunals do not take away the power of judging from the Church because the Civil Laws do only punish the grosser Crimes and such as are most contrary to Civil Societies but there are many Offences against Charity Meekness and Patience not forbid by the Civil Laws but only by Christ's Laws by which the Church judgeth so that Constantine and his Successors did well to leave this power of Judging to the Church and to confirm it by their Laws as may be seen in the Acts of the Councils and in the Code (i) Grot. Com. in Luc. vi 22. To which I shall add That Christ here speaks not only of Injuries but of all kinds of Sins which are called Scandals or Offences because they may be an occasion of our Brethrens falling into Apostacy or evil Practises if these go unpunished and many Sins must be unpunished if none be taken notice of but those which the Civil Laws forbid (k) Rom. xiv 13. 1 Cor. viii 10. and therefore Scandals and Trespasses are used promiscuously (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. xviii 7. but ver 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also 1 Cor. viii 12. So that many evil things which are scandalous and offend weak Christians are still to be punished by the Church and since the ends of Church Censures are to bring the Offender to Repentance to clear the Church from the blot contracted by this Crime and to warn others not to follow so ill an Example and the nature of them is more gentle and more spiritual than the Civil Punishments doubtless they may well subsist together in the same Nation without subverting one another Secondly The Learned Mr. Selden seeks many Glosses for those words Tell the Church which he sometimes expounds of the Jewish Magistrates in the Synagogue and sometimes of the whole Assembly manifestly designing to take this Power out of the Bishops hands But for his first Notion how improbable is it that Christ should allow his Disciples who were not to sue for their very Cloaks Matth. v. 40. to go to their mortal Foes the unbelieving Jews to complain of Injuries and according to Mr. Selden's Notion of a Synagogue for a Court of Justice they were more like to be scourged or receive new Injuries than to get right there and Christ would rather have said Tell it to the Synagogue than tell the Church But an easie Prolepsis will solve this seeming difficulty for it was usual with our Lord whose words were to be writ for after times to allude to things not then instituted as he doth to Baptism John iii. 5. and to the Eucharist John vi 51. so we may reasonably believe he gave this Rule with respect to those Assemblies of Christians which he foresaw would soon after grow into a distinct Society and be ruled by his Apostles and their Successors to whom these Complaints were then to be made For I must venture to prefer S. Chrysostom's Exposition before that which Mr. Selden writ under a Rebellious Democracy and that holy Father tells us expresly that by the Church here is meant the Governours of the Church (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 69. in Matth. Tom. II. p. 385. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. whom Theophilact agrees with And St. Augustine expresly affirms That it is the Governours of the Church which have received this power from Christ in this place of St. Matthew xviii 17 18. (m) Augustin de Civ Dei lib. 20. c. 9. p. 213. And common Speech confirms this explication of the Fathers for we say He complains to the City who complains to the Governours of it But our Saviour puts it past all dispute that he intended this Power only for his Apostles and their Successors because to them and no other he grants a Commission to remit and retain sins John xx 23. 'T is true the Apostles and Primitive Bishops were wont to exercise this Discipline in the Presence of the People and with their Approbation but the Authority was wholly in the Governour and the Judicial Act was solely his St. Peter and S. Paul did pass the Censure and the Bishops their Successors But they did this in and before the Assembly for greater Solemnity and because the People were to know and avoid these Offenders as also that the openness of the shame might make the Criminals sooner repent and be a more effectual warning to others not to follow so bad an Example But from this presence of the whole Assembly to infer their joyning in the Authoritative part is a very weak Consequence and confuted both by Scripture and Antiquity as we shall see in the sequel For this shall suffice here to prove that in this second place our Lord Jesus hath left Power with the Governours of his Church to receive Complaints concerning scandalous Offenders and to bind them with the Bond of Excommunication till they do repent and that he hath commanded the People to refuse all Communion with these in Sacred Civil Actions while they remain obstinate yea and declared that they who remain obdurate and impenitent under this Sentence shall not only be excluded from Communion with the Church on Earth but be bound in Heaven also and excluded from thence if they do not submit and repent Thirdly these two places being only promises of a future Priviledge we may read the fulfilling of them when Christ ordained the Apostles for Governours of his Church after his Resurrection for he sent them with Authority as his Father sent him John xx 21. and to give them inward ability to exercise this high and holy Office he gives them the Holy Ghost by the Ceremony of breathing on them ver 22. Finally to oblige all the Society to revere and obey them he grants them the power of binding and loosing without a Metaphor saying Whosesoever Sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained ver 23. Which place evidently makes them Judges under Christ concerning such Offences as are committed by those in the Church so that if they should find any Man obstinate in his evil ways
the Church was to judge them and its Members were to avoid them then Excommunication was practised as it is now in the main even in the Apostles days and their Rules and Actions are our Warrant for it But since Christ gave his Apostles not only a power to retain but also to remit Sins we have a further account in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians That this Incestuous Person for of him the Fathers generally agree S. Paul speaks 2 Corinth ii 6. (x) Origen in Psal xxxvii Ambros Hieron Theoph. in loc who had grieved the Church of Corinth was exceedingly grieved himself and in danger to be swallowed up of too much sorrow wherefore S. Paul desires his Censure may be taken off declaring that this publick Reproof and severe Sentence (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. ii 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocantur Poenae Canonicae in Act. Consiliorum ap Chrysost de Sacerd. Grot. in the presence of the whole Congregation having brought him to Repentance was a sufficient Penalty and now he requires them to forgive him and grant him Absolution ver 7. expecting they should obey him in all his Orders as well the former for censuring as these for absolving ver 9. First Because in all his Orders he had respect unto their good And secondly Because he commanded them by the Authority and as the Ambassador of Christ who in all these Judicial Acts of Excommunicating and Absolving did represent the Person of Christ himself (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 10. Non in mea persona sed Christi qui dixit Quaecunque solveritis in terra erant soluta in Coelo Hieron Ut factum Apostoli factum sit Christi Ambros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. who had given this Commission to his Apostles That whatsoever they should bind on Earth should be bound in Heaven So the Fathers expound this Phrase in the Person of Christ And we may observe That as S. Paul did Cast him out of the Church not by their common Suffrages as S. Ambrose speaks but with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ that is by his Authority and Sentence whose Ambassador on Earth the Apostle was (a) Ambros Comment in 1 Cor. v. p. 358. So he restores him again upon his Repentance not by any Suffrage of the Church Members but by Christ's Authority and as his Representative which shews that the People are meerly witnesses in this Case but the Governours of the Church only act by Authority The Peoples presence tends to the Solemnity not to the validity of Excommunication or Absolution which in this Instance are both plainly founded by S. Paul upon a Divine Authority and deduced from that Commission granted by Christ to his Apostles and consequently to their Successors I have been the larger on this because it is a fair Precedent drawn by the Hand of an Apostle of the Practice of these two great Points of Jurisdiction and a clear Commentary upon our Saviour's Commission as well as a strong Proof that Church Censures are of Divine Right Many other Expressions there are in these Epistles relating to this Matter which we will only briefly remark viz. all those which speak of S. Paul's coming to them in sorrow (b) 2 Cor. ii 1 2 3 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. and making them sorry that is by ordering Offenders to be censured which Act was alway done with sorrow as the receiving them in again was with joy So he saith He fears when he comes again God will humble him among them and that he shall bewail many who have sinned already and have not repented (c) 2 Cor. xii 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teoph Eugere dicitur pro excommunicare Grot. in 3 Cor. v. 2. which the Ancients expound of Excommunicating them And in that sense we are to understand those places where S. Paul speaks of making them sorry with an Epistle 2 Cor. vii 8. and of the godly sorrow which worketh Repentance to Salvation not to be repented of ver 10. Again To this belongeth that Authority which made him ready to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. x. 6. which he calls The Authority which the Lord had given him for edification and not for destruction ver 8. For whereas the Temporal Sword destroys the Criminals these Spiritual Censures are designed to bring Offenders to Repentance and Salvation and therefore the Apostle useth this Phrase again Chap. xiii 10. where having as our Saviour directed Matth. xviii 15 16. admonished them twice by his Epistles he assures them that when he comes which would be the third Application made to them He will not spare the Impenitent 1 Cor. xiii 2. but would use sharpness or severity ver 10. (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid Tit. i. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. that is proceed immediately to Excommunicate them according to that Power wherewith Christ had invested him for edification and not for destruction For which cause they ought not to think much at this Power which Christ had given the Governours of his Church because the end of it was not the destruction but the reformation of Offenders And if they would amend without it our Spiritual Fathers would be much better pleased Further we may note That not only for wicked practices but for Heretical Opinions and false Doctrines also the Apostles used Excommunication as in that place If we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be Anathema or Accursed Galat. i. 8. And to shew this was no rash but a deliberate Judicial Act he repeats it ver 9. And here it will be seasonable to enquire into the Sense of this word Anathema so often used concerning Excommunication (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophâ—e Chrysost Abominabilis sit Hieron Condemnatus devotus detestabilis Aug. The Ancients explain it Accursed Excommunicated Separated Alienated Abominable Detestable and Devoted all which respect Persons Excommunicated And the LXX do generally thus translate the Hebrew Cherem (f) Josh vii 1. Deut. vii 26. alibi the name of one Species of Excommunication among the Jews 'T is true it sometimes signifies a thing dedicated to God The reason of which different Senses S. Chrysostom thus gives As no man dares touch a Gift offered and devoted to God so no man dares touch one that is Anathematized but this is done for different reasons None will come near the holy Gift because it is Consecrated to God but all men separate from the Excommunicated as being unholy and alienated from God (g) ap Theoph. in Rom. ix 3. ipse Chrysost hom 16. in 9. Rom. ita etiam Theodor. in loc And Theodoret notes that Anathema signifies not only that which is offered to God but that which is alienated from him and in the latter Sense he applies it to
in Herodotus where five Cities of Ionia did exclude the sixth City from all Communion in their Sacrifices because one of their Citizens called Agasicles took away a Brazen Tripod which was dedicated to Apollo (m) Herodot lib. 1. Clio. pag. 69. And we may find instances wherein Men were also excommunicated for other crimes such as unlawful Lusts (n) discedite ab aris Queis tulit hesternâ gaudia nocte Venus Tibul lib. 2. eleg 1. a crime so odious that if we may believe Aelian the very Dogs that were kept in Vulcan's Temple near Mount Aetna which fawned on all pure Worshippers would have found out those which were so polluted and driven them out of the Holy place (o) Aelian de animal lib. xi c. 3. We need not instance in any more particulars for Plutarch reports That Apollo did command Murtherers and all wicked Persons to go out of his Temple (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. de sera num vind Paean solitus templis arcere nocentes Lucan lib. 5. not that the Deity did this in Person but by the Priests who in the name of the Gods were wont to proclaim before the Sacrifices began That no Unhallowed nor Profane person none that were polluted with Blood or other crimes should dare to stay there or come near the place (q) procul ô procul este profani Conclamat vates totoque absistite luco Virgil Aen. 6. as Virgil declares in the Sacrifice of Proserpina using the very same words as Brissonius notes (r) Brisson de sormul lib. 1. pag. 2. which of old were used by the Greeks on the same account (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Callim hym 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hym Apol. apud Orph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and no doubt these were the Solemn Form of denouncing all such unworthy of the Sacrifices For the forementioned Brissonius hath cited many Testimonies to prove that this Proclamation was alwaies made not in the Sacrifices of any one Deity but of all the several Gods So Medea when she acts as Priestess of Hecate uses the like form (t) Hinc procul Aesonidem procul hinc jubet ire ministros Et monet arcanis oculos removere profanos Ovid. Metam l. 7. p. 227. As doth also the Principal of those who were employed in the Sacrifices of Cybele (u) Et procul hinc moneo procul hinc â—uâ—ecunque profâ—nae Sil. Ital. lib. 17. And for those who knew themselves guilty they did so reverence these words that they presently withdrew taking them as spoken from the Deity and believing the Divine Vengeance would seize them if they should presume to stay as we more fully learn from Suidas who thus describes this matter Those who were to offer cryed out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is who is here Then the people charitably answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many and Good Persons And this the Sacrificers did that they whose Consciences accused them of any impurity might withdraw themselves from the Holy Rites (w) Suidas verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And we need not with the Learned Selden so nicely distinguish between this Monitory Excommunication and that which was more solemnly denounced against particular persons Since the Heathens did esteem this Monition to be so Sacred that even Nero himself though an Emperor for his Quality and irreligious enough in other things durst not come to the Eleusinian Rites after the Sacred Officer had proclaimed That no impious or unclean Person should be present there as Suetonius relates And the Historian mentions it as a demonstration of the Purity and Innocence of the excellent Emperor Antoninus that he went to these Sacrifices in the Temple of Ceres at Athens (x) Cereris templum adit ut se innocentem probaret Capitolin vit M. Antonin Philos p. 213. which custom was of longer continuance it seems For Lampridius notes that Alexander Severus who did refuse those undue divine honours to which some of his Predecessors pretended in this worthily imitated the Gods That he proclaimed None should enter his presence as they say in the Eleusinian Sacrifices who did not know himself innocent (y) Jussitque quemadmodum in Eleusiniis sacris dicitur ut nemo ingrediatur nisi qui se innocentem novit Lamprid. vit Alex. Sever. pag. 525. Yea as long as Paganism was retained this usuage was kept For Julian the Apostate had banished and excluded the Christians from all publick Assemblies (z) Julian Epist 42. Nazianz. Invect in Julian orat 1. And in those times the Criers was wont to proclaim according to the Athenian manner That if any Atheist Christian or Epicurean were come to see the Sacrifice they should be turned out (a) Vide Luciani Pseudomant pag. 489. for they falsly took the Christians then for Impious Persons But withal we may note that the Christian Bishops did not suffer their People to be present at any of these Sacrifices for when an Hymn was to be sung to Bacchus and in the Preface to it Proclamation was made that such as were not initiated and such as were unclean should go out of the doors Apollinaris and his Father who were both of the Clergy with some of the Laity stayed to hear it whereupon the Laity were admonished and these two of the Clergy were excommunicated by Theodotus Bishop of Laodicea and not received in again till they were reconciled by a solemn Repentance (b) Sozomen hist lib. 6. cap. 25. pag. 389. But to return to the Gentiles Tertullian informs us That all Heathen mysteries did drive away the Profane (c) Semper impiae initiationes arceant profanos Tertul Apolog. And yet this was no where done with more Authority or more Solemnity than among the ancient barbarous Gauls among whom the Druids were their Chief Priests and had in so very great Veneration that Caesar who lived in Gallia and must needs know their Laws saith If any private or publick Person stand not to their Decrees they forbid him their Sacrifices which is the highest punishment among them for they who are thus interdicted are reckoned in the number of the impious and wicked all men turn away from them and will not meet them nor speak with them lest they should be infected by coming near them nor can they have any benefit of the Law nor receive any kind of honour (d) Caesar de bello Gal. lib. 6. pag. And Tacitus hath informed us That the Germans who had the same Rites of Religion use to punish Cowards and such as lost their Shields who were great Offenders among that warlike People with excluding them from their Sacrifices and their Councils (e) Tacit. Annal lib. 14. Whence we may observe That the Priests were the Inflictors of these Censures and when any one was judged contumacious to the Priests Laws he was first cut off from all communion in Sacred things and then as a consequent to that
not to Peter only but to all the Apostles yea to all the Clergy and the whole Church (d) Haec autem ligandi solvendi potestas quamvis soli Petro data videatur à Domino tamen caeteris Apostolis datur necnon etiam in Episcopis Presbyteris toti Ecclesiae Raban Maurus And our Saviour himself to anticipate this unjust Claim doth afterwards twice grant the same Power to all the Apostles which here he seems only to give to S. Peter Matth. xviii 18. John xx 21 22. Yet this false Gloss of the Romanists with the wild and extravagant Inferences deduced from thence hath put some Learned Protestants into the other extream that is into denying there is any Power granted to the Apostles here more than the Power of a Doctor or Teacher and they will have the Key to be only the Key of Knowledge Luke xi 52. and out of the Talmud they go about to prove that binding and loosing signify nothing else but determining what things are lawful and these are said to be loosed and what things are unlawful which are said to be bound (e) Gamero in loc item Lightfoot horae Hebr in Matth. But we must not let the Sense of the Fathers and the Power of the Keys to be at once wrested out of our hands by this Novel fancy For first the place cannot bear this Sense since it is ridiculous to affirm that Christ gave his Apostles such a Power That whatever they declared or taught to be unlawful on Earth should be unlawful in Heaven and whatever they taught was lawful God would make that lawful this were to give them a power which God himself never did assume viz. to change the eternal and unalterable Rules of Good and Evil And besides in the parallel place where these words are repeated by Christ Matth. xviii 18. they are applyed to Offenders refusing to Repent upon the Churches admonition which obstinate sinners are to be avoided as Heathens and Publicans by private Christians and if they value not this as being an Act only of their Equals Christ supposes his Apostles will then bind them by Excommunication and to shew the weight of that Censure he saith Whatsoever they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven ver 18. which being spoken of the validity of the Punishment inflicted on evil Men can never be drawn to signifie only Teaching yea after our Lords Resurrection he who is the best expounder of his own meaning declares that binding and loosing signifies remitting or retaining of sins John xx 21. and turns the Whatsoever ye shall bind c. into Whosesoever sins ye remit c. Again since the Misna which is the oldest part of the Talmud was written 150 years after the destruction of Jerusalem which is later than any Canonical part of the New Testament (e) Sixt. Senens Biblioth lib. 2. pag. 148. those Learned Men above mentioned ought not to expound the more ancient Phrases of the Gospel by these Talmudical expressions yet even in the Talmud Binding and Loosing is often used for Excommunicating and Absolving (f) R. Samuel status cornu ligat et flatus cornu solvit Talm. Bab. Moed Katon c. 3. fol. 16. Os quod solvit est os quod ligat Tract Demai cap. 6. §. 11. which is the more obvious and natural Sense of the Words and because the doing things forbidden by the Rabbins caused Men to be Excommunicated or bound by this Censure Therefore by a Trope the things themselves were said to be bound So that we may conclude That our Saviour doth actually here give Authority to his Apostles and to their lawful Successors to shut Men who are scandalously wicked out of his Church and to let them in again upon their Repentance declaring their Sentence shall be ratified in Heaven And thus the Ancients generally expound this place and from thence they frequently speak of the Power of the Keys given by Christ to the Church in order to the Excommunicating and Absolving of Sinners Of which because there are innumerable Instances one or two shall suffice (g) Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro i. e. potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata Aug. Tract 124 in Johan Cum excommunicat Ecclesia ligatur in Coelo excommunicatus Aug. in Psal 108. Vid. Ambros de poenit l. 1. c. 6. that so Reason and Authority both may shew our Exposition of this Place is true and certain which will be further confirmed by considering the second place where this Power is mentioned viz. Matth. xviii 18. Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven the very same words with those spoken to Peter Chap. xvi 19. But if we look back to the occasion of them here it will appear they can be meant of nothing but of Ecclesiastical Discipline For in this xviiith Chapter Our Lord first labours to prevent the doing Injuries and Offences to the meanest of his Disciples ver 1. to ver 14. But secondly in case Injuries be done or any Scandal or Offence given Christ teaches the offended Person what method to take viz. First privately to admonish the Offender ver 15. If that prevail not the grieved party must rebuke him before witness ver 16. And if this also prove unsuccessful and the Offender remain obstinate then he must complain to the Church which is supposed to rebuke and if need be to Censure the stubborn Criminal and if he do not hear the Church that is submit to its Sentence and make reparation then Private Christians are to renounce all Communion and Commerce with that Man and carry themselves toward him as the Jews did to a Heathen or Publican with whom they would not discourse nor eat Matth. ix 11. Galat. ii 12. nor yet suffer them to come into that Court of the Temple where they were wont to pray Acts xxi 28. for on the Gate was written Let no Stranger go into the Holy Place (h) Joseph Bell. Jud. lib. 6. cap. 14. That is they must no longer count this Man a Member of the Christian Church nor call him a Brother but esteem him as a Pagan and one who never yet was admitted or a Publican who for living in open Sins was cast out and with such a Man the rest of the sound Christians were not to have any Commerce in Civil or Religious Matters But if all this will neither shame nor terrifie the wicked Wretch so as to bring him to Repentance because he may think this Sentence inflicted by the Church is but an Human Act and pronounced only by Mortal Men Our Lord declares That this Sentence is of Divine Authority and though it be pronounced only by Men yet it shall be confirmed in Heaven For saith he Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind c. ver 18. And
several injurious practices and would not absolve him no not at the Peoples request leaving that to Theophilus Only he had impowred those Presbyters which should be present when he should be nigh unto death to restore him to the Communion for saith he None shall dye under this Bond laid on by me (i) Synesij Ep. 67. Theophil pag. 215. Which manifestly shews that he esteemed it a dreadful thing for any to dye under this Sentence and that it might make their Estate very hazardous in another World and therefore it is wonderful how Mr. Selden could infer That this looks as if he thought this Bond not of Divine Institution but of Humane Invention (k) Seld. Synedr 1. cap. 13. p. 285. For it proves the contrary since if it were only a Humane Invention it is no matter whether it were taken off or no from one who is bidding adieu to Mankind nor could it be any prejudice to a Man at Gods Tribunal if it were not laid on by his Authority Therefore it was this belief which made the Old Canons so careful to restore those who had not fully gone through the Degrees of Penitence unto the Communion of the Church in case of mortal Sickness lest if they died bound on Earth they should be bound in Heaven Soon after lived Prosper An. 433. who saith The greater Sinners must be sharply rebuked and if this will not bring them to amendment as rotten Members of the Body they are to be cut off by Excommunication lest like to dead Flesh not taken away they corrupt the sound parts (l) Prosper de vit contempl lib. 2. cap. 7. It would be tiresome to my self and the Reader to search any further in so undeniable and clear a Matter and therefore without enquiring any further into the declining Ages of the Church We will here conclude That it was the Sense of the Primitive Catholick Fathers That Excommunication was exercised by Divine Right and by Authority derived from Christ himself § IV. We will now go on to consider the Sense of the Councils in this Period concerning Excommunication And out of innumerable instances there of the use of this Rite we will only select the most material And first upon that Principle That the Whole Catholick Church was but one and that whosoever was cast out by any one Bishop was cut off from the Body of Christ The Nicene Council decreed according to an Ancient Canon meaning the 32 Canon Apostolical That whosoever was cast out by one Bishop should not be received into the Church again by another (m) An. 326. Concil Nicen. I. Can. 5. Bev. Tom. I. p. 64. By which they declared that they believed Christ had given the power of judging to every Bishop as to all those under his Charge and yet since Bishops were but Men and might chance to vary from those rules which Christ had left them to judge by through Passion or Partiality this Great Council provides That if any be unjustly Excommunicated the matter shall upon Appeal be tried in a Synod of neighbouring Bishops to be held twice in each year and there the Case is to be tried finally And the like Order of not receiving those into one Church who were cast out of another without the Sentence of a Synod of Bishops is renewed in all succeeding Councils (n) An. 341. Concil Antioch Can. 6. An. 314. Concil I. Arelat can 16. An. 305. Concil Ellib Can. 53. An. 347. Concil Sardic Can. 13. An. 397. Concil Tamin Can. 4. An. 559. Concil 3. Paris Can. 7. An. 570. Concil I. Lugdun Can. 4. An. 789. Capitul I. p. 213. Which shews this was the Opinion of all Ages There is no mention of any Appeal to the Emperors And though they were then Christian and had the Title of Pontifices Max. yet the Councils believing this Power wholly in the Bishops make the highest and last Appeal to be unto a Synod of them And this gave ground to that Custom mentioned before of the giving notice to the neighboring Bishops concerning Persons Excommunicated in any Church after which notice they were either to Excommunicate them over again or at least to avoid them as the Canons do shew (o) An. 441. Concil I. Araus Can. 11. An. 587. Concil II. Turon Can. 8. Iv◠Carnot ep 76. Yea the Popes themselves for many hundred years were content to agree to these Rules as their fellow Bishops did So that Benedict the Ninth did revoke an Absolution granted to a certain Count without the knowledge and consent of the Bishop of Auvergne who had Excommunicated the said Count (p) An. 1034. Epist Penedict 9. in Concil Lemov By which discipline the Men who fell under these Censures justly had no remedy but to repent and seek Absolution from that Bishop who best knew the nature of their Crime And for a further proof that no aid was to be expected from the secular Power but only from the Colledge of Bishops The famous Council of Sardis Ordains That if a Bishop in his anger do cast any man out of the Church he may go to another Bishop and intreat him to intercede for him with that Bishop who had laid the Censure on which Bishop ought to be willing to have this matter examined by his fellow Bishops but the person censured was to be in the same case till the matter was determined (q) An. 347. Concil Sardic Can. 14. Yea the second Council of Carthage Decrees That if any who were Excommunicated for their Crimes fled to the Court or to the Civil Judicatures those Bishops or Clergymen who received them should be Excommunicated themselves (r) An. 397. Concil II. Carthag Ca. 7. So little did the Fathers of that Age dream of any Power in the Christian Emperors as to Binding and loosing or of their own having it by any Grant from the Imperial Authority And here I cannot but digress a little to relate a most remarkable instance of God's approving the Bishops acts in censuring evil Men if it be true what is related by Faustinus and Marcellinus two Presbyters of the Luciferian Schism who wrote while the person most concerned was yet alive The story this * Faust Marcel Libell prec p. 26 27. When the Arrians by their interest in Constantius the Emperor had violently thrust out Maximus the Catholick and Orthodox Bishop of Naples from his See and got him sent into Banishment Maximus Excommunicated Zosimus whom the Arrians had unjustly put in his place and when Zosimus went into the Church to do his Office before all the Congregation his Tongue did swell and hang out of his mouth so that he could not speak one word and when he went out of the Church he was restored to his speech but going in again he fell into the same calamity and this so often that at last he resolved to quit the Bishoprick (s) An. 359. Which memorable Judgment in a Case where the Bishops
unlawful Marriage Warning all not to come into his House till he did repent But the King would not forbear visiting this Earl whereupon the Bishop foretold the King that if he persisted to converse with this Excommunicate Person he would be slain in that very house which accordingly came to pass for that very Earl and his Complices slew Sigebert there (b) An. 638. vel An. 660. Bedae histor lib. 3. cap. 22. Which remarkable Judgment no doubt made the Sentence of our Venerable Bishops to be much dreaded in those days And for that reason our old Canons decreed That a Bishop should not rashly Excommunicate any Man no not though there were never so just a Cause (c) An. 750. Egber Excerpta Can. 48. Spelm. pag. 263. because of the dreadful consequences then believed to follow upon this Censure But to return to Foreign Countries In this Age were made those Ancient Laws of the Almains wherein besides the Temporal Penalties for Sacriledge it is declared the person so offending shall incurre the Judgment of God and the Excommunication of holy Church (d) An. 630. Leges Alem. Cap. 1. Capital Tom. I. pag. 57. So that they did not think Secular Penalties made this useless in a Christian Commonwealth but on the contrary the Temporal Laws now began to decree severe punishments to be inflicted by the Civil Magistrate upon those who despised the Authority of Church Censures A memorable proof of which we have in the Constitutions made by King Pepin Father to Charles the Great with the advice of his Bishops and Barons Wherein they Ordain That whoever wittingly Communicates with an Excommunicate person he shall be Excommunicated also And that all may know the Nature of this Excommunication they declare He who is thus under Censure must not come into the Church nor eat or drink with any Christian none may receive any gift from him or give him a kiss or joyn in prayer with him nor salute him till he be reconciled to his own Bishop And if any think that he is Excommunicated unjustly he may complain to the Metropolitan and have his Cause tried by the Canons but in the mean time he must lye under his Sentence And if any despise all this so that the Bishop cannot amend him then he shall be Condemned to Banishment by the King's Judgment (e) An. 753. Pipin cap. 9. Capitul Tom. I. pag. 172. Which Law is repeated again by some of the Successors of this Pious Prince (f) Capitul lib. 5. cap. 62. pag. 836. And indeed in those Capitulars of the Ancient Kings and Emperors of France there are many excellent Canons of Old Councils revived and established by the Royal Authority which Canons the Bishops first made and Decreed in their Synods and then to make the People more strictly obey them the King with his Bishops and Barons confirmed them and put them among their Laws Which was not any Exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction nor done with any intent to take the Government of the Church and the power of Censures out of the Bishops hands as Mr. Selden pretends but rather to strengthen their Divine Right by a Civil Sanction For these very Capitulars do still own That the Bishops have Authority from God to Excommunicate Which one instance out of very many there to be found shall suffice to prove The Laity must know that the power of Binding and Loosing is by the Lord conferred on the Priest and therefore they ought to obey their Admonitions and humbly to submit to their Excommunications (g) Addit 3. Lud. cap. 23. Capit. Tom. I. pag. 1161. I cite this the rather because Mr. Selden hath the confidence to quote this very place in his Margin as a proof that the French Princes did take upon them to Order the Matters of Excommunications and Penances (h) Seld. de Synedrijs Lib. 1. cap. 10. p. 192. whereas this as well as his other proofs do only shew that those Princes believed the Bishops had a Divine Right to Excommunicate and therefore that it was their duty to compel the Refractory to submit to their Censures Nor did those Princes ever take this power out of the Bishops hands but rather fix it there where God had placed it Whence it was that they made these Laws If any Lay-Man of higher or lower Degree hath Sinned and being called by his Bishops Authority refuseth to submit to Penitence and Amendment he shall be so long Banished from the Church and separated from the company of all good Christians as he forbeareth to amend (i) Capitul lib. 6. cap. 88. Tom. I. p. 936. And again He that is Excommunicated shall be excluded not only from Eating and Discoursing with the Clergy but also from Eating or Talking with any of the People (k) Capitul l. 6. cap. 142. pag. 946. Also it is Ordained That the Christians shall not lightly esteem the Excommunications of their Clergy for even this Contempt is a just Cause of Excommunication (l) Ibid. cap. 248. pag. 964. And in another place That no Excommunicate Person shall be a Godfather for those who by Gods Law and the Authority of the Canons are turned out of the Church and out of the Camp lest they bring a Curse on the People these are much more to be kept off from these Sacred Duties (m) Capitul Additam II. cap. 1. p. 1135. Where besides the express and plain affirmation That Excommunicate Persons are by Gods Law to be excluded the Church we see That from the History of Achan's bringing a Curse on the Army of Israel they would not suffer the Excommunicate to bear Arms in their Camp Which is also intimated in those Laws which cite that place of Joshuah There is an Anathema in the midst of thee therefore thou canst not stand before thy Enemies (u) An. 869. Car. Calv cap. 20. Tom. II. pag. 213. And it is most clear by these Capitulars that the Kings Authority did follow the Bishops Act and the Temporal Justice did punish him that was stubborn and refractory and would not obey the Bishops Sentence nor be brought to Repentance by his Spiritual Censures Thus Lhotharius ordains That an obstinate Person who is Excommunicated shall be Imprisoned by the High-Sheriff or the Count (o) An. 824. Capit Lhothar cap. 15. Tom. II. pag. 323. And he that infringes the Liberties of a Church is to be Excommunicated by the Bishop and notice to be given of it to other Bishops and the High-Sheriff is to make him pay his Fine and if he despise all this being judged by Law he is to be Beheaded and his Goods Confiscated (p) An. 367. Capit. Lud. 2. cap. 8. ibid. pag. 363. Yea those who were Excommunicate for Fornication and did not submit were to be Banished the Kingdom and such as retained them were thought to offend against God and the sacred Authority yea and against the Common Interest of Christianity
iii. 10. but the Arrians and other Hereticks were then so numerous and so bold as to hold their Churches in despite of the Ecclesiastical censures Whereupon the Orthodox Emperors strengthened the Bishops Sentences with Secular Laws and by temporal penalties enjoyned the same things which the Bishops had decreed by Divine Authority and writ to their Prefects and great Officers to see the insolence of the Hereticks restrained and that they should turn them out of the Churches by force from whence the Bishops had excluded them by their Spiritual sentence Now is this to take the Bishops office and power from them Yea is not this the plainest evidence the Emperors could give that they believed the Bishops had this Power from God when they make themselves executioners of their Sentence upon the stubborn and refractory Again the eldest of these rescripts bears date An. 381. and Mr. Selden supposes that this power was delegated to the Bishops by the Emperors long before and if so how came they now first personally to exercise it or when did they reassume this Power or take it from the Bishops again Did not the Bishops at Constantinople in the second general Council this very year exercise this same power Why then should this confirmation of their Sentence this following their decision by a Temporal Law be supposed a taking away their power If we examine the date of that Council it is plain that the Council was begun in May and continued to November An. 381 as the learned Dr. Beverege computes (z) Bever Annot Tom. 2. p. 89. But this Law bears date the 4th of the Ides of January following and under the same Consuls (a) Justin Cod. l. 1. tit I. L. 2. p. 1. So that the Bishops had first Excommunicated every Heresy contrary to the Nicene Faith in the first Canon of that Council and then some Months after the Emperor orders his Prefects to see their Sentence executed Fourthly Mr. Selden brings in those Imperial Laws that did allow the Bishops to be the Judges in all causes if the contending parties consented and also those which only permit them to judge causes concerning matters of Religion or matters between Clergy-men and he supposes the Emperors permitting enlarging and tempering or restraining this sort of jurisdiction arbitrarily will prove that they did the same as to Excommunication which is the principal instrument serving to this Jurisdiction (b) Seld. Synedr L. I. cap. 10. p. 187 188 189 190. To which I reply that the Bishops had a power of Excommunication long before they had this Jurisdiction and the one no ways depends on the other nor do these Edicts at all mention the power of Excommunication Nor was that Power ever limited to be used only against the Clergy as this Jurisdiction sometimes seems to have been And again if it were only a power to judge causes where both Parties were willing as is clearly expressed in the Laws of Arcadius Honorius and Theodosius They who will try their causes before them by consent (c) Justin Co◠L. I. tit 4. L. VII and they who have chosen the Priests to hear their cause (d) Ibid. L. 8. p. 25 26. then Excommunication was not needful nor could it be any instrument serving to this kind of Jurisdiction Wherefore the Emperors enlarging or restraining this Jurisdiction did no way enlarge or restrain their power of Excommunication which they exercised against Hereticks and such as were guilty of impieties or immoralities not against those who contended about their Civil Rights So that all these Laws are nothing to the purpose Only we may observe That Constantines first Law giving them a general power of hearing all sorts of Civil causes bears date An. 314 (e) Selden Syned L. I. cap. 10. p. 177. and remained in force above Sixty years and if it were narrowed An. 376 (f) Ibid. p. 187 of which if it were to our purpose some question might be made yet it was soon after enlarged again viz. An. 398 (g) Ibid. p. 190. and the great Bishops at that time exercised all manner of Jurisdiction (h) Socrates hist l. 7. cap. 7. Now I refer it to any indifferent judge whether it be likely that those Emperors who gave them more Power than Christ had appointed should take from them an ancient piece of Authority which these Bishops openly declared they derived from Christ and which they and their Predecessors had always enjoyed Fifthly He alledges that Justinian doth very often in his own name pronounce Anathema's against Hereticks (i) Seld. ibid. p. 172. But this is easily answered out of the places cited by Mr. Selden For Justinian declares there That herein he followed the Apostles and the holy Bishops who succeeded them (k) Justin Cod. L. l. tit 1. L. V. praef And that he followed the holy Priests herein (l) Ibid. L. VI. praefat and did Anathematize all them that had been Anathematized in the four General Councils (m) Ibid. L. VII §. 3 4 5. Yea he saith that all the Bishops which were present had subscribed these Anathema's (n) Ibid. L. VII §. 3. p. 4. Wherefore this is only a declaration of that Emperors Faith and an evidence that he held the true Catholick Religion nor was his putting these Anathema's into his Edict any exercise of the power of Excommunication For besides that they are levelled at opinions and not at any particular persons This general Anathema was not properly a Censure but an high act of detestation declaring the Person using it abhorred those Opinions and thought such as held them deserved to be accursed that is by those who had the Power to pronounce them so judicially And Mr. Selden knew this very well for in the next Page Page 173. he observes that some learned Men do distinguish concerning these Anathema's used by Lay-Men either in Donations or Laws and those pronounced by the Clergy for these are effectual but those of the Laity only signify those that use them wish such a sentence might be issued out effectually by the Ecclesiastical Orders against these Hereticks or that they give their assent to some such sentence formerly pronounced by these Orders or that they highly detest and abhor such persons and their Opinions Even as the reconciled Quartadecimani who were Lay-Men did Anathematize that and all Heresies in the Council of Ephesus (o) Seld. Synedr l. I. cap. 10. p. 173. Item Binius Tom. I. par 2. pag. 260. Now it would be a very weak assertion to say these Lay-Men did in this renouncing Heresy with Anathema's exercise the office of Bishops and yet that is as true and reasonable as to think or affirm that Justinian did take upon him by his own Imperial Authority to Excommunicate these Hereticks by Anathema's For when the Anathema was a formal Sentence it was always pronounced by a Bishop Sixthly his most specious Argument is that Novel Constitution of
Justinians which Mr. Selden saith was a Law made by him as the supreme Arbiter of Excommunication (p) Seld. de Syned p. 172. And a little after he cites it at large and speaks very great things of it (q) Ibid. p. 191. as if the Bishops by this Law might not Excommunicate otherwise than by the rules he prescribed And lest we should seem to fear this terrible Law we will transcribe it also the words are these We forbid all Bishops and Priests to exclude any person from the holy Communion before the cause be shewed for which the Ecclesiastical Canons command it to be done And if any do exclude any one from the holy Communion on other accounts he that is unjustly Excommunicated shall be absolved and admitted to the Communion by a greater Priest And he that presumed to Excommunicate him shall by his superior Priest be deprived of the Communion so as his Superior sees fit that what he hath done unjustly he may suffer (r) Justin Authent Collat. 9. tit 6. Nov. 123. Cap. xi p. 171. Et Basilic Tit. 9. cap. 9. p. 124. Et Photij Nomocan p. 124 125. Now for answer to this Objection I might reply that this Law comes too late to wrest this Divine Right out of the Bishops hands for if Justinian had attempted to take this power from them after 550 years Possession and an Original title from Christ and the Apostles it had signified no great matter But if we review the Law we shall find no such thing was designed by it For we see he doth not hinder Bishops to Excommunicate for any offences which the Canons had made liable to that Penalty And that was all Heresies and all sorts of Impiety and Immorality as might easily be proved if need were And these Canons were made by the Bishops in all Ages So that this was no abridging of their Liberty nor were they tyed to any other rules than those of their own and their Predecessors making By which rules Hereticks Schismaticks Murtherers Adulterers perjured Persons the malicious the profane and all sorts of scandalous offenders were to be Excommunicated and to say they must censure none but these is to give them all the liberty Christ had allowed them or their Predecessors used And though it be said the cause must be first shewed This doth not mean it must be shewed to the Emperor or any Secular Magistrate only the Bishop must proceed regularly and first warn the Criminal as Christ himself directs Matth. xviii and then convict him of the offence So that the Person Excommunicated may know what fault he is punished for which is so just and reasonable a temperament that he deserves not to be trusted with any power of judging by God or Man who will not observe this Nor can Excommunication attain the end which Christ appointed it for even the conversion of the Sinner unless the Bishop do thus proceed so that Christ as well as the Emperor requires this which implies no more than that this weighty Censure ought not to be rashly and unjustly laid on contrary to the rules of Christ who was the Author of it and to the practice of the Ancient Church And for the Emperor to make such a Law doth no more disprove the Clergies Divine Right to Excommunicate than our English Laws That the Clergy shall Pray at such times and in such Gestures and Habits and by such a Form agreeable to Gods Word And that they shall Preach in such certain places or on such days and not vent any Heresie or Sedition in their Sermons do prove that our Clergy have not Authority from God to Pray and Preach and the like may be said of the Sacraments No doubt the Supream Powers ought to see that all Men of all ranks do that duty which God requires of them orderly uniformly and so as may be for the common benefit and in so doing they do not invade any Persons Right 'T is true if that Emperor had forbid the Bishops to Excommunicate any Man for any Cause as he that gives may take away a Delegated Power or if our Laws should wholly forbid the Clergy to Pray Preach or Administer the Sacraments then the Divine Right would be invaded but not when they only direct us to exercise our Power wisely orderly and profitably This is no more than for the Civil Magistrate to make a Hedge for Gods Law as Mr. Selden observes and indeed argues very well against this false inference of his own (s) Seld lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 277 pag. 288. Besides after all this flourish Mr. Selden well knew that this Law is no other than what the Canons of the Church had decreed before Justinians time For the Famous Canons of Carthage do Ordain That no Bishop shall rashly or lightly deprive any one of the Communion nor for any fault only known to him by the private Confession of the parties (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Carthag Can. 134. vid. Can. 133. Bever Tom. I. p. 668. Which former Canon being the same with this Law is repeated in following Canons and Councils of later times (u) An. 552. Concil 5. Aurel. can 2. An. 750. Excerp Egbertican 48. Spelm. pag. 263. Et in Capitular So that Justinian laid no restraint upon them but what the Clergy had before agreed to lay upon themselves and this Law is but a Confirmation of a Former Canon Yea if the making such a Decree demonstrate a Supream Arbiter of Church Censures then the Clergy were Supream Arbiters of them long before and many years after We may now leave this Objection when we have observed that this Novel doth not make the Emperor Judge or punisher of this rashness but the Metropolitan he is to Excommunicate the unjust Excommunicator not the Emperor which shews that the offending Bishop did not act by a Delegate Power for if he had the Emperor would have been the punisher and if ever any Emperor should have Excommunicated this had been a fit occasion when the Bishops abused the power they gave them but Lo here is none mentioned to execute this Sentence but the offenders own Metropolitan one of his own Order And therefore this Novel Constitution plainly supposes none but one of the Clergy could Excommunicate and this added to what we noted before concerning the French Capitular forbidding rash Excommunications is a full reply to this seemingly formidable Objection There are some other slight Objections relating to these times which we will briefly here set down First he would prove the Christian Excommunication to be the same with the Jewish from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cast out of the Synagogue which some Christian Writers use for Excommunication (w) Seld. Synedr lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 272 276. but who knows not that very many words which had been used by the Jews were taken up by the Christians and used in a different sense from that which they Originally