speaking of his Apostles determining in the Schools or solving Cases of Conscience but of the power they should have to punish contumacious Offenders and injurious Persons And though Mr. Selden objects it is not Whosoever ye shall bind but Whatsoever yet he answers himself saying That it is true Persons may be signified by the Neuter Gender pag. 159. Finally For his Fancy that the force of Excommunication depended on private Pacts among the Christians it is not to be imagined that Murderers and Adulterers perjured Persons and Apostates would have scrupled breaking these parts or have been so terrified and dejected by an Excommunication if it had only relied on their own promise to obey it I grant indeed the Christians did vow in Baptism and the Eucharist to observe Christs Commands and submit to his Injunctions among which doubtless they reckoned this so much reverenced Discipline to which they were subject for that they believed it to be exercised in Christs Name and by vertue of his Authority We conclude therefore That Mr. Selden hath gained nothing by this prolix Excursion but only to convince us that he wished Excommunication were not of Divine Right though he be not able to prove it And no question we are much safer in believing with those Holy Primitive Bishops who might know the mind of Christ and the practice of the Apostles much better than our Modern Criticks and who are more likely to tell us the Truth than those who espouse a Party and serve Ends of Revenge for Censures not undeservedly laid upon them § III. Our next Enquiry as to practice is Whether this Rite of Excommunication was used and believed of Divine Right after the Empire became Christian And this we must do the more largely to confute the Error of Erastus espoused also by Mr. Selden who attempts to prove That in a Christian State there is no need of any such thing as a power of Excommunication in the Church-men because the Magistrate now may punish all Crimes and that it was only for Want of this blessing of Christian Magistrates which forced the Primitive Bishops to use Excommunication To which Mr. Selden adds That after the Empire became Christian the Bishops derived their Power to Excommunicate from the Princes Grant There is no better way to find out the truth herein than to consult the Records of those Ages and to enquire into the Opinion of the most eminent Fathers after Constantines time and into the practice of those Ages which retained the Primitive purity And though we cannot bring in all things of this kind between the years 300. and 500. for that would be to write a Church History not a Discourse upon one single point Yet we will remark that which is sufficient to baffle this modern and ill grounded Conceit And first Whereas it is most certain that the Bishops did Excommunicate in Constantine's time yet no Writer of that Age doth affirm they did it by any Power from the Emperor and Mr. Selden out of his vast stock of reading at this dead lift could not bring one single Memorial of the Emperors giving the Bishops a Power to Excommunicate in all this Period of time 'T is true these first Christian Emperors and Constantine particularly did Ordain That if any Litigants desired to have their causes tried before the Bishops they might leave the Secular Tribunal and that the Bishops Sentences should be firm and of more Authority than those of other Judges yea as valid as if they were delivered by the Emperor himself As also that the Magistrates and their Officers should execute their Sentences and that the Decrees of their Councils should be Valid (r) Sozomen hist Eccles lib. 1. cap. 9. p. 206. Circa An. 314. Vide Cod. Theodos l. 16. Tit. 2. in fine Which Law doth indeed give them a New Power not granted by Christ but never mentions Excommunication Yea it ordains that these Sentences should be executed by another method even by the Civil Magistrate and his Officers Mr. Selden indeed produces another Law as if it were a Repeal of this in the time of Valens Gratian and Valentinian Ann. 376. above 60. years after But that Law seems to except only Criminal Actions from the Bishops Cognizance (s) Vid. Seld. Synedr l. 1. cap. 10. p. 187. And if we consider the complaints of the good Bishops in that Age who were burthened with divers Civil Causes or look upon those Laws of Arcadius and Honorius (t) Cod. Justin lib. 1. Tit. 4. de Epist Aud. L. 7. An. 398. L. 8. An. 408. and of Honorius and Theodosius which allow Men to chuse Bishops for deciding their Civil Causes and declare their Sentence to be firm and Valid We shall easily perceive that Constantines Law was never repealed nor this practice difused But this doth not at all belong to Excommunication which Power the Bishops exercised by the virtue of Christs Commission in cases of Heresy and Scandal and that not by consent of the Parties as they did this Power of decision of Civil Causes So that Mr. Selden ought not to make Excommunication depend on these grants For the Emperors Authority did not precede but follow the Bishops Act in Excommunication so that if the person Censured proved obstinate or troublesome he was Banished or Imprisoned by the Imperial Power As we see in the Case of the Arians who were Excommunicated by the first General Council of Nice and the Emperor Constantine did Ordain That those who submitted not to the Decree of the Council should be banished (u) Sozom Eccles hist lib. 1. cap. 19. p. 221. And that the Bishops did exercise this Power in their own right as derived from Christ is manifest from the whole History of that Age Arius himself and all his Associates were Excommunicated at Alexandria first by Peter and then by Alexander the Bishops of that City (w) Idem ibid. Cap. 14. p. 215. before any application was made to the Emperors and before the Nicene Council was Called And that most famous Council in almost every Canon supposes the Bishop to be the Judge of such as are to be kept out and such as are to be let into the Church And those Holy Fathers do decree concerning Penitents and lapsed Persons according to the ancient usage of Ecclesiastical Discipline under Heathen Emperors without any alteration made upon the account of Constantine's being a Christian Making the Bishop the sole Judge of the time of Excluding these Offenders from Communion in Sacred Offices To this we may add that Accurate Scheme of the admirable Discipline of these Primitive Ages which is described in the Canonical Epistles of Gregory Thaumaturgus S. Basil and others of the Primitive Bishops By which we see that such as were first Excommunicated by the Bishops for Fornication Adultery Murder Perjury Apostasie and other Crimes (x) Vid. Leonem Allatium de Narthece Vet. Eccl. §. 19. p. 94. Et Bevereg Not. ad Can. xi
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
signified So the Fathers use the Word Passover not for the Jewish Feast upon their Paschal Lamb but for the Christian Festival in Memory of Christs Resurrection So also they use the word Sacrifice for the Commemoration of Christs one Oblation in the Eucharist not for a real Bloody Sacrifice The like might be observed of many other Words viz. Apostle Baptism Presbyter c. which were Jewish Phrases but used by the Christians in a quite different sense Wherefore supposing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie only an excluding from Civil Rights among the Jews which is not true as was shewed before it doth not follow that it must signifie no more among the Christians Again He objects that a certain Monk did Excommunicate the younger Theodosius who would not be satisfied till the same Monk had absolved him (x) Idem lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 171. è Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 36. And hence he infers that others besides Bishops may Excommunicate without any formal process as the Custom was among the latter Jews I reply this bold Fact being a single Instance is no Argument that such a thing might lawfully be done yea the Patriarchs Opinion was that the Emperor needed no Absolution from so rash a Sentence And it was in Compliance with the Emperors fears that this absolution was procured yet it is not improbable this Monk was in Priests Orders because Theodosius desires the Patriarch to give him Licence to loose the Bond who had laid it on However if the Monks zeal transported him beyond the bounds of his Duty that is no ground of Argument nor Precedent for us to follow He also objects the saying of S. Hierom upon that place of S. Matthew xvi 19. concerning the power of Binding and loosing Which words S. Hierom saith some Bishops and Priests not understanding Pharisaically thought they could condemn the Innocent or absolve the Guilty whereas before God the Life of the Criminal is considered rather than the Sentence of the Priest And he goes on to compare this with the Office of the Levitical Priests who did not make the Leprous clean or unclean but discern and declare who were so and saith in like manner the Priests and Bishops now do not by Binding or Loosing make Men Guilty or Innocent but by vertue of their Office discern and declare who are really so (y) Seld. Syn. lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 285. ex Hieron Com. in Matth. 16. And Mr. Selden thinks this argues that S. Hierom did not think Christ had given the Clergy such a Jurisdiction as they claim from these words I Answer that we do not pretend to any such Power as to condemn the Innocent or clear the Guilty but Grant that God doth not always follow the Judgment of the Church which may be imposed on sometimes (z) Petr. Lomb. sent lib. 4. And that the power of Loosing is not granted absolutely but upon Condition of the parties Repentance (a) D. Basil reg brev qu. 15. But we do affirm that when the party is really Guilty and the Priest deelares him to be so he is not only to be excluded out of the Christian Assembly but as S. Hierom cited before saith He is in a sort judged before the day of Judgment And we have proved above that S. Hierom did hold the Clergy had this power from Christ but it is no wonder if the Servants who Act by Commission be obliged to those Conditions which their Master binds himself to Neither Angel nor Archangel nor the Lord himself will Pardon any saith S. Ambrose but the Penitent (b) Ambros Ep. 28. ad Theodos August We do not vindicate the abuse of this power nor defend any that use it amiss but only we affirm it is a very dreadfulâ—-thing for the Guilty to be Excommunicated and a very comfortable thing for the Penitent to be absolved by him who hath the power of judging granted by Christ himself and a Man ought to fear his own Estate when the Embassador and substitute of Christ doth judge him unworthy of the Christian Communion lest as S. Chrysostom speaks Heaven should follow Earth and lest the Lord should ratifie above what the Servant hath done below I am sure this great Truth firmly believed and well considered would be a powerful means to bring Sinners to Repentance whereas the teaching Men to despise this Sentence not only deceives men but hardens them to their destruction I find no more Objections relating to Ancient times and Mr. Selden proceeds from thence to affirm That the French Emperors in the West did order limit permit or restrain Excommunication as those in the East had done but we have fully answered all those quotations by which he pretends to prove this in our Account of the Capitulars before where we have shewed there is nothing to make out Mr. Seldens Opinion There remain only two particulars not considered before the First is that Article of Peace between the French and German Princes An. 860. Whereby it is agreed with the consent of divers Bishops That no Offenders shall be Excommunicated till the Bishop according to the Gospel Precept have admonished him to repent and if he refuse this Admonition complaint is to be made to the King or his Officers to compel him to submit to penance and to amend and if this will not prevail then the Offender is to be Excommunicated for his Souls health (c) Seld. Synedr lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 192. Which Law doth suppose the Bishops power of Excommunication grounded on S. Math. xviii And since Christ there directs all possible means to be used to bring the Sinner to Repentance before he be put into the State of a Heathen and Publican I do not see but this Law proceeds upon the same ground and no doubt in that Age they did believe Excommunication to be a dreadful thing since it was the highest penalty and last remedy to be used So that this doth not prove the Power of Excommunication was not Originally in the Bishops by the Grant of Christ but only that it was so dreadful in its effects that all other ways were first to be tryed towards Offenders Yet withal if we consider the Law well we shall see the Civil Authority is complained unto only to bring the Offender to submit to Ecclesiastical Discipline not to take the cause out of the Bishops hands The second particular is that place cited by Ivo Catnotensis out of the Capitulars That if the King receive any of the Offenders to his Favour or admit them to his Table The Priests and Christian Assemblies ought to receive these into Ecclesiastical Communion that he who is reconciled to the Prince may not be kept at a distance from the Priests of God (d) Seld. ut sup cap. 10. pag. 193 194. Where Mr. Selden wonders that Kings should have such a power of Absolving in an Age when the Bishop of Rome dared to Excommunicate them And it were a
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
Laying on of Hands Cypr. Epist ad Pleb num xii before they had repented lest he should make himself liable to other Mens sins ver 22. In like manner S. Paul advises Titus his Vicegerent and Successor in Crete concerning those Jewish Seducers who subverted many and concerning those Cretians who were seduced by them To rebuke them sharply (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus i. 13. See 1 Cor. xiii 10. that they might be sound in the Faith And more plainly Chap. iii. 10. he commands him After the first and second Admonition to reject a Man that is an Heretick which is a direction for depriving him of the Communion of the Church since whomsoever the Bishop did reject he was necessarily excluded from Divine Offices and all the Faithful who cleaved always to their Bishop renounced such a Man's Consersation for in so doing they observed our Saviour's Order that when any would not hear the Church they should count him as an Heathen man and a Publican Matth. xviii 17. which was the Case of an obstinate Heretick that would not hear the Bishop's Admonitions And as the more Religious Jews would not eat with Publicans or Sinners i.e. Gentiles so the Faithful were enjoyned by the Apostles with notorious Criminals no not to eat 1 Cor. v. 11. that is not to eat a common Meal with them as the Jews would not eat with one Excommunicated by Niddui and indeed eating was a sign of Friendship which Orthodox Christians were not to have with these who were an abomination to them Genes xliii 32. and Galat. ii 12. Now it is in my Opinion a very weak Enquiry to ask here Whether this eating be meant of the Lord's Supper or no Because it is certain à minori ad majus that if a Christian might not eat an ordinary Meal with an excommunicate Person in a private House much more ought he to avoid his Company in so high an Act of Religion as eating the Lord's Supper For no doubt whosoever was under Censure so as to be shut out of the Houses of Christians were not admitted to their Religious Assemblies For these Disturbers of Christian Unity like dead Branches or gangren'd Members were to be wholly cut off from the Body of Christ's Church as S. Paul speaks Galat. v. 12. in so much that S. John expresly forbids the Faithful to shew any kindness by way of common Civility to those who hold not the right Faith saying If any come to you and bring not this Doctrine do not receive him into your House nor bid him God speed 2 Epist S. John ver 10. Which aversation and utter disclaiming all Testimonies of Friendship were grounded on those Anathema's pronounced by the Apostles against all such notorious Hereticks who were by all to be esteemed as excommunicated ipso facto And hence arose that usage in the Ancient Church not to salute any that was excommunicated as we see in Synesius's Epistles (r) Synesij Epist 58. p. 503. and in the Capitulars (s) Capitul Francor lib. 5. cap. 42. p. 96. and we may be sure if they would not pray for them in way of usual Civility they would not endure them in their Houses of Prayer it being recorded of this S. John That he leapt out of the Bath unwashed when he saw Cerinthus the Heretick come in thither (t) Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. And truly it was useful and safe for the Orthodox Christians thus totally to renounce all Conversation with these Seducers whose words might easily infect them if once they held communication with them But if any Scruple yet remain concerning the excluding the excommunicated from Religious Assemblies and consequently from Prayers and Sacraments in the time of the Apostles the Instance of Diotrephes will sufficiently remove it for he bearing himself as a Bishop would not communicate with those who came from S. John and if any did hold Communion with them he Cast them out of the Church 3 Epist S. John ver 10. or Excommunicated them by forbidding them to come into the Christian Assemblies and denying to them the participation of Divine Offices which was the principal part of the Penalty in that Exclusion And his doing this to such as he counted false-Teachers and Men walking disorderly shews it was frequently practised in that time Thus we have seen how the Apostles exercised that Authority which our Lord Jesus gave them as often as there was Occasion And by what hath been said we may observe That they made Christ Jesus the Author of this holy Discipline and the Apostles with their Successors the sole Ministers thereof That they inflicted this Censure for Heresie Schism and for gross Impieties and Immoralities and counted the Person who was thus Censured in a very deplorable and damnable Condition and one who was no Member of the Church and so would have no Communion with him in Civil or Religious Actions yet in all this they aimed only at his Repentance and upon unfeigned signs of that the Church Governours were ready to Absolve him and take him in again which being the Pattern of our Excommunication proves it to be of Divine Right § II. By what is Recorded in S. Paul's Epistle to Timothy and Titus it doth appear That the Apostles communicated that Power of hearing Complaints and of rebuking and censuring Offenders which they had received from Christ unto those Persons whom they fixed as Bishops in the Churches they had planted And it was necessary they should do so because otherwise they had not invested them with sufficient Power to discharge their Duty nor to keep the Churches committed to them in good order And as an undoubted Proof that the Primitive Bishops who succeeded the Apostles had this Authority vested in them we shall now shew That they did exercise this Power of the Keys in the purest Ages of the Church and declared they did it by Commission from Christ and his Apostles which considering the Charity and Integrity of those Ages none can imagine they would have pretended if it had not been really so The first Instance we shall remark is that famous Excommunication of Aquila of Pontus who had translated the Old Testament into the Greek Tongue and who was Converted and Baptized by the Disciples of the Apostles at Jerusalem yet continuing his former vain belief of Astrology and also drawing Schemes of his own Nativity he was admonished and rebuked by all the Doctors of the Church for this and not amending but rather opposing them and contentiously disputing with them about Fate they cast him out of the Church as one unlikely to be saved saith Epiphanius (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. de ponder mensuris This happened about the year of Christ 120. in the Reign of Adrian and about twenty years after S. John's death In which Relation we note First That this Censure was inflicted by the Doctors of the Church that is the Bishops met perhaps in a Synod at
years Can. 16. To be absent from Church for three Sundays together was punished with Excommunication Can. 21. A Convert from Heresie was to repent three years before he were received to the Churches Communion Can. 22. To keep Idols in their Houses was punished with Exclusion from the Church Can. 41. And no Bishop must receive any Criminal into the Church but he which cast him out Can. 53. These with many other Rules there prescribed shew that Excommunication was the proper Ecclesiastical Penalty for all Crimes and that it was laid on for longer or shorter time according to the nature of the Offence And since the Bishops who used these Censures were Men of so great Integrity and Piety and many of them Martyrs for the Faith we cannot suspect they would have falsly assumed a Power as of Divine Right which Christ never gave them Nor would the Faithful have submitted to the severities of those Primitive Penances nor have esteemed Excommunication so dreadful or desired Absolution so Earnestly if they had not firmly believed that their Bishops Acted by Authority from Christ and his Holy Apostles And indeed the Evidence for this Opinion in this Age is so clear that Mr. Selden confesses it saying Excommunication was even then believed to rely upon Divine Right and express command of God (p) Jure etiam divino eoque praeceptivo eam niti existimatum jam est Seld. Synedr lib. 1. cap. 9. pag. 139. Which Testimony is the more to be valued because it comes from a Man who with more Learning than Success most industriously labours to prove the Primitive Christians mistaken in this Notion In which dispute I must briefly note there are many Evidences of his partiality For first when he professes to write of the use of Excommunication before Constantine he spends not two Pages on that Copious Subject viz. Lib. 1. Chap. 9. pag. 139 140. and saith this is enough and too much and so indeed it is enough to confute his Novel Fancy and too much to be answered by those slight Evasions there made use of For he spends all the rest of that Chapter to shew the Error of the Primitive Doctors in this point Secondly He would gladly perswade us that Christian Excommunication was a Branch of the Jewish derived from it and standing on the same grounds with it being the very Transcript of it Yet he grants two essential differences First That the Jews did not deny Communion in holy things to such as were Excommunicated but he owns that the Christians did exclude them from Religious assemblies and Offices before the times of Origen Tertullian and Irenaeus also Ibid. pag. 141. That is as early as we have any Records to instruct us and consequently the Christian and Jewish Excommunication if his supposition as to the Jews be true differed in the main point from the beginning Secondly He saith every Private person among the Jews could Excommunicate and hath not given one instance of any such thing among Christians as any private Mans assuming this Power yet he pretends he knows not when this Custom ceased in the Christian Church which doubtless never began there For he confesses That it is plain in Irenaeus Origen and Tertullians time none but the Governors of the Church could rightly Excommunicate Seld. Synedr pag. 143. yea it is plain That Tertullian saith it was only in the Presidents power to Excommunicate in the Apostles days As for that African Custom of the Martyrs Absolving some in Prison S. Cyprian who mentions the practice condemns it as irregular and it proceeded only from a Superstitious conceit of the interest the Martyrs would have in Heaven after their decease to obtain remission for the lapsed And therefore Albaspinaeus observes their Absolution was not thought good till after their Martyrdom But this usage quickly ceased and was nothing like the Jewish Custom We conclude therefore that Christian Censures were not grounded upon the practice of the Synagogue Thirdly We must observe how unseasonably he labours to pervert those places of holy Scripture which the Fathers brought to prove the Divine Right That of Deut. xvii 12. of putting him to death that disobeyed the Priest is alledged by S. Cyprian (q) Cypr. lib. 1. ep 11. by S. Hierom and S. Augustine also only by way of allusion and they argue only by parity of reason That if the Legal Priests had Temporal the Evangelical ought to have Spiritual coercive Power The next place viz. Math. xvi 19. about the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven he would evade by pretending the Key is not an Instrument of Excluding c. whereas all know it is the Instrument of Opening and Shutting and he himself cites Artemidorus to prove it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 148. yea he grants the Key is an Emblem of great Power and Authority among the Eastern Nations and he quotes for this Isai 22.22 pag. 147. whence it follows That our Lord made the Apostles his Vicegerents and Stewards and gave them this Power to lock Men up in the Bonds of their Sins and keep them out of the Church on Earth yea and out of the Kingdom of Heaven too if they did not repent Nor will Mr. Selden easily perswade the World that all those holy Fathers who thus explained this place spoke that which was not good Sense Again That other Text Math. xviii 17. Tell the Church he would have to signifie Tell it to the Jewish Consistory as if our Saviour would send his injured Disciples to complain to their Mortal Foes who would injure them much more And though he use a gross Prolepsis in explaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Gospel by the Talmudical Phrases of later date and by Modern Translations yet he will not allow an easy Prolepsis to the Fathers who think Christ spake with respect to the Christian Church shortly to be instituted and which was to continue to the end of the World Nor a Common Trope by which the name of the Society is put for the Governing part In the same verse He labours to prove that Heathens and Publicans were not interdicted the Jewish Worship now by Heathens is not meant Proselytes but Idolaters the Proselytes being called by a gentler Name And these Idolatrous Heathens were denied access to all parts of the Temple which were accounted Holy as we shewed before and the pious Jews would neither eat nor willingly converse with them nor Publicans often blaming our Saviour for doing this though only in order to their Conversion So that our Lord means that they must have no Conversation with those who would not repent upon the Churches Admonition So for binding and loosing Matth. xviii 18. which the Ancients make one main ground of Excommunication he forgets Christs own Exposition of it by remitting and retaining Sins and runs out into the later Rabinical Notion of Permitting and prohibiting as a Teacher which cannot be applied to this place of S. Matthew where Christ is not
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
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
Cyprian and the African Bishops and not only so but also rebuked and confuted yea Excommunicated by all the holy Bishops of the whole World (w) Novatiano nuper retuso refutato per totum orbem à Sacerdotibus Dei abstento Cypr. Stephan lib. 3. Ep. 13. And he advises Stephen Bishop of Rome to send Letters into France to declare Marcion Bishop of Arles one of Novatus his followers Excommunicate and that another might be put in his place (x) Idem ibid. Which passage about Novatian or Novatus as he is sometimes called is also in Eusebius who saith By a Roman Council of Sixty Bishops and more than so many Priests and by the Bishops of divers other Provinces in their Synods he was declared Excommunicate (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 6. cap. 35. pag. 178. And he also mentions his Excommunication by the African Bishops as before Which Zonaras expresseth by his being Cast out and Anathematized (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zonar in 8. Can. Concil 1. Niceen words of the same import with the former and implying his being declared Accursed as well as cast out of the Church To this we might add more out of the same Father as where he calls Papianus his judging of his Bishop making himself a Judge of God and of Christ who saith to his Apostles and so to all Bishops that succeed them in that Office He that heareth you heareth me (a) Te judicem Dei constituas Christi qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes Praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ Ordinatione succedunt c. Cypr. Epist lib. 4. Ep. 9. And where he saith No Man can have God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother and if any could escape out of Noahs Ark then they may escape who are out of the Church (b) Cypr. lib. de simplie Praelat But these are sufficient to shew that S. Cyprian believed the Bishops were the Apostles Successors and Christs Vice-gerents and had their power from him to Censure the disorderly who by that Sentence were put out of the Church in which alone Salvation could be had About the year 270 that numerous Council of Bishops and Clergy assembled at Antioch and deposed Paulus Samosatenus from the Bishoprick of that City for Heresy and other heinous Crimes yea they deprived him of the Communion of the whole Catholick Church under Heaven (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 7. cap. 23. pag. 205. and when he would not yield up his Possession to that Successor which the Council had placed in his stead they intreated Aurelian who was then Emperor to compel him thereunto who decreed the Possession should be granted to him whom the Bishops had chosen (d) Idem ibid. cap. 24. for he though an Idolater thought it just that he who would not obey the Sentence of those of his own Faith should be deprived of having any part with them (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeret. sab 8. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Dividend or Share of the Profits of the Church So that Mr. Selden might have spared that note (f) Seld. Synedr l. 1. cap. 13. pag. 274. De voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid. Jul. Polluc l. 15. c. 13. That this looked not like an Opinion of Divine Right for the Bishops to desire an Heathen Emperor to do that which they could not effect For they had first rejected this Heretick according to the Power given them by Christ and if he yet kept possession of the Church and the profits it was no diminution of their Spiritual Power to call in the Secular Magistrate to compel him to quit the place and temporal advantages which is all that is meant by Eusebius his saying That he was with extream disgrace driven out of the Church by the Secular Power (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. c. 24. But his being Excommunicated by the Council and by the Judgment of all the Bishops is mentioned also by Theodoret who further observes That Lucian who was Paulus his Scholar in this Error remained a long time Excommunicated for the same viz. during the time of three Bishops (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apost Can. 10. I will not trouble my self to produce any more instances of the practice of this Discipline during the time that the Empire was in the hands of Heathens only I shall note what those famous Apostolical Canons which were undoubtedly made in this Period by the Primitive Bishops say with respect to this matter And first the tenth Canon is remarkable which saith He that prays with an Excommunicate Person though it be in a private House shall be Excommunicated himself (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 73. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 79. By which we see that whatever the Jewish Custom were the Christians renounced all Communion with the Excommunicate in Religious Offices In the rest of those Canons there is frequent mention made of Excommunication under divers Phrases yet to the same purpose viz. Of being separated being wholly cut off from the Church and wholly cut off from the Communion being cast out of the Church being punished with separation not being allowed to pray with the Faithful And in all those Canons the penalty for the greatest Crimes in the Clergy is to be deposed in the Laity to be Excommunicated And particularly He that receives one that is Excommunicated in one City when he comes to another City without commendatory Letters is to be Excommunicated himself (k) Apostol Can. xii xiii In the Case of Simony perpetual Excommunication is decreed (l) Ibid. Can. xxix In the Case of Schism three Admonitions must precede the Censure (m) Ibid. Can. xxxi And none must absolve but the same Bishop who Excommunicated (n) Ibid. Can. xxxii To enter into a Synagogue of the Jews or a Meeting of Hereticks to pray with them is Excommunication (o) Ibid. Can. Lxiv Which with many other Canons do shew that the Discipline of the Church was then strictly observed when the Bishops had no Authority from Secular Powers and when it was only the belief of a Divine Commission granted to them which prevailed upon the People to submit to it To these Canons we will add the Council of Elliberis which was held before Constantine began to Reign Anno 305. And in this Council there are many plain Evidences concerning the use of this Rite For there it is Decreed That Apostates to Idolatry Murtherers Adulterers and such like heinous Offenders should be Excommunicated and never received into the Church again Can. 1 2 5 6 7 c. Parents that marry their Daughters to Jews or Hereticks were to be Excommunicated for five
Concil Nicaen Tom. 2. p. 72. were by various steps and Degrees admitted to the peace of the Church and the participation of Holy Offices again although they did begin to be sensible of their Crimes For they made four Orders of these Penitents First The Mourners who stood without the Church Lamenting their Sins in Sackcloth and Ashes kneeling down to the Priests and Faithful who went in and begging their Prayers for them When they had continued under this severe Discipline one or more years according to the nature of their offence they were then let in to the Church-Door and stood there below among the Catechumens and heard the Scriptures read and Preached whence they were called Hearers and then these were excluded out of the Church for some Years After this they were admitted into the lower part of the inner Temple where the Faithful stood but so as that they were to fall down prostrate to beg Pardon of the Bishop and therefore they were called the Prostrate and these also were sent away after the Prayer for Penitents was said over them Lastly The Bishop admitted them to stand up among the Faithful and stay all the time of Prayers among them Yet so as they were still excluded from the Participation of the holy Sacrament and these were called The Standers up In which state having continued a while they were Absolved and admitted to full Communion by partaking of the blessed Eucharist Now this whole description of these Orders of Penitents which is so frequently mentioned in all the Authors of this Age that we cannot understand any of them without the knowledge of it I say all this was determined only by Ecclesiastical Canons and by the Bishops Authority without any Grant from the Emperors yet it was freely submitted to by all good Christians and is an unanswerable proof That the whole Church did then believe Bishops had Power from God to expel Offenders from Sacred Assemblies and Offices and that they only could bind and loose This shews they doubted not but that such as were Excommunicated by the Bishop were in danger of damnation and till they became Penitent were as Heathens and Publicans and in a worse Estate than the new Converts not yet Baptized And since this Discipline began before the Empire was Christian and continued long after it without any Grant from the Secular Powers it follows That it was Founded Originally on a Divine Right which great Truth we will now further confirm from the Practice and Opinion of the most eminent Holy Bishops of these Ages St. Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria Excommunicated one of the Emperors Prefects who did much oppress the Churches of Libya and certified S. Basil of it by his Letter whereupon S. Basil also excommunicated the same Person in his Church (y) Baron Annal An. Dom. 370. Where we may observe the Custom of Bishops sending Epistles to other Churches that they also might avoid the Communion of such as they had Excommunicated Of which we have a memorable instance in S. Augustine who Excommunicated Primianus the Donatist and sent his Tractatorian Letter to all his fellow Bishops to avoid him (z) Conducibile existimavimus omnes Sanctos consacerdotes c. hâc nostrâ Tractatoriâ commonere ut omnes Primiani Communionem diligenti curâ horreant Aug. Conc. 2. in Psal 36. Vide item Epist 162. For he that was censured and excluded in one Church was so in all and not to be admitted into Communion again without the consent of him that first cast him out About this time lived that famous Bishop Gregory Nyssen who is very clear for the Divine Right of Excommunication saying Do not believe that Excommunication is a piece of Episcopal presumption for it is a Law of our Fathers an ancient Order of the Church beginning from the Law of Moses and was Established in the Gospel (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen Orat. de Castigat Where we see it is evidently affirmed That though it had been Practised under the Law yet it was Established under the dispensation of Grace and on that ground always used in the Church before his time And here we cannot but note Mr. Selden's partiality who designing to make this a proof that Christian Excommunications were derived from the Jews translates the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae à lege traxit originem et in gratiâ obtinuit (b) Seld. Synedr l. 1. cap. 10. p. 226. contrary to the plain Sense of the phrases and the meaning of that Father who doth not say it had its Original from the Law and obtained under the Gospel but only that it began under the Law and was confirmed or established in the Gospel S. Ambrose lived not long after viz. An. 380. And he speaking of the Power of absolving Penitents saith Christ granted this to his Apostles which from the Apostles is transmitted to the Episcopal Office (c) Ambros de poenit l. 2. cap. 2. Tom. 4. p. 403. And adds The Prodigal which went into a far Country is he that is separated from the Holy Altar for he is removed from Hierusalen that is in Heaven and from being a Fellow-Citizen with the Saints and of the Houshold of God (d) Ibid. Cap. 3. p. 404. Again he notes That it is the part of a good Bishop to labour to heal the weak and to take away spreading Ulcers to scorch some rather than take them wholly away Yet finally what cannot be healed to cut it off with grief (e) de Officijs l. 2. cap. 27. Tom. 4. p. 61. So that he reckons this properly and only the Bishops Office Yea to shew how little he thought this Power was derived from the Emperors it is well known that he did interdict the Emperor Theodosius from the Communion for some time telling him That after the bloody slaughter of so many Men He ought to submit to that Bond which by the Sentence of God above was laid upon him being a Bond that was medicinal and designed for his Cure Which advice the good Emperor submitted to and returned very penitent to his Palace for he had been brought up in the knowledge of Gods Word and understood what was properly the Office of a Bishop and what was the Office of a King (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Histor lib. 5. cap. 17. pag. 158. They are the words of Theodoret and shew that Excommunication was then known to be no part of the Princes Office but only of the Priests and that by Authority given them from God whence the same Historian saith That the Emperor a while after lamented because he was not only excluded from the Church but from Heaven it self since Christ had declared What they bound on Earth should be bound in Heaven (g) Idem ibidem So that no doubt the Emperor who believed this did think Excommunication was of Divine Right and founded upon the same Text we now alledge for
Divine Right to Excommunicate was despised and the Imperial Authority so oft made use of as a Shield against it doth manifestly shew that God himself had put this power into the Bishops hands and that no External Force could wrest it from them or hinder its due effects To proceed the Canons of divers Councils do declare That those who were Excommunicate were not worthy of the Priviledges which other Christians enjoyed and therefore as Jews and Pagans Testimonies were not to be received against the Bishops and Clergy so the second General Council at Constantinople forbid those who were cast out of the Church or Excommunicated to be admitted to accuse a Bishop (t) An. 381. Concil 2. Constantinop Can. 6. Where we may note the distinction between the greater and the lesser Excommunication Those who are cast out being such as were for ever cut off from the Church and the Excommunicate such as are separated for a time (u) Zonaras in loc ap Bever Tom. I. p. 95. de signif verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Zonaras expounds the Phrases But neither of these were admitted to bear witness against a Bishop as being supposed unworthy of credit and inclinable to be revenged on their Censurers Which Law was revived in divers other succeeding Councils (w) Cod. Can. Eccl. African Can. 128. Capit Tom. I. l. 7. cap. 181. p. 1063. And as they did take away their External Priviledges so they also deprived them of all the comfort and benefit of Religious Offices which is not only signified by the Phrases before mentioned but expresly decreed For first the Council of Antioch declares That it is not lawful to Communicate with those who are Excommunicate and if these Persons after their exclusion from the Churches Prayers went into any House or other Church to pray whoever prays with them especially if he be of the Clergy shall be Excommunicated (x) An. 341. Concil Antiochen Can. 2. which Canon is renewed in the fourth Council of Carthage (y) An. 398. Concil 4. Carthag Can. 73. And as it was grounded on former Canons and a constant usage of the Church from the Apostles time so it is repeated in almost every succeeding Council so that the particulars need not to be cited Now can any have so hard an opinion of these Holy Fathers who lived so near the Apostles to imagine they arbitrarily assumed this power of excluding Criminals from holy Offices and retained it even after the Emperors were Christians and had made secular Laws to punish them or that they pretended Christ the Author of it if he left them no such power The first Council of Toledo Ordains That if any Lay-Man be Excommunicated none of the Clergy or Religious shall converse with him or come at his House and a Clerk deprived shall be avoided by the Clergy and if any be found to discourse or to Eat with them they shall be also Excommunicated if they know them to be under the Censure (z) An. 400. Conc. 1. Tolet. Can. 15. The same Council Decrees That a professed Virgin offending shall not be received into the Church till she have done ten years Penance and none may pray or eat with her till she be admitted into the Church (a) Ibid. Can. 16. Not long after this we meet with the accustomed Form of Excommunication used in that Age which shews both the Original and Effects of this Sentence and the words are these Following the Canonical Sanctions and the Examples of our holy Fathers We Excommunicate ...... by the Authority of God and the Judgment of the Holy Spirit from the Bosom of our Holy Mother the Church and from the Conversation of all Christians until they repent and make satisfaction to the Church of God (b) An. 441. Concil 1. Araus apud Gratian. Which Form shews That they believed their Authority was from God and their direction from the Spirit in laying on this Censure and that the persons so censured were cut off from all Civil and Religious Commerce with other Christians And that this Opinion prevailed even in these remoter parts of the Christian World may be seen by those Ancient Synods held in these Islands under S. Patrick where it was declared That none who was Excommunicated should come into the Church till he had received his Penance (c) An. 456. Synod Patric Can. 18. Spelm. Tom. I. p. 53. And if a Clergy-man were Excommunicate he must Pray alone and neither presume to offer or Consecrate (d) Ibid. Can. 28. And again Hear the Lord saying If he hear thee not let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican do not Curse the Excommunicate but repel him from the Communion from the Table from the Prayers and from the Blessing (e) Alter Syn. ejus Can. 4. item ap Spelm. Where grounding the Censure upon our Saviours words they Charitably Condemn all dreadful Anathematizing and allow only the Separation which is more Primitive and more agreeing to the Gospel Spirit For in this Age they considered the dreadful Effects of Excommunication even of the mildest sort and were not forward to proceed that way in light Causes For it was about this time that Pope Leo I. in one of his Decretal Epistles saith Let not the Communion lightly be denied to any Christian neither let that Sentence be uttered by any Priest in Anger which ought to be laid on unwillingly and with grief as a punishment for the greatest Crimes For we know some who for little Offences or slight words have been deprived of the Comfort of the Communion So that the Soul for which Christs Blood was shed by the inflicting of this dreadful punishment is exposed naked disabled and without any defence to the Devils Assaults so that he may take it at his pleasure (f) An. 450. Leon. Decret Epist 89. ad omnes Episc Provenc pag. 469. Where we see he supposes the Excommunicate to be delivered into Sathans power and in extream danger of Eternal Damnation And upon this account it was that those holy Bishops were so loth to inflict this dreadful Sentence till nothing else would do About the beginning of this Age lived the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions as they confess who dispute against that pretended Antiquity which the Romanists attribute to this Work and all do grant it contains a true Scheme of the Church Discipline about the end of the fourth Century And in this Book we find divers passages to confirm this Opinion As where it is ordered that the Bishop shall sit down when he Preaches as having power to judge Sinners for to you O Bishops it is said Whatever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever ye loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven (g) An. 400. Const Apostol lib. 2. cap. 11. Again the Bishop is commanded when he knows any one to have Sinned to order him to be turned out of the Church with Indignation
And when the Deacons have turned him out they are to return and beg of the Bishop to admit him to Repentance (h) Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 19. And a little after it is said If they do not separate a Wicked Man from the Church they make Gods House a Den of Thieves (i) Idem ibid. In the next Chapter The Bishop ought to remember his Dignity because he hath received power both to bind and to loose (k) Idem lib. 2. cap. 20. Afterwards the Bishop is directed to admonish him twice according to Christs precept who hath offended and if he be still obdurate then he is to declare his Obstinacy to the Church and after that to account him as a Heathen and a Publican and not to admit him into the Church as a Christian but to avoid him as a Heathen (l) Idem lib. 2. cap. 41. cap. 42. Finally There is reckoned up the several sorts of Offenders who are to be Excommunicated or to be utterly rejected (m) Idem lib. 8. cap. 38. Adulterers and all that minister to unlawful Lusts such as make Idols and live by the Stage those that use Divination and follow the Jewish or Gentile Superstitions all these are to be Excommunicated till they forsake their evil ways But upon their repentance to be received Which evidently proves That Excommunication was then believed to be the Bishops Office and that this power was derived from Christ and founded upon those Words of the Gospel which we have cited before It were endless to cite all the Councils which mention this Sacred punishment because it is mentioned in every one But it may be worth observing That in the famous General Council of Chalcedon which was confirmed by the Emperors Authority there are Decrees for Excommunicating some Offenders and for Anathematizing others (n) An. 450. Concil Chalced. Can. 2 4 7 8 15 16 20. 27. And this Canonical punishment is particularly ordered to be inflicted on any belonging to the Church who forsake the Judgment of their own Bishop and fly to secular Tribunals (o) Ibid. Can. 9. So that the Bishops did determine what Offences were thus to be punished and the Emperors were so far from hindring them that they confirmed all their Determinations so that such as were obstinate durst not but submit to them in regard the Civil Powers gave them the force of Laws and by Temporal Penalties compelled Men to obey the Canons which is one great end of Christian Magistrates as Mr. Selden confesseth out of Isidore The Magistrates would not be necessary in the Church but only that what the Priest cannot effect by the Word and Doctrine the Magistrate may cause to be done by the Terror of his Discipline (o) Isidor Hispal Sent. l. 3. cap. 53. But to proceed It was a manifest Sign that these Ages did believe Excommunication had its effect upon Mens Souls and not only excluded them out of the Society of Christians upon Earth but also put them into extream danger of Damnation in the next World because in all the Old Councils such care is taken that none who had submitted to Penitence should dye without being absolved and admitted to the Holy Communion for their restoring to the Communion of the Visible Church could signifie little to them who were never like to walk abroad again or to come to the Church any more wherefore this was intended to prevent the sad effects which this Sentence unreversed might have upon them in another World as being laid on by the Authority of Christ The old Canons which take this care may be seen together in Albaspinaeus But the same Proviso was made in the Councils of this Age also viz. That such as were Excommunicated and fell into Mortal Sickness should have the Sacrament before they died (p) An. 524. Concil Ilerd can 2. Can. 5. Item An. 540. Concil 3. Aurel. Can. 6. Can. 16. Cum multis alijs And here also I must note That about this time there was a Custom Annually to Excommunicate some kind of Notorious Offenders which is mentioned in the third Council of Orleance (q) An. 540. Concil 3. Aurel. Can. 13. Can. 30. though some would pretend it to be a Custom of later times only As to the Condition of Persons Excommunicate the Ancient Discipline was still observed They were to put on the habit of Mourners (r) An. 506. Concil Agathens Can. 15. none were to eat with them (s) An. 507. Concil I. Aurel. Can. 13. For which the Apostles words are quoted (t) An. 524. Concil Ilerd Can. 4. They were to be deprived of all Conversation and discourse with the Faithful (u) An. 531. Concil 2. Tole tan Can. 3. And finally whosoever did either Pray with these or Eat or Converse with them were also to be Excommunicated (w) Concil Bracar l. Can. 33. An. 563. An. 590. Concil Antissid Can. 38 39. So that we may see the Ancient Discipline was still in force until the year 600 after Christ and that with little or no Variation unless in the dealing more gently with Penitents because the World could scarce bear those ancient severities so many years together After this we may observe out of Gregory the Great that it was then the General Opinion That Bishops held the place of the Apostles and they who had obtained this Degreee for Government had received the power of Binding and Loosing Yea that whether the Pastor laid on this Bond justly or no it was to be dreaded by those of his Flock (x) An. 600. Greg. M. hom 26. in Evang. Tom. II. pag. 129. And in his Epistles which passed for Law through divers Ages there are many Instances of the exercise of this Power which S. Gregory would not have any Bishop use rashly nor to revenge his private wrongs because it was designed for more Spiritual ends (y) Greg. M. Epist lib. 2. ind XI ep 45. Item ibid. ind c. X. Ep. 34. And it seems the Pope did not then pretend a General Commission to Absolve all that other Bishops Excommunicated for he gives this reason why he Absolves one of Milan because the Bishop who censured him was dead and no Successor chosen (z) Ibid. ind XI epist 65. And in the Instructions he gives to Augustine the Monk for the right Governing the newly Converted English Saxons he doth allow him in some Cases to Excommunicate (a) Greg. resp ad interrog August Cap. 7. Spelm. p. 98. though since it was a new planted Church he adviseth him to proceed gently However it is certain that the use of this Censure came into this Nation with their Christianity And that Almighty God did shew his Judgments upon those who despised this Sentence which was pronounced in his Name may be seen in that memorable Example related by Beda who tells us That S. Chad Bishop of the East-Saxons Excommunicated one of King Sigebert's Earls for an
(q) An. 862. Capit Car. Calv. cap. 4 5. So that still the Bishop exercised his Spiritual Jurisdiction by the Power he had received from God and lest any should despise this as being a Spiritual Penalty the Secular Laws of these Pious Princes did inflict outward Punishments on such Imprisonment Banishment Confiscation of their Goods and Death it self And now when by these Secular Penalties annexed Excommunication was become so terrible and so grievous not only to the Souls by Christs Ordinance but to Mens outward Condition by the Laws of the Kingdom it is no wonder that these Princes did revive those Old Canons which forbid the Bishops rashly to Excommunicate For it was so great a temporal dammage to their Subjects that they were now concerned to see that the Bishops did use their Power only in just and weighty Causes and hence we find those Laws made That Excommunications shall not be issued out rashly and without cause (r) An. 803. cap. 2. Capit. lib. 1. cap. 136. And that no Bishop or Priest should Excommunicate any till the Cause were proved sufficient by the Canons and till the Offender either confessed or were convicted and according to the Gospel precept had been warned to repent and amend But if after all this he despise the Church Censures the Bishop shall then desire the Royal Power to compel him to submit c. (s) An. 858. Capit. Tom. II. pag. 115. ibidem Anno 869. cap. 10. pag. 213. And again No Bishop shall Excommunicate any person without a certain and manifest cause But the Anathema shall not be pronounced without the consent of his Arch-Bishop and Fellow Bishops after the Evangelical Admonition and for some Cause allowed by the Canons because the Anathema is a condemning to eternal Death and ought not to be inflicted but for mortal Sin and on incorrigible Offenders (t) An. 846. cap. Carol. Calv. cap. 46. Tom. II. pag. 36. In which Laws those Princes do not take upon them arbitrarily to limit restrain or direct the power of Excommunication as if their Bishops had that power from them and not from Christ Only they take care that they shall not use that power which Christ had trusted them with otherwise than according to the directions which Scripture and the old Canons had given for the more orderly exercise thereof and that they should not abuse their power now amplified by Temporal Accessions to the dammage of private Subjects or to the disturbance of the Publick Peace And this these Christian Princes were obliged to do by their office and they did it without infringing the Bishops Divine Right at all For though a Parent by Divine Right have power over his Children yet without taking away that Right the State may direct Parents how to manage that power And besides it may be observed That none of the Princes did ever pretend either to grant the Bishops this power or wholly to forbid them to exercise it only they direct them to manage it warily and wisely and as they ought to have managed it if no such Rules had been given them And thus Mr. Seldens great Argument taken from these Laws as if they proved the Power of Excommunication to be in the Civil magistrate falls to the grounds § V. Against this full and clear evidence I know none that have raised any considerable objections but only the learned Selden who hath turned over all his Authors and Records with great diligence to pick up something to oppose this ancient and almost Universal Opinion whose Instances when I have examined and answered I need not fear any great matter out of Antiquity because he had a personal quarrel to the Position I maintain and a vast stock of Learning to enable him to manage it to the best advantage His objections are not put into any Method but I shall collect them into the best order I can and with all due respect to so great an Antiquary unfortunate only in the cause he undertakes I shall consider them First he pretends that Constantine did absolve Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice two Arrian Bishops whom the Council of Nice had Excommunicated and this he would prove by the Phrase of an Arabick Historian who lived long after this time (u) Seld Syned l. I. cap. 10. p. 187 188. But Sozomen a more Authentick Author gives us a Copy of their Petition or Recantation offered to the Bishops in the end of which they desire upon their repentance That these Bishops will put the Emperor in mind of them and let him know their intentions and that they will please speedily to determine what they shall think expedient concerning them (w) Sozem. histor lib. 2. Cap. 15. p. 242. So that it was the Bishops alone who could absolve them from the Excommunication only since they were banished by the Emperors Authority he was to be requested to take off that Penalty which he laid on and to let them return to their Churches when the Bishops had accepted their repentance and taken off the Ecclesastical censure Secondly He takes much Pains to prove the Christian Emperors from Constantines time till Gratians viz. for about 60 years had the Title and office of Pontifices Maximi and the supreme Power in matters relating to Religion and consequently he supposes the Bishops must Excommunicate by delegation from the Emperors (x) Seld. ibid. p. 178. ad p. 188. For the Title I shall easily grant that they bore it But his inference from it I must utterly deny since there is not in all Mr. Seldens reading One line produced out of Antiquity to shew That the Emperors did delegate this power to the Bishops no Edict no Law nor Rescript no Historian ever mentioned such a thing no Council no Bishops were ever so grateful as to own this great favour so that it is a meer Chimaera The Bishops did Excommunicate before Constantines Government and under it and after it in the same manner and as hath been shewed even then declared their power was from God 'T is true the admitting them to sit as Judges in Temporal Causes was by delegate power from the Emperors and therefore Mr. Selden hath produced many Rescripts to grant them that power but not one can he or any man â—â—se find wherein the Emperors give them power to Excommunicate wherefore they had that Power by a Commission from Christ Thirdly he mentions those Phrases in the Imperial Laws wherein the Hereticks who deny the Nicene Faith are to be driven and removed from the thresholds of all Churches and not to be permitted to meet in any Church to be forbid the Communion of Saints and excluded the publick meetings c. (y) Seld. Synedr L. I. cap. 10. p. 172. which he would have to signify an Imperial Excommunication but the intelligent Reader knows that the Bishops in Council had first decreed this Excommunication and that by vertue of an express divine Precept Titus
cap. 11. §. 1. And so do our Reformed Bishops Wherefore I am not concerned how the Papal encroachments were tolerated or restrained because Excommunication was rightly managed before they were in being and is now after they are cast out And now a brief review of these objections will sufficeâ—y wherefore we will here represent them all together He alledges many particulars to this purpose viz. That Eadmerus saith concerning William the Conqueror That he would not suffer any of his Barons or Ministers to be prosecuted or Excommunicated for Incest Adultery or any other Capital Crime (l) Seld. de Synedr lib. I. Cap. 10. pag. 197. Which seems to be an odious representation of a Monk who was concerned in the controversy between Anselm and the Crown for Eadmerus Author of this Charge was one of Anselms Monks The truth therefore I suppose was that King William expected to have notice before any of his Court were Excommunicated for that is one of the Customs of their Fathers which the English Nobility got to be enacted for a Law in the Statutes of Clarendon (m) Statut. Clarend Matth. Paris An. 1164. p. 100. But it is not credible that any Christian King should presume to forbid Discipline to be exercised in such Cases wherein the Law of God and the example of the Apostles required it should be used and if King William had forbid any such thing his prohibition had been impious and unjust as being against the express Law of God But for that custom of the Bishops acquainting the King first before any such Sentence were issued out against his chief Officers there seems to be some reason for it First Because the King is supposed to be able to bring these to amendment without any severity Secondly in that age many things were annexed to Excommunication by Princes bounty to the Church so that if this Person were one of whom the King had great need in his Affairs he might thus have become useless to him on the sudden to the great dammage of his Government Thirdly The Prince himself might thus unwarily become lyable to Excommunication by conversing with the Excommunicate So that this Custom requires notice be given to the Prince first and with his leave the Offender may be Excommunicated Nor ought we to suppose that any Christian Prince who saw a good Bishop only designing reformation of some scandalous Officer or Servant of his would deny his leave for the Bishop to censure him and if he did I dare venture to say Might overcomes Right For I am not of Mr. Seldens Opinion That Secular Laws and Customs are always just but I believe pious Bishops have often for peace sake submitted to unjust Laws and Customs both rather than disturb their Country or raise Sedition against their Prince Again He objects divers Sentences of Excommunication denounced in Parliament against the infringers of Magna Charta and other Liberties of the Church and People I reply Mr. Selden grants this is not properly Excommunicating but only a Threatning of this Sentence in general and a declaration that they all believe the Person so offending deserves to be Accursed and Excommunicated by the Bishops and since so many Bishops were present in Parliament the Sentence was theirs properly and the rest only expressed their agreement to it And withal Excommunication was by the consequents attending it even as to a Mans outward condition become one of the most grievous Penalties of all others in this Age and so it is no wonder if Princes who had annexed these Consequences to it did oblige the Clergy to pronounce it with general assent on solemn occasions to make their Laws the better to be observed Though I am apt to question whether it were well done to use it to such Secular purposes We have indeed one Statute since the Reformation objected also by Mr. Selden (n) Stat. 5 6 Edvard 6. Cap. 4. Vide Seld. ut supr pag. 173. which decrees Excommunication for striking in the Church or Church-yard but this is not only a Law made by the Bishops consent but also it relates to a matter of the Church and is no more but a confirmation of divers ancient Canons which they supposed would be better observed if the whole Parliament did assent to them and pass them into a Secular Law as was often done by the Primitive Emperors in the Civil Law and by the French Kings in the Capitulars but neither they nor our Parliament ever intended hereby to take the matter out of the Clergies power or to assume this power into their own hands Yea the Statute cited expresly saith The Ordinary shall issue out the Sentence Again Mr. Selden saith The Kings of France Spain and England c. do allow Appeals from the Bishops Consistory in many cases I reply That many cases are tryed in that Court by the pious favour of Christian Princes who truly believed Bishops fittest to judge in causes concerning Testaments Legacies Guardianship Divorce c. Now in these matters which are judged by Bishops not by any express Law of God but by favour of the Prince he may see that Bishops judge rightly and therefore the King did of old grant Prohibitions on great occasions and call some of these matters into his Temporal Courts where anciently he sat himself which Custom being confirmed by time is practised to this day but this no way concerns the Bishops Authority which Christ gave him and if the Sentence be for Heresie or any other Scandalous Offence for which of old Excommunication was inflicted or if it only tend to reformation of Manners and to the Salvation of the Criminals Soul no Appeal lyes So that our opinion of the Divine Right of Excommunication is not disproved by these proceedings But he argues further That the Kings of England have some times sent out their Writs to command Bishops to revoke their Excommunications of which he gives some instances (o) Seld. Synedr lib. I. cap. 10. pag. 201. c. To this I reply That all the cases he specifies are notorious violations of that power which Christ had entrusted the Bishops with tending to the hindring the King Precepts from being executed and to the oppression of his Loyal Subjects Now since the King is and ought to be Supreme in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil no doubt it is his Office and Duty to see that all Persons do rightly use the power they have and if they abuse it he may hinder them or punish them for it and in so doing he doth not take away the Power it self from those who use it well nor deny it to come Originally from Christ As if a King do imprison or banish a Priest for preaching Sedition none will say that he thereby denies any Priest to have a power from Christ to preach good Doctrine And truly if the Clergy do abuse their power they ought to be corrected for it for our Saviour who set up Kings as
well as Priests and made Princes the Supreme never intended to give his Ministers any power to disturb the Publick Peace or oppose the good Government of the World And if Princes had not power to hinder such unjust Sentences they could not govern their Kingdoms nor do their duty And when the Pope and his Clergy strove with Kings for the Supremacy it was high time for them to check these dangerous attempts or else they would not have sitten any longer in their Thrones than the Pope pleased But all this is now out of doors and therefore the objection signifies nothing as to our Protestant Bishops exercising this Authority because they yield the King the Supremacy in all Causes as the Primitive Bishops did And even in Popish times though the Kings did prohibit the abuse of this power yet at the same time they owned the Right to be solely in the Bishops For Edward the third whom Mr. Selden instances in did by his Letters request John Stratford Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops of his Kingdom to Excommunicate all notorious Malefactors and Disturbers of the Peace of Church and State which request they granted in a Council at London (p) An. 1342. ap Spelm. Concil Tom. II. p. 581. And whatever other objections Mr. Selden hath raised relating to the times before the Reformation they cannot imply what he intends because it was the General Opinion That the Clergy who he confesses consented to many of these limitations had a Right from God to Excommunicate and absolve Hence in the Charter of William the Conqueror He that is prosecuted for an Offence according to the Bishops Laws shall come and give satisfaction according to the Canons to God and his Bishop (q) An. 1085. ap Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 14. And Matth. Paris affirms Robert de Marmiun who died Excommunicate to be in the State of Damnation (r) An. 1143. Matth. Paris pag. 80. And the forms of Excommunication used about this time were generally prefaced thus We in the Name and by the Authority of Almighty God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and by the Authorty of St. Peter and St. Paul c. do Excommunicate (s) An. 1215. Matth. Paris p. 270 An. 1217. Constit Ric. Sarum Spelm. Tom. II. p. 158. Of which there are very many Forms (t) An. 1222. Concil Oxon. Spelm. Tom. II. p. 181. Item Anno 1276. Constit Dunelm Spelm. ib. p. 319. Et An. 1308. ibid. p. 456. which do manifestly prove that the Bishops did openly claim this as a Divine Right which appears also from their publick Declaration One of which shall suffice here The Prelates of the Church who carry Saint Peters Keys must consider how great the power of Binding and Loosing is which Christ hath committed to them as S. Chrysostom saith Man Binds but the power was given by Christ the Lord gave Men this Honour And since Excommunication is a Condemning to eternal Death it ought not to be inflicted but for Mortal Crimes c. (u) An. 1287. Syn. Exon. cap. 43. Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 383. Which with very many evidences of like kind doth shew That whatever consent the Clergy gave to any limitations of this Power it could only be meant of the abuse of it in unjust causes or manners of proceeding but cannot be expounded of their intending to divest themselves of this Divine Right which they always claimed and openly declared as the ground of their Excommunications And that our Ancient Kings did not pretend to prohibit the Bishops from exercising this power in any just Causes which by the Law of Christ or the practice of the Primitive Church belonged to them may appear from King Edward the Seconds Charter of Prohibitions which were Answers to certain grievances of the Clergy Presented to that King and his Parliament Wherein it is declared That if a Prelate impose Corporal Penances only for Sin committed and the Offender would commute it the Kings Prohibition in that Case hath no place And whereas some had gotten the Kings Letters to require the Ordinary to absolve such as he had Excommunicated by a certain day or else to appear and shew cause why they had Excommunicated such a Person it is declared Such Letters should never be granted hereafter but where the Excommunication was found to hurt the Kings Prerogative And whereas when those who held of the King were cited before the Ordinary out of their Parish and Excommunicated for their Contumacy the Kings Writ to Arrest them after 40 days was sometimes denied The King declares such a Writ never was denied nor never should be denied hereafter (w) An. 1316. ap Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 484. All which are printed in our Statute Books for Law (x) An. 9. Edvard 2. An. 1315. pag. 98. And before that time it was enacted in Parliament That Excommunicate persons imprisoned at the Bishops request should not be repleviseable by the Common Writ nor without Writ (y) An. 3 Edv. primi An. 1275. cap. 15. pag. 27. Soon after was the Statute of Circumspectè Agatis made which charges the Temporal Judges not to punish the Clergy for holding Plea in the Court Christian of such things as be meer Spiritual viz. of Penance enjoyned by Prelates for deadly Sin as Fornication Adultery and such like And in divers cases there related the King declares his Prohibition shall not lye (z) An. 13 Ed. prim An. 1285. pag. 70. These I think are manifest proofs of the Clergies having a Divine Right to Excommunicate for Impieties and Immoralities and all that Mr. Selden hath heaped up to intimate the contrary for these times is sufficiently answered hereby And as to all his Objections relating to the times since our Reformation without going out of my own profession or medling with his Law Cases I can prove that the best reformed Churches abroad and our own at home have held and maintained that the Clergy have power by the Word of God to Excommunicate scandalous Offenders The Helvetian Confession cites the places of Matth. xvi about the Power of the Keys and John xx of the remission of Sins and declares the Ministers Authority to admit or to exclude out of the Church is grounded thereon (a) Confess poster Helv. Art 18. The Bohemian Confession is very large in professing their Belief That Christ hath given his Ministers power to sever Sinners from the fellowship of Christ and from the participation of the Sacraments to cast them out of the Christian Church to shut the Kingdom of Heaven upon them and finally to deliver them to Sathan (b) Confess Bohem cap. 14. The Belgick Confession also doth affirm that they retain Excommunication and other Appendixes of Ecclesiastical Discipline as necessary by the Precept of Gods Word (c) Confess Belg. Art 32. and when they Corrected this Article as Mr. Selden pretends (d) Seld. de Syned lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 233. they still
say that Excommunication is especially requisite to be retained according to the Word of God He grants also that the Gallican Confession declares the same thing and that Beza and Calvin both have written for the Divine Right of Excommunication (e) Idem ibid. pag. 176. And for the Church of England the Form of Excommunicating since the Reformation agreed upon in a Synod under Queen Elizabeth An. 1571. doth fully declare the same Opinion for the Bishop is appointed in the Name and by the Authority of Almighty God to Excommunicate such an one from all fellowship with Gods Church and as a dead limb to cut him off from the Body of Christ (f) Canones Anni 1571. ap Spar. Collec p. And that admirable Apology of Bishop Juel which is owned by all to contain the pure Doctrine of the Church of England saith in the name of this Church We say that Christ hath given to Ministers the power of Binding and loosing shutting and opening and this power of Binding and Shutting we say they exercise when they shut the Kingdom of Heaven against the unbelieving and contumacious and denounce the wrath of God and eternal punishments on them or when they publickly Excommunicate them out of the Bosom of the Church and the Sentence which the Ministers of God thus inflict God himself doth so approve that whatsoever by their means is Loosed or bound on Earth he will Bind or Loose and make valid in Heaven (g) Juelli Apol. Eccles Angl. §. 5. p. 30 c. The Canons of King James also declare That such as offend their Brethren by Adultery Whoredom Incest Drunkenness Swearing Ribaldry Usury or by any other Uncleanness or Wickedness of Life shall be presented to the Ordinaries to be punished and that they shall not be admitted to the Communion till they be Reformed (h) Can. An. 1603. Can. 109. I could give many other clear proofs that this is and always was the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England but this is enough to satisfie all impartial Persons that the Opinion we maintain hath been owned for truth in all Ages as well in Ancient as later times And we may now conclude That the Bishops have a Right to Excommunicate by Arguments drawn from the Light of Nature and the practice of the Jews by the Express Institution of Christ and by the practice of the Holy Apostles recorded in Scripture Which power they have claimed as belonging to them of Divine Right in all Ages and upon that Principle have used it in Censuring notorious Offenders by excluding them from Civil and Sacred Commerce to bring them to shame and so to Repentance and Amendment of Life And their Sentence when pronounced according to the Rules of the Gospel on the Sinful and Contumacious hath been feared by all orderly Christians as a Sentence which God will ratifie and which without Repentance will deliver over the Criminal to his Eternal Vengeance § VI. The third particular proposed concerning the ends for which Excommunication was instituted having been often touched at already may now serve for a Conclusion And there are three Principal ends of this holy Rite as may be gathered from the Scripture First it was instituted for the honour of Christ and his Church and the Credit of Christian Religion Our Lord himself was pure from all Sin his Religion obligeth all that profess it to depart from all Iniquity (i) 2 Tim. ii 19. Professio fidei Christianae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zosim hist l. 4. p. 779. and he designs his Church shall be without Spot or Wrinkle Ephes v. 27. a holy Nation a peculiar People 1 Peter ii 6. free from the leaven of Malice and Wickedness 1 Cor. v. 7. And therefore he hath left power with his Church to cast out all Workers of Iniquity Revel xxii 15. There will be offenders and offences but if the Church do admonish the Criminals and Censure them publickly that clears her from all suspicion of Guilt and from all just ground of Calumny and preserves not only her purity but her Reputation It was the great Honour of Sparta as a Senator there said That none could be Wicked in that City and be unpunished And this Discipline kept up the Credit of the Ancient Church for many Ages so that its very Enemies did admire it and Millions of Proselytes came over to it But when this Primitive Discipline did abate the Church evidently decayed in its esteem as well as its Manners And this is but too plainly verified in our days for since these Censures have been brought into Contempt we are almost overwhelmed with a Flood of those Wickednesses which the Secular Laws seldom Punish Adultery Fornication and Incest Drunkenness Blasphemy and Swearing Sacriledge Faction and Malice (k) Canon 109. Can. 4 6 7. Rubric before the Commun which are properly of Ecclesiastical Cognizance are grown so common and so daring that they have brought an infinite disgrace and a deplorable Scandal on our most holy Religion This drives some from the Church hardens other in their Sinful Separation and opens the Mouths of all our Adversaries as if they justly left that Church where such Wickedness goes unpunished 'T is true their Argument is as ill grounded as their Separation For they may be as virtuous as they please in a Church wherein many are vitious and while wickedness displeaseth them it cannot hurt them for Lot was innocent in Sodom so long as he was vexed at the Conversation of the wicked 2 Pet. ii 7 8. And besides it is not the Churches fault that these Crimes are not amended and therefore it ought to be as free of the blame as it is of the Guilt of this Impunity The Priests lament it and complain of it The Bishops do all they can to suppress these growing Evils but being Judges they must not be Informers And one Cause of this mischief is the neglect of presenting such Offenders to the Ecclesiastical Tribunals Those whose Office it is though solemnly sworn to do it yet for fear of the Rich and in favour to the Poor neglect this useful duty choosing rather to offend God by Perjury and to offend the Church by being the cause of this Scandal than to disoblige their vicious Neighbours But if they would Present them then if they be not either amended or cast out of the Society the fault would lye at the Churches door I know these Officers excuse their negligence and Perjury by pretending that sometimes the Criminals get off by Money or Friends and then they are exposed to their revenge for being Instrumental to their Conviction But our Bishops do enquire after and punish this Male-Administration whensoever they discover it and I know it is their desire and endeavour that no Scandalous offender shall get loose from this salutary Bond till they have given good evidence of their sorrow for their fault their purposes of amendment and their Charity to such as were
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