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
(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
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