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
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
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
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