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
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
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