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
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