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
the Church was to judge them and its Members were to avoid them then Excommunication was practised as it is now in the main even in the Apostles days and their Rules and Actions are our Warrant for it But since Christ gave his Apostles not only a power to retain but also to remit Sins we have a further account in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians That this Incestuous Person for of him the Fathers generally agree S. Paul speaks 2 Corinth ii 6. (x) Origen in Psal xxxvii Ambros Hieron Theoph. in loc who had grieved the Church of Corinth was exceedingly grieved himself and in danger to be swallowed up of too much sorrow wherefore S. Paul desires his Censure may be taken off declaring that this publick Reproof and severe Sentence (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. ii 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocantur Poenae Canonicae in Act. Consiliorum ap Chrysost de Sacerd. Grot. in the presence of the whole Congregation having brought him to Repentance was a sufficient Penalty and now he requires them to forgive him and grant him Absolution ver 7. expecting they should obey him in all his Orders as well the former for censuring as these for absolving ver 9. First Because in all his Orders he had respect unto their good And secondly Because he commanded them by the Authority and as the Ambassador of Christ who in all these Judicial Acts of Excommunicating and Absolving did represent the Person of Christ himself (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 10. Non in mea persona sed Christi qui dixit Quaecunque solveritis in terra erant soluta in Coelo Hieron Ut factum Apostoli factum sit Christi Ambros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. who had given this Commission to his Apostles That whatsoever they should bind on Earth should be bound in Heaven So the Fathers expound this Phrase in the Person of Christ And we may observe That as S. Paul did Cast him out of the Church not by their common Suffrages as S. Ambrose speaks but with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ that is by his Authority and Sentence whose Ambassador on Earth the Apostle was (a) Ambros Comment in 1 Cor. v. p. 358. So he restores him again upon his Repentance not by any Suffrage of the Church Members but by Christ's Authority and as his Representative which shews that the People are meerly witnesses in this Case but the Governours of the Church only act by Authority The Peoples presence tends to the Solemnity not to the validity of Excommunication or Absolution which in this Instance are both plainly founded by S. Paul upon a Divine Authority and deduced from that Commission granted by Christ to his Apostles and consequently to their Successors I have been the larger on this because it is a fair Precedent drawn by the Hand of an Apostle of the Practice of these two great Points of Jurisdiction and a clear Commentary upon our Saviour's Commission as well as a strong Proof that Church Censures are of Divine Right Many other Expressions there are in these Epistles relating to this Matter which we will only briefly remark viz. all those which speak of S. Paul's coming to them in sorrow (b) 2 Cor. ii 1 2 3 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. and making them sorry that is by ordering Offenders to be censured which Act was alway done with sorrow as the receiving them in again was with joy So he saith He fears when he comes again God will humble him among them and that he shall bewail many who have sinned already and have not repented (c) 2 Cor. xii 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teoph Eugere dicitur pro excommunicare Grot. in 3 Cor. v. 2. which the Ancients expound of Excommunicating them And in that sense we are to understand those places where S. Paul speaks of making them sorry with an Epistle 2 Cor. vii 8. and of the godly sorrow which worketh Repentance to Salvation not to be repented of ver 10. Again To this belongeth that Authority which made him ready to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. x. 6. which he calls The Authority which the Lord had given him for edification and not for destruction ver 8. For whereas the Temporal Sword destroys the Criminals these Spiritual Censures are designed to bring Offenders to Repentance and Salvation and therefore the Apostle useth this Phrase again Chap. xiii 10. where having as our Saviour directed Matth. xviii 15 16. admonished them twice by his Epistles he assures them that when he comes which would be the third Application made to them He will not spare the Impenitent 1 Cor. xiii 2. but would use sharpness or severity ver 10. (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid Tit. i. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. that is proceed immediately to Excommunicate them according to that Power wherewith Christ had invested him for edification and not for destruction For which cause they ought not to think much at this Power which Christ had given the Governours of his Church because the end of it was not the destruction but the reformation of Offenders And if they would amend without it our Spiritual Fathers would be much better pleased Further we may note That not only for wicked practices but for Heretical Opinions and false Doctrines also the Apostles used Excommunication as in that place If we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be Anathema or Accursed Galat. i. 8. And to shew this was no rash but a deliberate Judicial Act he repeats it ver 9. And here it will be seasonable to enquire into the Sense of this word Anathema so often used concerning Excommunication (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophâ—e Chrysost Abominabilis sit Hieron Condemnatus devotus detestabilis Aug. The Ancients explain it Accursed Excommunicated Separated Alienated Abominable Detestable and Devoted all which respect Persons Excommunicated And the LXX do generally thus translate the Hebrew Cherem (f) Josh vii 1. Deut. vii 26. alibi the name of one Species of Excommunication among the Jews 'T is true it sometimes signifies a thing dedicated to God The reason of which different Senses S. Chrysostom thus gives As no man dares touch a Gift offered and devoted to God so no man dares touch one that is Anathematized but this is done for different reasons None will come near the holy Gift because it is Consecrated to God but all men separate from the Excommunicated as being unholy and alienated from God (g) ap Theoph. in Rom. ix 3. ipse Chrysost hom 16. in 9. Rom. ita etiam Theodor. in loc And Theodoret notes that Anathema signifies not only that which is offered to God but that which is alienated from him and in the latter Sense he applies it to
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
(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
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
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
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