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
unlawful Marriage Warning all not to come into his House till he did repent But the King would not forbear visiting this Earl whereupon the Bishop foretold the King that if he persisted to converse with this Excommunicate Person he would be slain in that very house which accordingly came to pass for that very Earl and his Complices slew Sigebert there (b) An. 638. vel An. 660. Bedae histor lib. 3. cap. 22. Which remarkable Judgment no doubt made the Sentence of our Venerable Bishops to be much dreaded in those days And for that reason our old Canons decreed That a Bishop should not rashly Excommunicate any Man no not though there were never so just a Cause (c) An. 750. Egber Excerpta Can. 48. Spelm. pag. 263. because of the dreadful consequences then believed to follow upon this Censure But to return to Foreign Countries In this Age were made those Ancient Laws of the Almains wherein besides the Temporal Penalties for Sacriledge it is declared the person so offending shall incurre the Judgment of God and the Excommunication of holy Church (d) An. 630. Leges Alem. Cap. 1. Capital Tom. I. pag. 57. So that they did not think Secular Penalties made this useless in a Christian Commonwealth but on the contrary the Temporal Laws now began to decree severe punishments to be inflicted by the Civil Magistrate upon those who despised the Authority of Church Censures A memorable proof of which we have in the Constitutions made by King Pepin Father to Charles the Great with the advice of his Bishops and Barons Wherein they Ordain That whoever wittingly Communicates with an Excommunicate person he shall be Excommunicated also And that all may know the Nature of this Excommunication they declare He who is thus under Censure must not come into the Church nor eat or drink with any Christian none may receive any gift from him or give him a kiss or joyn in prayer with him nor salute him till he be reconciled to his own Bishop And if any think that he is Excommunicated unjustly he may complain to the Metropolitan and have his Cause tried by the Canons but in the mean time he must lye under his Sentence And if any despise all this so that the Bishop cannot amend him then he shall be Condemned to Banishment by the King's Judgment (e) An. 753. Pipin cap. 9. Capitul Tom. I. pag. 172. Which Law is repeated again by some of the Successors of this Pious Prince (f) Capitul lib. 5. cap. 62. pag. 836. And indeed in those Capitulars of the Ancient Kings and Emperors of France there are many excellent Canons of Old Councils revived and established by the Royal Authority which Canons the Bishops first made and Decreed in their Synods and then to make the People more strictly obey them the King with his Bishops and Barons confirmed them and put them among their Laws Which was not any Exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction nor done with any intent to take the Government of the Church and the power of Censures out of the Bishops hands as Mr. Selden pretends but rather to strengthen their Divine Right by a Civil Sanction For these very Capitulars do still own That the Bishops have Authority from God to Excommunicate Which one instance out of very many there to be found shall suffice to prove The Laity must know that the power of Binding and Loosing is by the Lord conferred on the Priest and therefore they ought to obey their Admonitions and humbly to submit to their Excommunications (g) Addit 3. Lud. cap. 23. Capit. Tom. I. pag. 1161. I cite this the rather because Mr. Selden hath the confidence to quote this very place in his Margin as a proof that the French Princes did take upon them to Order the Matters of Excommunications and Penances (h) Seld. de Synedrijs Lib. 1. cap. 10. p. 192. whereas this as well as his other proofs do only shew that those Princes believed the Bishops had a Divine Right to Excommunicate and therefore that it was their duty to compel the Refractory to submit to their Censures Nor did those Princes ever take this power out of the Bishops hands but rather fix it there where God had placed it Whence it was that they made these Laws If any Lay-Man of higher or lower Degree hath Sinned and being called by his Bishops Authority refuseth to submit to Penitence and Amendment he shall be so long Banished from the Church and separated from the company of all good Christians as he forbeareth to amend (i) Capitul lib. 6. cap. 88. Tom. I. p. 936. And again He that is Excommunicated shall be excluded not only from Eating and Discoursing with the Clergy but also from Eating or Talking with any of the People (k) Capitul l. 6. cap. 142. pag. 946. Also it is Ordained That the Christians shall not lightly esteem the Excommunications of their Clergy for even this Contempt is a just Cause of Excommunication (l) Ibid. cap. 248. pag. 964. And in another place That no Excommunicate Person shall be a Godfather for those who by Gods Law and the Authority of the Canons are turned out of the Church and out of the Camp lest they bring a Curse on the People these are much more to be kept off from these Sacred Duties (m) Capitul Additam II. cap. 1. p. 1135. Where besides the express and plain affirmation That Excommunicate Persons are by Gods Law to be excluded the Church we see That from the History of Achan's bringing a Curse on the Army of Israel they would not suffer the Excommunicate to bear Arms in their Camp Which is also intimated in those Laws which cite that place of Joshuah There is an Anathema in the midst of thee therefore thou canst not stand before thy Enemies (u) An. 869. Car. Calv cap. 20. Tom. II. pag. 213. And it is most clear by these Capitulars that the Kings Authority did follow the Bishops Act and the Temporal Justice did punish him that was stubborn and refractory and would not obey the Bishops Sentence nor be brought to Repentance by his Spiritual Censures Thus Lhotharius ordains That an obstinate Person who is Excommunicated shall be Imprisoned by the High-Sheriff or the Count (o) An. 824. Capit Lhothar cap. 15. Tom. II. pag. 323. And he that infringes the Liberties of a Church is to be Excommunicated by the Bishop and notice to be given of it to other Bishops and the High-Sheriff is to make him pay his Fine and if he despise all this being judged by Law he is to be Beheaded and his Goods Confiscated (p) An. 367. Capit. Lud. 2. cap. 8. ibid. pag. 363. Yea those who were Excommunicate for Fornication and did not submit were to be Banished the Kingdom and such as retained them were thought to offend against God and the sacred Authority yea and against the Common Interest of Christianity
(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
A DISCOURSE Concerning EXCOMMUNICATION By THOMAS COMBER DD. Precentor of York LONDON Printed for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West end of St. Paul's Church THE INTRODUCTION THE notorious increase of Atheism Faction and Debauchery in this and the last Age is too evident to be denied and too mischievous to be mentioned without sad reflexions But while many express their Piety in bewailing the Matter of Fact few do exercise their Consideration either in searching after the Causes of this deplorable Evil or enquiring into the proper Remedies for it 'T is true there may be many Causes of so complicated and spreading a Contagion and divers Methods contrived for its Cure But there is one great and eminent occasion of this universal Corruption that seems to be peculiar to our Times and the Mother or the Nurse to most of those Vices and Errors which are the Reproach of this Age viz. The contempt of Excommunication For this being the only means that the Church hath to punish these Crimes which the Secular Tribunals seldom or never take Cognizance of If Men by Ignorance or Evil Principles can arrive at Impudence enough to despise this Sacred and Salutary Penalty they have nothing left to restrain them from committing and openly abetting these Offences which by this means are grown so general and so daring that they are the Scandal of our Reformation the Ruin of many thousand poor Souls and cry to Heaven for that Judgment which upon Earth they never meet withal It is manifest that the Schismaticks and the Prophane the Atheistical and those who are of most profligate Conversations do all conspire to make the Churches Discipline contemptible weak and ineffectual and all strive to deprive her of that Power which they know she would use for the Cure of those Vices which they indulge and resolve to continue in But it is a mighty Charity to these our Enemies to undeceive them and let them see that Excommunication is not really less dreadful because some men for vile ends do falsly represent it as Brutum Fulmen And it may be a happy means of reforming the Age to manifest the Divine Original the Sacred Authority and the Fatal Efficacy of these Church Censures which if they were rightly understood reverenced as they deserve and prudently dispensed would contribute extreamly toward the rooting out of evil Principles and wicked Practices and prevent the Damnation of many great Offenders who dye in their Sins because they despise their Remedy and trample on the means of their Reformation If men truly discerned the terrible Consequences of living and dying under a deserved Excommunication they would carefully avoid those Sins which pull it on their guilty Heads or if unwarily they did offend and fall under this Censure they would as of old in the Primitive Church never rest till by Prayers and Fasting Charity and Mortification they had made their Peace with God and by a due Submission to some Salutary Penance obtained the Absolution of their Spiritual Governour and how far this would go toward the preventing or healing these damnable and destructive Offences every man may discern Impunity is the great incentive to Sin and while the Punishments of the next World are invisible and distant and those which Christ Authorized the Church to inflict in this are falsly thought insignificant Faction and Impiety must grow and increase without remedy or redress and the multitude of Offenders and frequency of the Crimes will harden the bad and infect the better sort to the utter ruin of Religion it self If indeed these bold and merry Sinners who are under the Church Censures for their real Crimes were as safe as they are secure it would be less necessary to give them the trouble of Conviction but alas the Sentence is as weighty and more fatal when it is despised as when it is revered and shall finally fall more heavy on these arrogant Wretches because the Contempt of a Divine Institution is added to all their other Iniquities and the slighting of that Remedy which God himself appointed for their Cure comes in as well for a Reason as an Occasion of their Condemnation I am sure all Ages and Places all Religions and Countries have reverenced this Sacred Rite and why we alone should trample on it no Reason can be given but what will import us to be worse than Jews Turks or Pagans Nor can any man in his Wits imagin that there is more liberty left to Sin or that the Penalties inflicted for it are of less weight to Christians than under those exploded and false Religions and therefore if Excommunication be dreaded there and all the Crimes which cause it is it fit that either the Faults or the Punishment should be lightly regarded here Whoever is of this temper hath taken his Measures from false Guides whose Interest it was to disparage this Holy Institution because they had done some Crimes to deserve it and it is their Duty and for their Souls health to rectifie this dangerous Mistake in order whereunto we will clearly plainly and impartially shew First The Divine Original of it Secondly The Universal Practice of it Thirdly The Ends for which it was Instituted which will give all unprejudiced Persons a right Notion of this useful and weighty matter A DISCOURSE Concerning EXCOMMUNICATION CHAP. I. Of the Original of Excommunication § I. ALthough we consider Excommunication as it is now used in the Christian Church yet because it was not first practised there we must dig deeper to discover the Foundation thereof and it will add much to the Veneration of it to shew That it was ever reverenced as well by the Jews as the Gentiles before it was adopted into Christianity by our blessed Saviour Wherefore we will demonstrate that this Sacred Rite hath its Original from these three things First From the Light of Natural Reason and the Practice of the Gentiles who had no other Guide Secondly From the Custom of the Jews before our Lord's Incarnation Thirdly From the express Institution of Christ in the New Testament First The Light of Natural Reason shews us That no Society ever did or can subsist without Governours nor can those Governours do their duty or preserve the Society committed to their Care without a Power to punish such as break the Rules of this Society and commit Offences tending to the Subversion of it for otherwise the Society it self must be precarious and would soon come to ruin as wanting sufficient Means to preserve it self Now since it is certain that Jesus hath instituted a Society which is called the Church and which is really distinct from the Civil State being appointed for other Ends and governed by other Measures ruled by distinct Officers and guided by peculiar Laws a Society which did subsist when the Civil State opposed it and must continue whatever changes Human Governments suffer unto the end of the World Therefore the Rulers of this Society the Church must have
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
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
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
say that Excommunication is especially requisite to be retained according to the Word of God He grants also that the Gallican Confession declares the same thing and that Beza and Calvin both have written for the Divine Right of Excommunication (e) Idem ibid. pag. 176. And for the Church of England the Form of Excommunicating since the Reformation agreed upon in a Synod under Queen Elizabeth An. 1571. doth fully declare the same Opinion for the Bishop is appointed in the Name and by the Authority of Almighty God to Excommunicate such an one from all fellowship with Gods Church and as a dead limb to cut him off from the Body of Christ (f) Canones Anni 1571. ap Spar. Collec p. And that admirable Apology of Bishop Juel which is owned by all to contain the pure Doctrine of the Church of England saith in the name of this Church We say that Christ hath given to Ministers the power of Binding and loosing shutting and opening and this power of Binding and Shutting we say they exercise when they shut the Kingdom of Heaven against the unbelieving and contumacious and denounce the wrath of God and eternal punishments on them or when they publickly Excommunicate them out of the Bosom of the Church and the Sentence which the Ministers of God thus inflict God himself doth so approve that whatsoever by their means is Loosed or bound on Earth he will Bind or Loose and make valid in Heaven (g) Juelli Apol. Eccles Angl. §. 5. p. 30 c. The Canons of King James also declare That such as offend their Brethren by Adultery Whoredom Incest Drunkenness Swearing Ribaldry Usury or by any other Uncleanness or Wickedness of Life shall be presented to the Ordinaries to be punished and that they shall not be admitted to the Communion till they be Reformed (h) Can. An. 1603. Can. 109. I could give many other clear proofs that this is and always was the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England but this is enough to satisfie all impartial Persons that the Opinion we maintain hath been owned for truth in all Ages as well in Ancient as later times And we may now conclude That the Bishops have a Right to Excommunicate by Arguments drawn from the Light of Nature and the practice of the Jews by the Express Institution of Christ and by the practice of the Holy Apostles recorded in Scripture Which power they have claimed as belonging to them of Divine Right in all Ages and upon that Principle have used it in Censuring notorious Offenders by excluding them from Civil and Sacred Commerce to bring them to shame and so to Repentance and Amendment of Life And their Sentence when pronounced according to the Rules of the Gospel on the Sinful and Contumacious hath been feared by all orderly Christians as a Sentence which God will ratifie and which without Repentance will deliver over the Criminal to his Eternal Vengeance § VI. The third particular proposed concerning the ends for which Excommunication was instituted having been often touched at already may now serve for a Conclusion And there are three Principal ends of this holy Rite as may be gathered from the Scripture First it was instituted for the honour of Christ and his Church and the Credit of Christian Religion Our Lord himself was pure from all Sin his Religion obligeth all that profess it to depart from all Iniquity (i) 2 Tim. ii 19. Professio fidei Christianae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zosim hist l. 4. p. 779. and he designs his Church shall be without Spot or Wrinkle Ephes v. 27. a holy Nation a peculiar People 1 Peter ii 6. free from the leaven of Malice and Wickedness 1 Cor. v. 7. And therefore he hath left power with his Church to cast out all Workers of Iniquity Revel xxii 15. There will be offenders and offences but if the Church do admonish the Criminals and Censure them publickly that clears her from all suspicion of Guilt and from all just ground of Calumny and preserves not only her purity but her Reputation It was the great Honour of Sparta as a Senator there said That none could be Wicked in that City and be unpunished And this Discipline kept up the Credit of the Ancient Church for many Ages so that its very Enemies did admire it and Millions of Proselytes came over to it But when this Primitive Discipline did abate the Church evidently decayed in its esteem as well as its Manners And this is but too plainly verified in our days for since these Censures have been brought into Contempt we are almost overwhelmed with a Flood of those Wickednesses which the Secular Laws seldom Punish Adultery Fornication and Incest Drunkenness Blasphemy and Swearing Sacriledge Faction and Malice (k) Canon 109. Can. 4 6 7. Rubric before the Commun which are properly of Ecclesiastical Cognizance are grown so common and so daring that they have brought an infinite disgrace and a deplorable Scandal on our most holy Religion This drives some from the Church hardens other in their Sinful Separation and opens the Mouths of all our Adversaries as if they justly left that Church where such Wickedness goes unpunished 'T is true their Argument is as ill grounded as their Separation For they may be as virtuous as they please in a Church wherein many are vitious and while wickedness displeaseth them it cannot hurt them for Lot was innocent in Sodom so long as he was vexed at the Conversation of the wicked 2 Pet. ii 7 8. And besides it is not the Churches fault that these Crimes are not amended and therefore it ought to be as free of the blame as it is of the Guilt of this Impunity The Priests lament it and complain of it The Bishops do all they can to suppress these growing Evils but being Judges they must not be Informers And one Cause of this mischief is the neglect of presenting such Offenders to the Ecclesiastical Tribunals Those whose Office it is though solemnly sworn to do it yet for fear of the Rich and in favour to the Poor neglect this useful duty choosing rather to offend God by Perjury and to offend the Church by being the cause of this Scandal than to disoblige their vicious Neighbours But if they would Present them then if they be not either amended or cast out of the Society the fault would lye at the Churches door I know these Officers excuse their negligence and Perjury by pretending that sometimes the Criminals get off by Money or Friends and then they are exposed to their revenge for being Instrumental to their Conviction But our Bishops do enquire after and punish this Male-Administration whensoever they discover it and I know it is their desire and endeavour that no Scandalous offender shall get loose from this salutary Bond till they have given good evidence of their sorrow for their fault their purposes of amendment and their Charity to such as were