and that they were odious to God and Men and though this may seem severe yet many good ends were gained by this Discipline for this tended exceedingly to the Honour of the Christian Church which thus shewed its detestation of all wickedness and it was an excellent means to bring the Sinners to a Sense of their Transgressions and a Purpose to amend as well as to preserve and warn the Faithful that they did not fall into the like Crimes lest they suffered in the like kind Soon after this the famous Origen flourished An. 230 Who is very clear as to the exercise of this Discipline Affirming That among the Christians some were ordained to enquire into the Lives and Actions of those who were admitted and such as did unlawful things were by these forbidden to come to their Common Assemblies (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p p. And their discipline was very severe towards all Sinners especially those who were defiled with Lust whom they drove out of their Communion and like the Pythagoreans lamented them as dead to God (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cels l. 3. p. 142. Where these ordained Censors of Manners are no doubt the Bishops and Clergy and the Criminals are not only deprived of Sacred but Civil commerce also yea and esteemed as quite out of Gods favour and dead to all hopes of Salvation while they remain in that estate The same Author also in his Homilies frequently mentions this Rite telling us That every unclean person is cast out of the Assembly of the Pious (m) Orig. hom 8. in Lev. 12. And though he should be concealed from the Bishop or escape being cast out by partiality yet he is condemned by his own Conscience (n) Idem hom 12. in Lev. 21. And elsewhere he saith The Bishop casts one out of the Church that many may be preserved sound (o) Idem hom 9. in Jesai 13. Yea he expresly interprets the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven of this very Discipline He that judges uprightly hath the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and opens to them that are absolved on Earth so that they are loosed in Heaven Again he shuts to them who by right Judgment are bound on Earth so that they are as it were bound and judged in Heaven (p) Idem hom 1 in Matth. 16. Finally to this matter also he applies the phrase of delivering to Sathan (q) Idem hom 12. in Matth. 20. saying The Bishop ought sometimes to use his power and deliver Sinners to Sathan for the destruction of the Flesh that the Spirit may be saved In all which places this learned Father plainly shews That the Excommunications in his time were laid on by the Bishops and were derived from the Power left by Christ and exercised by his Apostles so that no doubt he thought them of Divine right Not long after him followed that Excommunication of the Heretick Noetius Author of the Patripassian Blasphemy who was cited before the Presbyters of Ephesus they having then no Bishop Ann. 240 and after two Admonitions he and his Companions persisting in their Heresie were expelled out of the Church and he and his Brother continuing obstinate to their death were denyed Christian burial (r) Epiphan Panar lib. 2. Tom. I. haeres 57. p. 213. Which was another Ceremony attending these Primitive Excommunications to shew the detestation they had of them and this continues among us to this day But none is more full of instances and clear in the Divine original of this holy Discipline than S. Cyprian that blessed Martyr who lived about the Year 250. in his Epistle to Cornelius Bp. of Rome he expresses his joy That Cornelius had Excommunicated Felicissimus the Novatian and cast him out of the Church there who in Africa long before had been cast out of it by the Majesty of God and the severity of Christ the great Judge So S. Cyprian calls the Censure which he and his fellow Bishops had inflicted on him for as he there observes The Bp. is for the present a Judge in Christs stead to whom if all Christians were obedient none would presume after his Consecration to make themselves Judges not of the Bishop but of God (s) Pulsum de Ecclesiâ esse de quâ jampridem Dei majestate Christi domini judicis nostri severitate depulsus est Sacerdos ad tempus juden vice Christi c. vide Cypr. ad Cornel. l. I. ep 3. And a little after he mentions Fortunatus Maximus Privatus Foelix and Jovinus Novatian Hereticks all which he had Excommunicated and cast out of the Church at Carthage and though they did as he speaks despise the Majesty and Censure of God yet he desires Cornelius not to receive them into his Communion but to warn all his People to avoid their Company and Discourse to have no Commerce with them no nor so much as to eat with them and for this he cites those places of Scripture which we have quoted before viz. If he hear not the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican Matth. xviii 17. and Withdraw from every Brother which walketh disorderly 2 Thess iii. 6. And a Man that is an Heretick after the first and second Admonition reject Titus iii. 10. So that we are not the first who have applyed these places to Excommunication but S. Cyprian did it above 1400 years ago and his Exposition may well be more authentick than our yesterdays Criticks who would extort some other meaning from them And since he is so clear for the Divine Right upon which Excommunication is founded we shall not much value what interest and design hath since persuaded some to say to the Contrary But to proceed In his Epistle to Pomponius the same S. Cyprian commends him for Excommunicating a Deacon and others for Fornication telling him That if they were obstinate they could not on good grounds hope for Salvation for if under the old Law those who obeyed not the Priest were to be slain with the material Sword doubtless by parity of reason the Proud and Contumacious are slain with the Spiritual Sword when they are cast out of the Church for there is no life out of it since the House of God is but one and there is no Salvation but in the Church (t) Spirituali gladio superbi contumaces necantur dum de Ecclesiâ ejiciuntur Cypr. ad Pompon l. 1. ep 11. Again In his Epistle to Rogatianus who had complained to him of one of his Deacons who had reproached and abused him he bids him use the power of his Honourable Office against him and either Depose him or Excommunicate him together with his Companion in that Crime (u) Fungaris circa cum potestate honoris tui et cum vel deponas vel abstineas c. Cypr. ad Rogat l. 3. ep 9. Another instance there is of Novatian the Heretick who was Excommunicated by S.
years Can. 16. To be absent from Church for three Sundays together was punished with Excommunication Can. 21. A Convert from Heresie was to repent three years before he were received to the Churches Communion Can. 22. To keep Idols in their Houses was punished with Exclusion from the Church Can. 41. And no Bishop must receive any Criminal into the Church but he which cast him out Can. 53. These with many other Rules there prescribed shew that Excommunication was the proper Ecclesiastical Penalty for all Crimes and that it was laid on for longer or shorter time according to the nature of the Offence And since the Bishops who used these Censures were Men of so great Integrity and Piety and many of them Martyrs for the Faith we cannot suspect they would have falsly assumed a Power as of Divine Right which Christ never gave them Nor would the Faithful have submitted to the severities of those Primitive Penances nor have esteemed Excommunication so dreadful or desired Absolution so Earnestly if they had not firmly believed that their Bishops Acted by Authority from Christ and his Holy Apostles And indeed the Evidence for this Opinion in this Age is so clear that Mr. Selden confesses it saying Excommunication was even then believed to rely upon Divine Right and express command of God (p) Jure etiam divino eoque praeceptivo eam niti existimatum jam est Seld. Synedr lib. 1. cap. 9. pag. 139. Which Testimony is the more to be valued because it comes from a Man who with more Learning than Success most industriously labours to prove the Primitive Christians mistaken in this Notion In which dispute I must briefly note there are many Evidences of his partiality For first when he professes to write of the use of Excommunication before Constantine he spends not two Pages on that Copious Subject viz. Lib. 1. Chap. 9. pag. 139 140. and saith this is enough and too much and so indeed it is enough to confute his Novel Fancy and too much to be answered by those slight Evasions there made use of For he spends all the rest of that Chapter to shew the Error of the Primitive Doctors in this point Secondly He would gladly perswade us that Christian Excommunication was a Branch of the Jewish derived from it and standing on the same grounds with it being the very Transcript of it Yet he grants two essential differences First That the Jews did not deny Communion in holy things to such as were Excommunicated but he owns that the Christians did exclude them from Religious assemblies and Offices before the times of Origen Tertullian and Irenaeus also Ibid. pag. 141. That is as early as we have any Records to instruct us and consequently the Christian and Jewish Excommunication if his supposition as to the Jews be true differed in the main point from the beginning Secondly He saith every Private person among the Jews could Excommunicate and hath not given one instance of any such thing among Christians as any private Mans assuming this Power yet he pretends he knows not when this Custom ceased in the Christian Church which doubtless never began there For he confesses That it is plain in Irenaeus Origen and Tertullians time none but the Governors of the Church could rightly Excommunicate Seld. Synedr pag. 143. yea it is plain That Tertullian saith it was only in the Presidents power to Excommunicate in the Apostles days As for that African Custom of the Martyrs Absolving some in Prison S. Cyprian who mentions the practice condemns it as irregular and it proceeded only from a Superstitious conceit of the interest the Martyrs would have in Heaven after their decease to obtain remission for the lapsed And therefore Albaspinaeus observes their Absolution was not thought good till after their Martyrdom But this usage quickly ceased and was nothing like the Jewish Custom We conclude therefore that Christian Censures were not grounded upon the practice of the Synagogue Thirdly We must observe how unseasonably he labours to pervert those places of holy Scripture which the Fathers brought to prove the Divine Right That of Deut. xvii 12. of putting him to death that disobeyed the Priest is alledged by S. Cyprian (q) Cypr. lib. 1. ep 11. by S. Hierom and S. Augustine also only by way of allusion and they argue only by parity of reason That if the Legal Priests had Temporal the Evangelical ought to have Spiritual coercive Power The next place viz. Math. xvi 19. about the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven he would evade by pretending the Key is not an Instrument of Excluding c. whereas all know it is the Instrument of Opening and Shutting and he himself cites Artemidorus to prove it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 148. yea he grants the Key is an Emblem of great Power and Authority among the Eastern Nations and he quotes for this Isai 22.22 pag. 147. whence it follows That our Lord made the Apostles his Vicegerents and Stewards and gave them this Power to lock Men up in the Bonds of their Sins and keep them out of the Church on Earth yea and out of the Kingdom of Heaven too if they did not repent Nor will Mr. Selden easily perswade the World that all those holy Fathers who thus explained this place spoke that which was not good Sense Again That other Text Math. xviii 17. Tell the Church he would have to signifie Tell it to the Jewish Consistory as if our Saviour would send his injured Disciples to complain to their Mortal Foes who would injure them much more And though he use a gross Prolepsis in explaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Gospel by the Talmudical Phrases of later date and by Modern Translations yet he will not allow an easy Prolepsis to the Fathers who think Christ spake with respect to the Christian Church shortly to be instituted and which was to continue to the end of the World Nor a Common Trope by which the name of the Society is put for the Governing part In the same verse He labours to prove that Heathens and Publicans were not interdicted the Jewish Worship now by Heathens is not meant Proselytes but Idolaters the Proselytes being called by a gentler Name And these Idolatrous Heathens were denied access to all parts of the Temple which were accounted Holy as we shewed before and the pious Jews would neither eat nor willingly converse with them nor Publicans often blaming our Saviour for doing this though only in order to their Conversion So that our Lord means that they must have no Conversation with those who would not repent upon the Churches Admonition So for binding and loosing Matth. xviii 18. which the Ancients make one main ground of Excommunication he forgets Christs own Exposition of it by remitting and retaining Sins and runs out into the later Rabinical Notion of Permitting and prohibiting as a Teacher which cannot be applied to this place of S. Matthew where Christ is not
Men suppose that Enoch did thus excommunicate the wicked Wretches of his Generation when he could not convert them by his Preaching for his Prophecy begins with Maran-atha (z) Jude ver 14. vide Bertram de R. P. Juda. cap. 2. Molinaei Vates From all that hath been said we may now conclude That from the Divine Precedents and from the most early Examples the Jews did exercise this Power of Excommunication as a Spiritual Punishment upon scandalous Offenders the Power residing commonly in the Sacerdotal Colledge of old and of later times in the Rabbi who is the Master of the Synagogue and that such as were under this Censure were believed to be out of the Divine Favour and unworthy of Human Conversation till they were restored by those who had sentenced them And the general dread the Jews had of this Censure together with their Aversation to those who were under it plainly declares they did believe it was of Divine Original and was of great Efficacy Which being the general Notion of the Jewish Nation in our Saviour's time this Opinion did make way for the receiving of this Institution as Christ was to set it up in the Christian Church of which we are next to treat § IV. The third ground of Excommunication and to us the principal is Our blessed Saviour's positive Institution of it for which we have divers clear places of Holy Scripture And yet the Learned Grotius thinks if there were no express Precept for it it must be supposed since when the Society of the Church is once constituted by Christ all those things must be supposed to be commanded without which that Society cannot preserve it self pure (a) Grot. in Luc. vi 22. p. 379. But we need not fly to that refuge for none can deny but that our Lord appointed his Apostles to call and convert a Society out of the World and that he made them the Governours of this Society giving them Rules to govern it by and promising to be with them and their Successors to the end of the World Matth. xxviii 20. And since he conferred this Office on them we must enquire what Power he communicated to them to enable them to perform it First therefore When Peter had in the name of all the Apostles confessed Christ to be the Son of God Matth. xvi 15 16. our Lord declares that he had made good his Name of Peter signifying a Rock in laying this sure Foundation and assures him he would build his Church upon this Rock that is this Confession of Faith in Christ the Rock of Ages (b) Super hanc Petram firmae fidei Epiphan haer Cathar p. 224. Super hanc Confessionis Petram Hilarius vid. Aug. Retract lib. 1. cap. 21. Isidor Peleus l. 1. ep 235. So that it should stand for ever in despite of all the opposition Hell could make against it ver 18. And since so well-grounded and durable a House ought to have some to Rule it our Lord shews in the next verse who shall have the Government of it saying And I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven ver 19. Here the Metaphor is continued and the Church being compared to a House its usual emblem 1 Tim. iii. 15. Ephes ii 20. the power of ruling this House is set forth by giving the Keys which are given to those who are chief Stewards and Managers of the Family So when God would express his committing the Government of the House of David to Eltakim he saith And the Key of the House of David will I lay upon his shoulder Isai xxii 21 22. And our Lord 's having the Keys of Death and Hell Revel i. 18. is to manifest his Power to Condemn thither or to Save from thence And these Keys here granted are called The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as well because the Church and Kingdom of Grace on Earth is called by that Name Matth. iii. 2. as because the Church is the Gate to the Kingdom of Glory and we cannot regularly come into the Kingdom of Heaven above but by and through this Gate of the Church on Earth and so by Consequence the Power of the Keys of the Church contain in them the right to admit Men into this houshold of God by Baptism and so making them Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven and to exclude men out of this houshold by Excommunication for notorious and scandalous Offences and consequently to deprive them of the Priviledges which belonged to them while they were regular Members of God's Family And as a Prince when he makes a Deputy or Vice-Roy usually declares in his Commission That what he doth in such a Province in his Name and by his Power the Prince will ratifie and confirm So our Saviour here tells Peter and in him the rest of the Apostles that whatever he binds or looses on Earth shall be bound or loosed in Heaven meaning that he will hold their Judicial Acts for good and valid so long as they keep to the Laws and Rules which he hath left them to govern by And if any think the change of the Metaphor from Keys which are to open and shut to binding and loosing be somewhat harsh the Exposition of S. Chrysostom doth well reconcile that difference for he supposes the Power of a Vice-Roy to be here signified (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in loc and as he can Lock up Men in Prison or Release them according as they deserve and hath the Power of the Keys committed to him to separate the Innocent from the mischievous So Christ here gives his Apostles like Authority in order to the well governing of his Church only this is no Temporal Coercive Power as many other Texts of the New Testament do declare but a Spiritual Power suitable to the nature and ends of this Sacred Society This being therefore the plain and natural Sense of the place it is clear that our Lord did here give his Apostles a Commission as well to exclude notorious Criminals out of his Church by Excommunication as to readmit them upon their Repentance promising to confirm their Acts so long as they judged by his Rules and this may well be reckoned a proof that Excommunication is of Divine Institution I confess this Text hath been strained too high by the Romanists who though they cannot easily prove themselves Peter's Successors yet would gladly ground their unjust claim to a Universal Monarchy over the whole Church upon this weak pretence That Peter himself is the Rock on which Christ was to build his Church and that this Priviledge of the Keys is granted only to him and his Successors at Rome which others have largely and learnedly confuted And I need only say That some of their own Communion a few Ages since did confess This Power was given
it Yet that none may think this Instance favours the bold Fact of later Popes in Excommunicating Soveraign Princes and then Absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance to them We must observe that S. Ambrose did then offer to suffer quietly if the Emperor would oppose his Sentence nor did he pretend either to use force against him or allow any to do so But went in a way of perswasion and advised him to submit to this which was only a Spiritual Penalty for his Souls health And he was only under the least kind of Excommunication and barely suspended from receiving the Sacrament So also Pope Innocent dealt with Arcadius and Eudoxia for the injuries they had done to S. Chrysostom Interdicting them in this Gentle Form I the meanest of all and a Sinful Man to whom the Throne of S. Peter is now given do separate and reject you and your Empress from partaking of the Immaculate Mysteries of our Lord Christ (h) Michael Glycas Annal. par 3. An. 407. This was all And this is far from giving countenance to that impious usage of the later Popes who have Anathematized Soveraign Princes and stirred up Foreign Force against them as well as incited their own Subjects to Perjury and Rebellion yea to Murder them and take their Kingdoms from them Which is to turn the Spiritual into a Carnal Sword and prostitute a Divine Institution to serve the ends of Avarice Injustice and Ambition Yea to use it to quite contrary purposes than Christ intended it for viz. to make it to serve for Destruction and not for Edification But though this accursed practice receive no advantage from these Instances yet they do abundantly prove That Bishops in this Age did not as Mr. Selden would perswade us derive their Power to Excommunicate from the Emperors being Pontifices maximi and so from their Grants To proceed S. Chrysostom flourished about this time An. 390. and we are to enquire into his Opinion the rather because some have pretended he was against the use of Excommunication 'T is true he hath an Oration with this Title Concerning the unfitness of Anathematizing the living or the dead (i) Chrysost Tom. 6. hom 37. pag. 439. In which he severely inveighs against the rash use of this dreadful Curse which he thinks the Apostles used not against Persons but Opinions And indeed in the best Ages of the Church the accursing particular Persons was very rare and this highest sort of Excommunitating by Anathema's so much used by the Roman Church against particular Men is seldom to be met with and accordingly it is totally disused by the Church of England as not well agreeing with the Spirit of Christianity Luk. ix 55. nor with the Primitive Practice It sufficeth us as it did generally satisfie the Ancient Christians to exclude notorious Offenders from Sacred Offices and Assemblies till they repent And against this sort of Excommunication S. Chrysostom had no Objection for he himself practised it in divers Cases as the History of his Life shews and particularly in the Case of Eudoxia the Empress to whom he denyed access to the Church because being admonished to restore a Widows Vineyard unjustly taken away she refused it (k) Baron Annal An. 401. §. 9. And for his Opinion Mr. Selden says That S. Chrysostom as well as the other Fathers of this Age doth often own and admit the use of Excommunication (l) Seld. de Synedr lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 212. Yea he reckons it of Divine Right for he saith concerning Binding and loosing Matth. xviii What greater honour can be given to the Church than this when Heaven it self takes the beginning of its Judgment from Earth The Judge sits on Earth the Master follows the Servant and what he judges below his Lord ratifies above (m) Chrysost hom 5. in Jesaiam Tom. V. pag. 152. Again he explains the Leaven which S. Paul orders the Church of Corinth to purge out to be an Advice to Bishops who suffer much of the old Leaven to remain within when they do not cast out of their Borders that is out of the Church the Covetous and Extortioners and such as shall be excluded out of the Kingdom of God (n) Idem Tom. III. hom 15. in 1 Cor. pag. 337. Which by the way gives the reason of his strict proceeding against Eudoxia And elsewhere speaking of the Discipline and Worship used in his time he saith They expelled those out of the holy Place who could not partake of the Lords Table (o) Chrysostom Tom. III. hom 18. in 2 Cor. pag. 647. Again he threatens those who gave scandal to Infidels by their excessive mourning for the dead making them think the Christians did not believe the Resurrection that he would proceed against them by Ecclesiastical Censures if they did not amend upon his Admonitions citing that method of proceeding which Christ prescribes Matth. xviii 15 16 17. for his Commission bidding them remember the power of binding and loosing which Christ had granted to him ver 18. and not dare to despise the Bonds of Church Censures For saith he it is not a Man which binds but Christ which gave us this power and entrusted Men with this Priviledge even as saith he a little after when a Prince orders his Officer to bind a Criminal it is not the Officer but the Prince which truly binds the Offender (p) Idem hom 4. in Epist ad Hebr. Tom. IV. pag. 455. This is so direct and full to our purpose that we need not seek any further to assure us That S. Chrysostom did believe the power of Excommunication was from Christ and that it was granted only to the Bishops and was of great use in the Church Many more passages in him do confirm these Truths but omitting them we go on to his Contemporary S. Hierom who fully agrees with him in this Opinion For speaking of the Clergy as they are distinct from the Laity he saith God forbid I should speak evil of these who succeed the Apostles and consecrate the Body of Christ with their Mouths who make us Christians and having received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven do in a sort judge before the day of Judgment And soon after he saith They have power to deliver a man to Sathan for the destruction of the Flesh that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (q) Hieron ad Heliodor ep 1. Tom. l. pag. 5. Where we may note That though some fancy the delivering to Sathan proper to the Apostles time yet even when the miraculous Penalty on the Offenders Body was ceased the Fathers still called Excommunication by this Name as S. Hierom doth here And so Origen before him saith A man is delivered into the power of the Devil when his fault is manifest and the Bishop drives him out of the Church that being observed by all he may be ashamed and converted so that at length his Soul may be
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (r) Origen hom 2. in libr. Judic And we may also here remark That all those places which we produced before out of Scripture to prove the Divine Right of Excommunication are so expounded and applied by the Fathers But to proceed with S. Hierom He having declared Vigilantius an Heretick wonders very much Why he was not Excommunicated by his own Bishop (s) Hieron ep 53. advers Vigil Tom. II. pag. 154. And speaking of John Bishop of Hierusalem who had undeservedly censured as he thought some who held the right Faith he there informs us wherein the Censure did consist For he saith that this Bishop had prohibited them to enter into the Church and forbid any to receive them into their Houses while they lived or to bury them when they were dead (t) Hieron adv error Joan. Hi. Tom. II. pag. 258. In another place he reckons this Censure to be from the Lord saying If we be cast out of the Congregation of our Brethren and out of the House of God for any Sin we ought not to resist but to bear the Sentence patiently and to say with the Prophet I will bear the Indignation of the Lord Mich. vii 9. (u) Idem in Ezek. lib. 5. Tom. IV. pag. 844. And in another place he tells us That it was the Custom in his Time for the Bishops to expel out of the Church Fornicators Adulterers Murtherers and other vicious persons (w) Idem Com. in Tit. cap. 3. Tom. VI. p. 466. These with many more places in this Father do still confirm our Opinion of the practice and the Original of Excommunication To him we may add S. Augustine who grew Eminent for his Learning and Piety about the year 410. And he interdicted his friend Bonifacius a Count of the Empire from the Communion for taking a Criminal by force from the Altar before the Bishop had seen him and the Count owns his fault with sorrow and sending the Man to S. Augustine begs his Pardon and intreats he may not be shut out of the Church nor his Oblation rejected which he had made (x) Augustin Epist 187 188. Tom. II. pag. 166. b In another place he saith It was usual for offenders in the Church to be removed from the Sacrament of the Altar by Ecclesiastical Discipline (y) Idem de Genes ad literam lib. 11. cap. 40. Tom. III. pag. 152. b And again to shew the Custom was universal he tells us Men must repent of Sins after Baptism that if they be Excommunicated they may be received again as they which are properly called Penitents do in all the Churches (z) Id. ep 108. Tom. II. pag. 105. a Yea he grounds the right of Excommunication upon the express commands of Christ and of his holy Apostles affirming That as Phineas under the Law slew the Adulterers so now the visible Sword is ceased from the Church we do the same thing by Excommunication (a) Idem de fide oper cap. 2. Tom. IV. pag. 13. which in another place he saith doth the same under the Gospel as putting to death did under the Law (b) Id. quaest in Deut. lib. 5. Tom. IV. pag. 62. Again he reckons up three deadly Sins which are especially to be punished with Excommunication Uncleanness Apostasie and Murder (c) Idem de fide oper cap. 19. And for his Sense of the efficacy of this Divine Sentence he teacheth That When the Church doth Excommunicate the person is bound in Heaven and when he is restored by the Church this reconciliation makes him loosed in Heaven (d) Idem Tract in Johan 50. Tom. IX pag. 80. b Which he proves by Christs promise to S. Peter and in him to the whole Church as S. Augustine there observes And to the same purpose in another place The Church which is founded on Christ did from him in Peter receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven that is the power of binding and loosing Sins (e) Idem Tract 124. ibid. p. 123. And it is observable that this Eminent Father always grounds Excommunication upon the power of Binding and Loosing which Christ gave the Church As in that Epistle where he reproves a young Bishop Auxilius for Excommunicating a whole Family for the Masters fault by which means as S. Augustine notes if a Child should be born in that House it could not be baptized no not though it were in danger of Death such was the force of this Sentence which he there calls A Spiritual Penalty binding the Soul according to that of our Saviour Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven (f) Aug. Epist 75. Tom. II. pag. 71. a So that we see this was the constant and currant Opinion of the whole Church and thus the most eminent Fathers did expound holy Scripture Here therefore we might conclude but only we must not omit that solemn Instance of Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais his Excommunicating Andronicus the Prefect of Pentapolis in Egypt under Theodosius An. 411. for horrible Impieties and Cruelties which he and his Companions had been guilty of the Form of which is contained in the Tractatorian Epistle which the Bishop sent in the name of the Church of Ptolemais to all her Sister Churches throughout the World in these Words Let no Church of God be open to Andronicus and his Companions to Thoas and his Associates let every holy place Chappel and Church-yard be shut against them The Devil hath no part in Paradise and if he privily creep in he would be cast out again I therefore admonish all private persons and Rulers that they neither dwell in the same House nor eat at the same Table with them And especially I charge all Priests neither to speak to them while they live nor attend them to their Graves when they dye And if any despise this as the Church of a little City and Communicate with these Excommunicate Persons as if he need not obey so poor a Place he makes a Schism in the Church which Christ would have to be but one And if he be a Deacon Priest or Bishop we will account him in the same state with Andronicus and will never shake hands or eat with such a Man much less will we Communicate with them in the holy Mysteries who take part with Thoas and Andronicus (g) Synesij Epist 58. pag. 203. An. 411. Where we see how strictly Excommunicate Persons were to be avoided and how perfectly they were excluded from all Civil and Religious Converse and Communion Yea Synesius saith No man ought to call or count Andronicus for a Christian (h) Idem ibid. pag. 201. for this put him into the state of a Heathen and wholly cut him off from the Body of Christs Church Afterward writing to his Metropolitan Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria he informs him that he had separated Lamponianus a Priest from the Communion of the Church for