they might retain his Sins that is declare him unsit for and unworthy of pardon and consequently of the Churches Communion wherein forgiveness is to be obtained and while the Offender remains impenitent Christ declares his Guilt remains on him and his Sin shall not be pardoned But if the party submit and repent so that the Governours of the Church judge him sincere and take off this Sentence by declaring him penitent then his Sin shall be forgiven in Heaven as well as his Censure is reversed on Earth Which promise no doubt our Saviour makes good as often as these his Stewards do judge by the Rules and Measures he hath given them And since Christ gave his Apostles and their Successors no Temporal Power nor any other way to punish Offenders but this they who would rob them of this Power do what they can to strip them of all Authority and bring the Church by Anarchy into Confusion 'T is true these words are repeated to every Priest in his Ordination and the Power is committed to him so far as may enable him to serve the necessities of single Persons whose faults are made known to him by private complaint or voluntary confession But for orders sake where the Offence is publick and the Scandal evident there the Bishop only exercises this Power of remitting and retaining and it is this latter Power which only concerns Excommunication and which was given originally to the Apostles as Governours of the Church And while there are Offences and Offenders in the Church as there will be to the Worlds end this Power must remain in the Church Governours for the preservation of this holy Society which as Jesus did found so he hath we see taken care to endue those he set over it with such kind of Coercive Power as is necessary for the good ordering thereof CHAP. II. Of the Practice of Excommunication § I. SInce our blessed Saviour had thus in as clear words as could be spoken given his Apostles this Power of Excluding Offenders out of that Christian Church which they were to plant and rule it is plain they had Authority to exercise this Discipline by Divine Right and therefore it must be a gross Error in the Learned Mr. Selden to affirm their Right was derived partly from the Jews and partly from the Roman Emperours Edicts which allowed the Jews liberty to observe their own Rites (n) Selden Syned c. 8. p. 120. For though we grant that the Christians did for some few years after our Lord's Resurrection observe some of the Jewish Ceremonies and were by the Gentile Writers grosly mistaken for a Sect of the same Religion many years after yet they had a distinct Name within Ten years after Christ's Resurrection (o) Baron Annal Eccles An. 43. and were long before that Excommunicated and persecuted by the Jews Acts viii 1. Chap. ix 2. and the Synod at Jerusalem had declared that the Gentile Converts need not observe the Ceremonial Law So that the Christians were a distinct Society and had Officers of their own and Assemblies proper to themselves and these Officers did exercise a Jurisdiction over them and openly declared they derived their Power not from the Jews but from Christ 2 Cor. x. 8. 1 Cor. v. 4. So that it is ridiculous to assert That the right of Apostolical Excommunication was from the Jews there is a vast difference between their imitating some of the Jewish Forms or Customs in the exercise of these Censures and their deriving a right from them even as the Church of England doth imitate some of the Forms of the Roman Church in her Excommunications but it doth not follow therefore that she derives her Right to excommunicate from the Pope or the Church of Rome And for the Edicts of the Emperours which were made in favour of the Jews there is no proof that ever the Christians claimed any benefit by them yet if they did these Edicts gave them no right to Govern a Society set up on purpose to abrogate the whole Worship and Ceremonies peculiar to the Jews and though they might give them a liberty from Secular Compulsion in the exercise of that right which Christ had given them yet they did not convey that right to them So that these are meer Subterfuges contrived to escape the force and strong evidence of a Divine Right which is so clear not only from our Saviour's Institution but the Apostolick practice grounded thereon to which we shall now proceed The Apostles principal work was to bring Converts into the Church and yet when need required they also exercised that other Power of Casting notorious Offenders out of it S. Peter to whom Christ directed his first promise of this Authority was the first who exercised it and the first Sin which he retained was the Sacriledge of Ananias and Saphira which was joyned with a hope to deceive the Holy Ghost which dwelt in the blessed Apostle and that our Lord might make his Officers Rebukes more dreadful an immediate Judgment followed the Censure for Ananias and his Wife were struck with sudden death and the effect of this was That great fear came upon all the Church Acts v. 11. And though Christ had given no Secular Power to his Apostles this great Example did make the Christians reverence the Persons and fear the just Reproofs of those he had set over them The next Instance was that of Simon Magus who had pretended to believe and was baptized Acts viii 13. but it seems he had dissembled with God and Men and only designed to make a gain of the Power of Miracles which he vilely offered Money for as if it had been only an Art which might be bought and sold whereupon S. Peter declares him accursed ver 20. saying His Money and he should perish together By which Phrase he intimates he was as the Jews speak under Cherem and that he might separate him from the Church he declares ver 21. Thou hast neither part nor lot with us in this matter which are the very words of the Tribes beyond Jordan who express their fear of their Posterity's being rejected from Communion with the other Tribes because of their distance by this very Phrase They will say unto them Ye have no part in the Lord (p) Josh xxii 5. Cal. Par. Non estis inter quos est verbi divini Communitas LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the like form of Speech the Bond of Society in Civil Matters was declared void 2 Sam. xix 1. 1 Kings xii 16. Yea our Lord thus threatens to reject S. Peter if he would not admit his washing saying If I wash thee not thou hast no part in me John xiii 8. And further as a Reason of this destruction denounced and this Separation inflicted on Simon Magus the Apostle shews he is still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Bond of his Sin which by this Declaration was retained according to the Power given by Christ yet
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
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
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
some Power to punish all those who do disturb the good Order thereof by a false Faith or corrupt Worship or by dissolute Manners and if our Lord had not intrusted the Church with such a Power Reason and Necessity would have compelled the Rulers of the Church to have assumed it because the Church cannot subsist without it No man can so much as govern one Family in the Capacity of a Father or Master unless he be invested with power to let in and turn out of his Family such as he sees fit and to dispense or withhold the Benefits belonging to his Family as he sees Occasion much less can a larger Society be maintained in Peace and Safety without the exercise of such a Power And as the Father or Master may and doth exercise this Authority within his own Family though it be a part of the Commonwealth without damage to the Prince's Power So in this Society of the Church since the ends of it are different from that of the Civil Government the Ecclesiastical Governours may exercise their Power and Authority without incroachment upon the Prince's Sovereignty The ends of Temporal Princes being to preserve their People in outward Peace and Plenty in the enjoyment of their Temporal Rights and Priviledges while they live upon Earth But the ends of the Spiritual Governours are to make Christians holy here and happy hereafter and their Rules and Punishments are both suted to this end The Rules are Precepts of Piety and Charity and the Penalties are proportionable viz. not Corporal (a) Nullum ibi discrimen sanguinis sub incruentâ disciplinâ timebatur Aug. ad Maced ep 54. but Spiritual that is the depriving them of all the comfort and benefit of Church-communion at present and the declaring them to be worthy of Divine vengeance unless they repent So that the Rulers of the World need have no jealousie for their Authority on the account of this Spiritual Jurisdiction from his Servants who declares His Kingdom is not of this World (b) Joh. xviii 36. Audite Judaei Genteâ— non impediam dominationem vestram in hoc mundo Aug. in loc They are to watch for mens Souls to make them inwardly good to reform their Manners and fit them for a blessed Eternity And they govern as Fathers by Arguments and Perswasion by Spiritual Promises and Threatnings by the Rod of Church Censures not by the Sword as the Civil Magistrate doth Yet as the Prince takes care of the Lives and worldly concerns of his Subjects and punisheth those who injure them in either of these so doth the Spiritual Governour in his proper way punish those who act contrary to the welfare of their own or others Souls whether by teaching false Doctrine or setting a bad Example And as there are three ends of outward and civil Punishments First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instruction to the Offender to repent and amend Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Warning to others not to follow so bad an Example and Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vindication of the Society from the Scandal which might be cast upon it for suffering evil Acts to be done (c) Vidend Aul. Gellius noct Attie lib. 6. c. 14. Clem. Alexandr Strom. 4. So also the Spiritual Penalties aim at the same ends viz. To reform the Offender To warn others not to follow the ill Example And to clear the Church from that Scandal which the acts of evil Men professing themselves Christians may bring on it if they be not punished All which ends are obtained by this Spiritual Penalty of Excommunication duly inflicted by the Church and humbly submitted to by the Offender which doth clearly shew that it is necessary to the being and the well-being of this Spiritual Society the Church even upon Principles of Natural Reason that its Governours should have this Power And that none may doubt whether Natural Reason doth teach this we will shew that the very Gentiles who had no other Guide but the Light of Natural Reason did frequently use this kind of excluding all those from their Society especially from joyning in their Sacrifices who were unfit and unworthy And though there were no Law to turn such Persons out by violence yet their Order was obeyed by all to the shame of those pretended Christians who despise the Commands and deride the Authority of our Lords Ministers in the like Case § II. Among the Grecians Draco was one of their most ancient Lawgivers and he decreed That Murtherers should be excluded from the Drink-Offerings and Festivals from the Temples and Publick Assemblies (d) Demosth Orat. in Leptin And the Scholiast on Aristophanes speaks of this as of an old Custom That no Manslayer should partake of their Sacrifices (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schol. Aristoph And agreeable to this is that Edict of Oedipus in Sophocles concerning a Parricide That none of his Subjects should receive him into their House nor speak to him nor communicate with him in Prayers or Sacrifices to the Gods nor wash their hands with him (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sophoc in Oedip. Whence it appears That both Civil and Sacred Commerce was forbid to these Criminals and though those who had slain their Mother in Euripides mention only their being excluded at Argis from all Mens houses and conversations (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Oreste Yet we may infer they were much more uncapable of coming to the Sacrifices Plato also ordains that such as strike their Parents should be expelled from their Cities and their Temples and that whoever had any conversation with them should be excluded from the Assemblies and Sacrifices till they were purged (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato de leg 9. fol. 881. And if it be enquired whose office it was to do this we may learn that from Julius Pollux who tells us there was one at Athens called the King of the Sacrifices whose office was To proclaim that the contumacious or rather the unholy who were of contrary disposition to the holy Rites should abstain from the Mysteries and other established Rites (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poll. Onomastic lib. 8. cap. 9. pag. 397. And Alcibiades for having revealed the Mysteries of Ceres which ought to have been kept secret was devoted to Divine Vengeance by the Priests in all their several ways of Religion (k) Se Dâ—is per omnium Sacerdetum religiones devotum cognovit Justin Hist lib. 5. Where note that this sort of Excommunication was attended with solemn Curses which was a delivering them to the Divine Justice and we may further observe that this penalty was not inflicted only for Murther but for any great offence either against Religion as here or against good manners As in that remark concerning the Cercetae now called the Circassians who used to forbid all that did any injustice to come into their Temples (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stobae Serm. 165. And that Example
him (z) 1 Sam. xiv 45. Which makes it not unlikely that before the Malefactor was put to death some Curse was solemnly denounced on him by which he was cut off from the Priviledges of God's People If it be objected to this That we Christians have Civil Magistrates who do thus punish Malefactors with Death and so we need not Ecclesiastical Censures now any more than the Jews did I shall reply with the most Judicious and Learned Grotius whose words are This Argument taken from the Jews is of no force For their Law for Penalties was wholly accommodated to a Carnal People and all were equally obliged by it so that the Commonwealth and Church there was all one But the Laws of Christ do require more than either is or can be required of the Subjects of any worldly Empire The most men mind evil things and the Civil Laws do their Office if they restrain great Crimes and such as most hurt the Publick State But things done against the Laws of Charity Meekness and Patience which are not within the Civil Laws are within the Rules of the Gospel by which his Church chosen out of the World ought to judge Wherefore Constantine and the following Emperors did rightly leave the Church its proper Judicatory and confirmed it by their Laws (a) Grot. in Luc. vi 22. Which apposite place I could not but transcribe at large to shew the weakness of those who not considering the different circumstances of the Jews do impose their Methods upon the Christian Church And this may shew how necessary it is that there should always be in the Church some way and means to exclude scandalous Offenders and if there be divers Methods under different Dispensations that doth not take off from the usefulness or from the necessity of the present way of proceeding which is as agreeable to the ends and designs of the Gospel as the other was to those of the Law yea this variety shews it must always be done in some way or other and makes it manifest that the Church cannot subsist without it I have been the larger in these Reasons because the Learned Selden and many of his far loss Learned Followers triumph extreamly in this difference between the proceeding of the Ancient Jews and the Modern Christians and use this variety as an Artifice to perswade the World that our Censures are not of Divine Institution and to wrest all Authority out of the Churches hands that their Schism and some other Crimes which no other Judicatory with us doth take cognizance of may go wholly unpunished But as their evil design makes their Argument suspicious so I hope this fair account will shew it to be Fallacious and that even while the Jewish Polity stood there were Evidences enough to convince any unprejudiced Man that it was always God's will scandalous Offenders should be punished by those who had the ordering of Religion But thirdly After the Jewish Commonwealth was subverted and their Government altered by the Babylonian Captivity and afterwards when they were in subjection to the Romans and had lost the power of the Temporal Sword then they were obliged to make a frequenter use of Excommunication and came nearer to the Form of the Christian Church as we shall now shew There was saith Grotius a greater necessity of this Rite after the People became Captive and with their Liberty lost the Power of Civil Judicatures for Natural Reason compelled them to have recourse unto those Methods of Coercion which they could use without usurping on the Supream Powers (b) Idem in Luc. vi 22. So that though it be not true which Mr. Selden affirms that there were no Instances of this Rite for we have shewed in Miriam Uzziah and Benjamin there were some Examples yet there were indeed far more Instances afterwards For Ezra the Priest on the Return from the Captivity doth denounce an Excommunication against all that should not appear within three days to put away the strange Wives they had taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Penalty agreed upon between him and the Princes was That he who did not come up to Jerusalem all his Goods should be forfeited which seems to be the Civil Sanction and himself should be separated from the Congregation of the Captivity which was the Ecclesiastical Censure Ezra 10.8 where we see the Commonwealth and the Church agreed in this matter And the Interpreter of Josephus in this Story hath kept the very word he shall be Excommunicated (c) Ut excommunicetur bonaque ejus sacro aerario addicantur Joseph Ant. l. xi c. 5. ex interp Gelen pag. 29. which is the sense of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall be made a Stranger that is cut off from the Communion of the Church and be treated as an Heathen according to our Saviour's description of the Excommunicate under the Gospel whom we are to account as Heathens or Publicans if they fall under the Censures of the Church for their Contumacy Nehemiah also who was the chief Ruler of the returning Jews in a General Assembly wherein there were many of the Priests did make the Congregation enter into a Curse and an Oath to walk in the Law of God that is saith Mr. Selden They denounced an Excommunication against the breakers thereof Nehem. x. 29. Aben Ezra also understands that Curse pronounced against those who had married strange Wives Chap. xiii 25. and the Expulsion of the High-Priests Grand-child ver 28. to have been the two sorts of Excommunication Cherem and Niddui executed by Nehemiah according to the Decree made by Ezra Chap. x. 8. which is also mentioned in the Jerusalem Targum And Rabbi Benjamin Ben Moses affirms That if any fall into great Crimes for which in the time of the Captivity no judgment could be executed on them they ought to repent and undertake to live better but if the fear of God will not ingage them to do this we put them under an Anathema and separate them from our Company according to that of Ezra x. 8. (d) Rab. Benjamin ap Seld. de Synedr lib. 1. c. 7. And Josephus mentions such a kind of Excommunication against the Jews of Delos (e) Joseph Antiq lib. 14. cap. 17. pag. 250. in the time of Julius Caesar But we shall not need collect these Examples since it is more to our purpose to consider how the Matter stood in the time of our Saviour Christ while the Romans had Supream power over them We read that the Rulers had decreed That whosoever should confess Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John ix 22. he should be excommunicated The fear of which punishment kept the Parents of the blind Man from owning their Faith in Jesus And the same fear restrained divers of the Sanhedrin it self from Confessing our Lord lest they should be cast out of the Synagogue John xii 42. where Vatablus hath in the Margin Ne excommunicarentur and our
Synagogue at the hours of Prayer (m) Idem ibid. cap. 6. And again Let every man go Morning and Evening to the Synagogue and if any Man who hath a Synagogue in his City prays not in it with the Congregation he is an evil Neighbour (n) Maim Tephil cap. 8. Et Baeb Berac fol. 8. And about our Saviour's time we are told there were 480 in Jerusalem yea unto this day the Jews have Synagogues for Prayer and Religious Worship in all Cities where they are tolerated for of these Buxtorf saith They have Synagogues or Schools so they call their Churches (o) Synagogas aut Scholas ita nimirum vocant Templa ipsorum habent Buxt Synag c. 5. where they always meet saith he at the appointed hours of Prayer and there they perform their Prayers according to the directions of their Books (p) Idem ibid. Which constant use of the Jews in calling the Places for their Religious Assemblies Synagogues gave occasion to Christians also to call their Churches by the very same name so S. James speaks of one coming into the Christian Synagogue (q) James ii 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. adv Nat. lib. 2. and some of the Ancients say the Holy Churches are called Synagogues All which sufficiently proves that the main end of Synagogues was for Prayer and other Religious Meetings yet we confess that when once the Nation was brought under the Romans so that the Jews had no Prince of their own nor no great Coercive Power Then and not before it appears they had a Session of three eminent Men in every Synagogue to hear and determine such Causes as were left to them and were not sit to be complained of to the Roman Governour and because for more privacy they sometimes executed the Sentence as far as Scourging the Malefactor in their Synagogues Matth. x. 17. Therefore some Learned Men have fancied the Synagogues to be places for administring Civil Justice And hence Mr. Selden would infer the Civil Magistrates Power in Excommunication and that this holy Interdict it self was chiefly yea only a Civil Punishment and a denying to keep them Company in the Affairs of common Life but all unprejudiced Men must grant That Excommunication or Turning out of the Synagogue necessarily implied a Separation from all Acts done in the Synagogue that is First and chiefly from Prayers and Sermons and Secondly from the benefit of these private Tribunals and Lastly from their Civil Conversation also Nor can it be improbable that they must both go together for if a Man be so wicked as to be judged unworthy to talk or eat with his Brethren he is much more unworthy to pray with them and he who might not come into the Synagogue when a Court was kept there ought much more to be excluded when Religious Offices were performing And that Offenders were then excluded from Religious Assemblies may be sufficiently proved from the best Authors Josephus affirms That if any of the Priests did offend he was interdicted from coming to the Altar and from medling with any Holy Office In Ap. lib. 1. pag. 632. and he saith The Essenes did not Sacrifice in the Temple because they had some Rites of their own which they counted more holy for which Cause being excluded from the Publick Temple they sacrificed in private by themselves (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiq. l 18. c. 2. Yea the Custom of these Essenes among those of their own Sect shews that the Excommunication then in use among them was an Exclusion from both Religious and Civil Commerce For if any of them were taken in any great Fault they cast him out of their Society (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jos Bell. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 7. and none of them would ever come near him after this Censure under which he commonly dyed miserably Athanasius also relates how the chief Priests and Elders at Berytus did excommunicate that Jew and cast him out of their Synagogue with whom an Image of our Saviour was found (u) Athanas Tom. 2. p. 628. And not to search for more Examples the usage of the Modern Jews derived from their Fathers doth abundantly prove that Excommunication was a deprivation of Communion in Sacred Offices For when any is disobedient They curse him and declare him openly to be excommunicated and in this Case it is not lawful for any to speak to him or to come within four yards of him neither may he come into the Synagogue or School but he is to sit upon the Ground with his shoes off as if he mourned for some of his dead Kindred and this he must do till he be absolved by the Rabbins and shall have received their Benediction And if it be the solemn and grand Excommunication then do all the People repair to the School lighting black Torches and sounding Horns they Curse him that shall do or hath done such a thing and all the Children and the People answer Amen Leo Moden History of the present Jews Chap. 3. pag. 70. Which last Passage minds me of the second degree of Excommunication called Cherem which was not only a separating the Person from Religious and Civil Commerce but declaring him Accursed yea they did actually Curse him and wish dreadful Evils might befall him Which kind of Anathema the Jews in their Synagogues uttered against Christ and all Christians as Justin Martyr at large relates in divers places (w) Just Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 323 335 363. yea Epiphanius saith that the Jews in their Synagogue twice a Day at Noon and at Evening did Curse and Anathematize the Christians saying O God Curse these Nazarites (x) Epiphan Panar Sect. 29. p. 55. S. Hierom saith they did it thrice a day Com. in Isai v. 18. And the like Anathema's they pronounced against all those who read their Law in the Greek Tongue till Justinian did forbid this by a particular Constitution yet extant in the Books of the Civil Law (y) Justin Auth. Collat. ix Tit. 29. Nov. 146 pag. 202. To this may be added a third sort of Excommunication sometimes used among the Jews called Schammatha which was a solemn delivering a desperate and incurable Criminal to the Divine Vengeance which sometimes did terribly seize on the accursed Person and of this the name it self gives us intimation which some expound Ibi Mors There is Death Others The Name cometh that is God cometh Jehovah whose Name is not to be pronounced especially in a Form of Cursing cometh to take vengeance which S. Paul gives us in the Syriac form Maran-atha 1 Cor. xvi 22. For Maran signifies a Lord in that Language and thence they call our Saviour Marani from which Appellation the Syrian Christians are yet called Maronites And some think S. Paul alludes to this where he speaks of wilful Apostates and saith nothing remains for them but a certain fearful looking for of Judgment Hebr. x. 27. Yea some Learned
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
not to Peter only but to all the Apostles yea to all the Clergy and the whole Church (d) Haec autem ligandi solvendi potestas quamvis soli Petro data videatur à Domino tamen caeteris Apostolis datur necnon etiam in Episcopis Presbyteris toti Ecclesiae Raban Maurus And our Saviour himself to anticipate this unjust Claim doth afterwards twice grant the same Power to all the Apostles which here he seems only to give to S. Peter Matth. xviii 18. John xx 21 22. Yet this false Gloss of the Romanists with the wild and extravagant Inferences deduced from thence hath put some Learned Protestants into the other extream that is into denying there is any Power granted to the Apostles here more than the Power of a Doctor or Teacher and they will have the Key to be only the Key of Knowledge Luke xi 52. and out of the Talmud they go about to prove that binding and loosing signify nothing else but determining what things are lawful and these are said to be loosed and what things are unlawful which are said to be bound (e) Gamero in loc item Lightfoot horae Hebr in Matth. But we must not let the Sense of the Fathers and the Power of the Keys to be at once wrested out of our hands by this Novel fancy For first the place cannot bear this Sense since it is ridiculous to affirm that Christ gave his Apostles such a Power That whatever they declared or taught to be unlawful on Earth should be unlawful in Heaven and whatever they taught was lawful God would make that lawful this were to give them a power which God himself never did assume viz. to change the eternal and unalterable Rules of Good and Evil And besides in the parallel place where these words are repeated by Christ Matth. xviii 18. they are applyed to Offenders refusing to Repent upon the Churches admonition which obstinate sinners are to be avoided as Heathens and Publicans by private Christians and if they value not this as being an Act only of their Equals Christ supposes his Apostles will then bind them by Excommunication and to shew the weight of that Censure he saith Whatsoever they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven ver 18. which being spoken of the validity of the Punishment inflicted on evil Men can never be drawn to signifie only Teaching yea after our Lords Resurrection he who is the best expounder of his own meaning declares that binding and loosing signifies remitting or retaining of sins John xx 21. and turns the Whatsoever ye shall bind c. into Whosesoever sins ye remit c. Again since the Misna which is the oldest part of the Talmud was written 150 years after the destruction of Jerusalem which is later than any Canonical part of the New Testament (e) Sixt. Senens Biblioth lib. 2. pag. 148. those Learned Men above mentioned ought not to expound the more ancient Phrases of the Gospel by these Talmudical expressions yet even in the Talmud Binding and Loosing is often used for Excommunicating and Absolving (f) R. Samuel status cornu ligat et flatus cornu solvit Talm. Bab. Moed Katon c. 3. fol. 16. Os quod solvit est os quod ligat Tract Demai cap. 6. §. 11. which is the more obvious and natural Sense of the Words and because the doing things forbidden by the Rabbins caused Men to be Excommunicated or bound by this Censure Therefore by a Trope the things themselves were said to be bound So that we may conclude That our Saviour doth actually here give Authority to his Apostles and to their lawful Successors to shut Men who are scandalously wicked out of his Church and to let them in again upon their Repentance declaring their Sentence shall be ratified in Heaven And thus the Ancients generally expound this place and from thence they frequently speak of the Power of the Keys given by Christ to the Church in order to the Excommunicating and Absolving of Sinners Of which because there are innumerable Instances one or two shall suffice (g) Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro i. e. potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata Aug. Tract 124 in Johan Cum excommunicat Ecclesia ligatur in Coelo excommunicatus Aug. in Psal 108. Vid. Ambros de poenit l. 1. c. 6. that so Reason and Authority both may shew our Exposition of this Place is true and certain which will be further confirmed by considering the second place where this Power is mentioned viz. Matth. xviii 18. Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven the very same words with those spoken to Peter Chap. xvi 19. But if we look back to the occasion of them here it will appear they can be meant of nothing but of Ecclesiastical Discipline For in this xviiith Chapter Our Lord first labours to prevent the doing Injuries and Offences to the meanest of his Disciples ver 1. to ver 14. But secondly in case Injuries be done or any Scandal or Offence given Christ teaches the offended Person what method to take viz. First privately to admonish the Offender ver 15. If that prevail not the grieved party must rebuke him before witness ver 16. And if this also prove unsuccessful and the Offender remain obstinate then he must complain to the Church which is supposed to rebuke and if need be to Censure the stubborn Criminal and if he do not hear the Church that is submit to its Sentence and make reparation then Private Christians are to renounce all Communion and Commerce with that Man and carry themselves toward him as the Jews did to a Heathen or Publican with whom they would not discourse nor eat Matth. ix 11. Galat. ii 12. nor yet suffer them to come into that Court of the Temple where they were wont to pray Acts xxi 28. for on the Gate was written Let no Stranger go into the Holy Place (h) Joseph Bell. Jud. lib. 6. cap. 14. That is they must no longer count this Man a Member of the Christian Church nor call him a Brother but esteem him as a Pagan and one who never yet was admitted or a Publican who for living in open Sins was cast out and with such a Man the rest of the sound Christians were not to have any Commerce in Civil or Religious Matters But if all this will neither shame nor terrifie the wicked Wretch so as to bring him to Repentance because he may think this Sentence inflicted by the Church is but an Human Act and pronounced only by Mortal Men Our Lord declares That this Sentence is of Divine Authority and though it be pronounced only by Men yet it shall be confirmed in Heaven For saith he Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind c. ver 18. And
because Christ was to be in Heaven he assures them ver 19. 20. That whatever Publick Acts of Discipline they did when they were assembled and desired his Confirmation of them he would grant it to them yea when they met together in his Name and by his Authority committed to them did proceed to Censure Offenders he declares he was present there virtually and effectually ver 20. Now here seems to be no room for evasion yet those who love to find knots in the Bulrush do object to this plain Exposition First That this is meant of private Injuries when the Believers had no Judicatures to right them but Jewish or Heathen and though in that Case they were to use this Method yet now Christians have Magistrates and Laws of their own this order is void of it self To which Grotius replys That Christian Tribunals do not take away the power of judging from the Church because the Civil Laws do only punish the grosser Crimes and such as are most contrary to Civil Societies but there are many Offences against Charity Meekness and Patience not forbid by the Civil Laws but only by Christ's Laws by which the Church judgeth so that Constantine and his Successors did well to leave this power of Judging to the Church and to confirm it by their Laws as may be seen in the Acts of the Councils and in the Code (i) Grot. Com. in Luc. vi 22. To which I shall add That Christ here speaks not only of Injuries but of all kinds of Sins which are called Scandals or Offences because they may be an occasion of our Brethrens falling into Apostacy or evil Practises if these go unpunished and many Sins must be unpunished if none be taken notice of but those which the Civil Laws forbid (k) Rom. xiv 13. 1 Cor. viii 10. and therefore Scandals and Trespasses are used promiscuously (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. xviii 7. but ver 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also 1 Cor. viii 12. So that many evil things which are scandalous and offend weak Christians are still to be punished by the Church and since the ends of Church Censures are to bring the Offender to Repentance to clear the Church from the blot contracted by this Crime and to warn others not to follow so ill an Example and the nature of them is more gentle and more spiritual than the Civil Punishments doubtless they may well subsist together in the same Nation without subverting one another Secondly The Learned Mr. Selden seeks many Glosses for those words Tell the Church which he sometimes expounds of the Jewish Magistrates in the Synagogue and sometimes of the whole Assembly manifestly designing to take this Power out of the Bishops hands But for his first Notion how improbable is it that Christ should allow his Disciples who were not to sue for their very Cloaks Matth. v. 40. to go to their mortal Foes the unbelieving Jews to complain of Injuries and according to Mr. Selden's Notion of a Synagogue for a Court of Justice they were more like to be scourged or receive new Injuries than to get right there and Christ would rather have said Tell it to the Synagogue than tell the Church But an easie Prolepsis will solve this seeming difficulty for it was usual with our Lord whose words were to be writ for after times to allude to things not then instituted as he doth to Baptism John iii. 5. and to the Eucharist John vi 51. so we may reasonably believe he gave this Rule with respect to those Assemblies of Christians which he foresaw would soon after grow into a distinct Society and be ruled by his Apostles and their Successors to whom these Complaints were then to be made For I must venture to prefer S. Chrysostom's Exposition before that which Mr. Selden writ under a Rebellious Democracy and that holy Father tells us expresly that by the Church here is meant the Governours of the Church (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 69. in Matth. Tom. II. p. 385. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. whom Theophilact agrees with And St. Augustine expresly affirms That it is the Governours of the Church which have received this power from Christ in this place of St. Matthew xviii 17 18. (m) Augustin de Civ Dei lib. 20. c. 9. p. 213. And common Speech confirms this explication of the Fathers for we say He complains to the City who complains to the Governours of it But our Saviour puts it past all dispute that he intended this Power only for his Apostles and their Successors because to them and no other he grants a Commission to remit and retain sins John xx 23. 'T is true the Apostles and Primitive Bishops were wont to exercise this Discipline in the Presence of the People and with their Approbation but the Authority was wholly in the Governour and the Judicial Act was solely his St. Peter and S. Paul did pass the Censure and the Bishops their Successors But they did this in and before the Assembly for greater Solemnity and because the People were to know and avoid these Offenders as also that the openness of the shame might make the Criminals sooner repent and be a more effectual warning to others not to follow so bad an Example But from this presence of the whole Assembly to infer their joyning in the Authoritative part is a very weak Consequence and confuted both by Scripture and Antiquity as we shall see in the sequel For this shall suffice here to prove that in this second place our Lord Jesus hath left Power with the Governours of his Church to receive Complaints concerning scandalous Offenders and to bind them with the Bond of Excommunication till they do repent and that he hath commanded the People to refuse all Communion with these in Sacred Civil Actions while they remain obstinate yea and declared that they who remain obdurate and impenitent under this Sentence shall not only be excluded from Communion with the Church on Earth but be bound in Heaven also and excluded from thence if they do not submit and repent Thirdly these two places being only promises of a future Priviledge we may read the fulfilling of them when Christ ordained the Apostles for Governours of his Church after his Resurrection for he sent them with Authority as his Father sent him John xx 21. and to give them inward ability to exercise this high and holy Office he gives them the Holy Ghost by the Ceremony of breathing on them ver 22. Finally to oblige all the Society to revere and obey them he grants them the power of binding and loosing without a Metaphor saying Whosesoever Sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained ver 23. Which place evidently makes them Judges under Christ concerning such Offences as are committed by those in the Church so that if they should find any Man obstinate in his evil ways
he doth not cut off this Sinner but to shew he did this for his Amendment he still exhorts him to Repentance ver 22. 23. Upon which the Offender immediately submits and fearing some Judgment would follow this Apostolical Excommunication desires the Apostles as the Primitive Penitents did the Faithful afterwards to pray for him ver 24. which is a plain description of this Rite * Vide Apostol Can. 29. And Mr. Selden mentions some ancient Arabick Manuscripts which in the Form of Excommunication say Let him be accursed and excommunicated as Peter excommunicated Simon Magus (q) Seld Synedr l. 1. c. 8. p. 119. The next Example is that of the Incestuous Corinthian 1 Corinth v. 1 2. who had scandalously married his Fathers Wife yet the Church of Corinth connived at this notorious Crime and had high thoughts of themselves though this gross Scandal had been done among them whereas they ought rather to have lamented the deplorable condition of the Sinner and cast him out of their Church by Excommunication for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and ver 13. doth not signifie to take him away by death but to drive or take him away from assembling with them Only because this was a kind of Spiritual death therefore the Ancient Church use to inflict this Censure with weeping and lamenting over the Offender as if he had been really dead (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. constit lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cels lib. 3. p. 142. which was not unlike the Custom of the Pythagoreans who set a Coffin in the place of him that had forsaken their School And if the Corinthians had been thus truly sensible of the sad estate of this vile Wretch they would no doubt have cut him off from their Body as a common Annoyance as (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophilact Theophilact speaks or as a gangren'd Limb. But since the Schism there had loosened the Discipline our Apostle though absent in Body yet as present by his Authority decrees he shall be Excommunicated ver 3. and directs them how to proceed ver 4. When they were assembled for Publick Worship in Christ's Name for these Censures as we noted before were inflicted in Publick to produce the greater shame and terror in the Offender then according to the Sentence which S. Paul had pronounced by the Spirit and by virtue of that Power which our Lord Jesus had committed to him and which he now delegates to the Rulers of the Corinthian Church he chargeth them ver 5. to deliver this incestuous Man over to Satan that he might inflict some bodily pains and diseases on him to bring him to a sense of his Sin that so his Soul might be saved at the last and dreadful day of Judgment As to which Phrase of delivering to Satan it is certainly meant of Excommunication both here and 1 Timoth. i. 20. for as by Baptism Men were delivered from the power of Satan Acts xxvi 18. whence those Primitive Exorcisms and solemn Renunciations of the Devil So when Apostates and Evil men broke this Covenant and were cast out of the Church again they were as it were delivered back to Satan they became as Heathens Matth. xviii 17. and were under the Dominion of the Prince of Darkness Yet to shew this Discipline was not to destruction but to edification the Apostle declares this delivering to Satan was not for the damnation of their Souls but that Satan by God's permission and as God's Executioner might torment their Bodies by some grievous Disease whereby they might be humbled and brought to Repentance in order to their final Salvation It is well known that the Jews generally did believe Satan was the Inflicter of all Diseases Joh. ii 4 5 6 7. Luke xiii 16. Mark ix 17. And in the Infancy of the Church God was pleased to give greater credit to his Apostles and instead of Temporal Power to second their Censures with Diseases and so to confirm their Sentence in that Age of Miracles and though now the Gospel is sufficiently attested these miraculous Attestations as needless are withdrawn yet still those who are cast out of the Church are really exposed to Satan's malice until they submit and by repentance be received in again But the Apostle proceeds ver 6. that they must not glory of their Purity while such contagious and spreading Vices remained uncensured but ver 7. must clear themselves from these vicious Persons that they might be fit to communicate with Christ their Passoever He also adds That in a former Epistle now not extant he had enjoyned them to avoid the company and conversation of Fornicators that is that the Church should Censure them and the People have no Conversation with them but he now explains himself that he means not this should be extended to the Jews or Pagans who were no professed Christians and so not liable to its Discipline and by whose Faults no Scandal could fall on the Church but he now tells them who are to be Excommunicated and avoided viz. those who pretend they are Christians and yet are Fornicators Covetous Idolaters Railers Drunkards and Extortioners (t) Habes hic praecipuas excommunicationiz causas Grot. in locum with these though through the Schisms at Corinth the Bishop could not so well Excommunicate them the faithful People must not so much as eat a common Meal and sure much more not admit them to their Religious Worship and eat with them at the Lords Table ver 11. Now if any say S. Paul is partial in being more severe against Christians than Strangers for the same Crimes he answereth ver 12. That his Commission extended not to them that were without they were to be left to God's Judgment but he and they by Authority delegated from him had power to judge and sentence those who were Members of their own Society and so he concludes ver 13. That leaving the Unconverted to God's Judicature they must proceed to Excommunicate and take away by Excommunication this and other evil Persons and so by the severity of these Divine Censures they might in time obtain that end of punishment in all Societies even the taking away of Evil from among them so often mentioned in Moses's Law and by the LXX often rendred in the Masculine Gender (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX Deut. xvii 17. xxi 21. xxiv 7. Haec itaque est vera lectio hujus loci non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod D. Seldeno placet yet sometimes in the Neuter (w) Deut. xix 19. xxii 21. To conclude This Chapter contains full and clear directions for this holy Discipline and an Example which admits of no evasion For if this were to be executed by S. Paul's Order and by the Power of Christ on all notorious and scandalous Offenders and if the Church were to cast out such from their Society and the People to refrain from conversing with them if
the Church was to judge them and its Members were to avoid them then Excommunication was practised as it is now in the main even in the Apostles days and their Rules and Actions are our Warrant for it But since Christ gave his Apostles not only a power to retain but also to remit Sins we have a further account in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians That this Incestuous Person for of him the Fathers generally agree S. Paul speaks 2 Corinth ii 6. (x) Origen in Psal xxxvii Ambros Hieron Theoph. in loc who had grieved the Church of Corinth was exceedingly grieved himself and in danger to be swallowed up of too much sorrow wherefore S. Paul desires his Censure may be taken off declaring that this publick Reproof and severe Sentence (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. ii 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocantur Poenae Canonicae in Act. Consiliorum ap Chrysost de Sacerd. Grot. in the presence of the whole Congregation having brought him to Repentance was a sufficient Penalty and now he requires them to forgive him and grant him Absolution ver 7. expecting they should obey him in all his Orders as well the former for censuring as these for absolving ver 9. First Because in all his Orders he had respect unto their good And secondly Because he commanded them by the Authority and as the Ambassador of Christ who in all these Judicial Acts of Excommunicating and Absolving did represent the Person of Christ himself (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 10. Non in mea persona sed Christi qui dixit Quaecunque solveritis in terra erant soluta in Coelo Hieron Ut factum Apostoli factum sit Christi Ambros 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. who had given this Commission to his Apostles That whatsoever they should bind on Earth should be bound in Heaven So the Fathers expound this Phrase in the Person of Christ And we may observe That as S. Paul did Cast him out of the Church not by their common Suffrages as S. Ambrose speaks but with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ that is by his Authority and Sentence whose Ambassador on Earth the Apostle was (a) Ambros Comment in 1 Cor. v. p. 358. So he restores him again upon his Repentance not by any Suffrage of the Church Members but by Christ's Authority and as his Representative which shews that the People are meerly witnesses in this Case but the Governours of the Church only act by Authority The Peoples presence tends to the Solemnity not to the validity of Excommunication or Absolution which in this Instance are both plainly founded by S. Paul upon a Divine Authority and deduced from that Commission granted by Christ to his Apostles and consequently to their Successors I have been the larger on this because it is a fair Precedent drawn by the Hand of an Apostle of the Practice of these two great Points of Jurisdiction and a clear Commentary upon our Saviour's Commission as well as a strong Proof that Church Censures are of Divine Right Many other Expressions there are in these Epistles relating to this Matter which we will only briefly remark viz. all those which speak of S. Paul's coming to them in sorrow (b) 2 Cor. ii 1 2 3 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. and making them sorry that is by ordering Offenders to be censured which Act was alway done with sorrow as the receiving them in again was with joy So he saith He fears when he comes again God will humble him among them and that he shall bewail many who have sinned already and have not repented (c) 2 Cor. xii 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teoph Eugere dicitur pro excommunicare Grot. in 3 Cor. v. 2. which the Ancients expound of Excommunicating them And in that sense we are to understand those places where S. Paul speaks of making them sorry with an Epistle 2 Cor. vii 8. and of the godly sorrow which worketh Repentance to Salvation not to be repented of ver 10. Again To this belongeth that Authority which made him ready to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. x. 6. which he calls The Authority which the Lord had given him for edification and not for destruction ver 8. For whereas the Temporal Sword destroys the Criminals these Spiritual Censures are designed to bring Offenders to Repentance and Salvation and therefore the Apostle useth this Phrase again Chap. xiii 10. where having as our Saviour directed Matth. xviii 15 16. admonished them twice by his Epistles he assures them that when he comes which would be the third Application made to them He will not spare the Impenitent 1 Cor. xiii 2. but would use sharpness or severity ver 10. (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid Tit. i. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. that is proceed immediately to Excommunicate them according to that Power wherewith Christ had invested him for edification and not for destruction For which cause they ought not to think much at this Power which Christ had given the Governours of his Church because the end of it was not the destruction but the reformation of Offenders And if they would amend without it our Spiritual Fathers would be much better pleased Further we may note That not only for wicked practices but for Heretical Opinions and false Doctrines also the Apostles used Excommunication as in that place If we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be Anathema or Accursed Galat. i. 8. And to shew this was no rash but a deliberate Judicial Act he repeats it ver 9. And here it will be seasonable to enquire into the Sense of this word Anathema so often used concerning Excommunication (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophâ—e Chrysost Abominabilis sit Hieron Condemnatus devotus detestabilis Aug. The Ancients explain it Accursed Excommunicated Separated Alienated Abominable Detestable and Devoted all which respect Persons Excommunicated And the LXX do generally thus translate the Hebrew Cherem (f) Josh vii 1. Deut. vii 26. alibi the name of one Species of Excommunication among the Jews 'T is true it sometimes signifies a thing dedicated to God The reason of which different Senses S. Chrysostom thus gives As no man dares touch a Gift offered and devoted to God so no man dares touch one that is Anathematized but this is done for different reasons None will come near the holy Gift because it is Consecrated to God but all men separate from the Excommunicated as being unholy and alienated from God (g) ap Theoph. in Rom. ix 3. ipse Chrysost hom 16. in 9. Rom. ita etiam Theodor. in loc And Theodoret notes that Anathema signifies not only that which is offered to God but that which is alienated from him and in the latter Sense he applies it to
Excommunication which Alienates men from the Common Body of the Church and as S. Chrysostom speaks Separates them from all and alienates them from all in Rom. 9. And in this Sense those who Apostatized from the Faith did call Jesus Anathema 1 Cor. xii 3. that is renounce all Communion with him and agree to that Sentence of Cherem which the Jews had pronounced against him as an Accursed Person And S. Paul in the height of his Charity to his Country-men wishes himself Anathema from Christ so they might be saved Rom. ix 3. that is he could be content to be cut off and excommunicated from the Church and Body of Christ so they were all united to it Upon the whole Matter we may conclude That this Anathema in the Galatians is a Formal and Solemn Excommunication denounced against all who preach false Doctrines instead of the true Gospel and such another Sentence is thundred forth against all That love not the Lord Jesus Let them be Anathema Maran-atha 1 Cor. xvi 22. only there is added an intimation That the Lord will come and take Vengeance on those who are thus Accursed deservedly by the Church for corrupting the Faith But of this Maran-atha we spake before However it may be proper here to observe That from this Apostolical practice the Primitive Church was wont in her Canons which concerned Matters of Faith or were levelled against notorious Crimes to annex an Anathema to them intimating those Doctrines and Practices were accursed and deserved Excommunication So in the end of the Nicene Creed the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church Anathematizes the Arrians And the first Council at Constantinople pronounces an Anathema against every Heresie (h) Conc. Constant Can. I. Bever Tom. I. p. 85. So doth the Council of Gangra close every Canon with this Anathema (i) Conc. Gangrens ibid. p. 415. which Balsamon explains to be for the subversion of those Heresies being a Declaration that for such Opinions and Practices they shall be Excommunicated And it is very certain that the Apostles themselves did actually excommunicate Men for Heresie For Hymenaeus was an Heretick 2 Tim. ii 17. denying the Futurity of the Resurrection and Alexander had made Shipwrack of his Faith too yea both of them were void of good Conscience wherefore S. Paul excommunicates these two 1 Tim. i. 19 20. delivering them to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme And that the same thing is meant by delivering to Satan and Anathematizing we may learn from Balsamon and Zonaras who say that an Anathema is nothing else but a kind of dedicating one to Satan (l) Anathema dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praef. ad Concil Gangr And more largely Such an one is an Anathema that is separated from God For as that which is offered to God is called an Anathema and is separated from common uses so he who is Anathematized is torn off and cast out from the Society of the Faithful who belong to God and from God himself and is set apart for the Devil or rather sets himself apart for him (m) Zonar in Can. 3. Goncil Constant Bever Tom. I. p. 363. Balsamon ibid And for this Exposition they cite the Apostle S. Paul in the places before produced But because some late Authors would have this delivering to Satan peculiar to the Apostles times I shall grant that the being seized with Diseases which was the miraculous effect of it was peculiar to those first Ages while these wonderful and supernatural Penalties were necessary for confirming the New-planted Gospel but the Title which Satan hath to such as are deservedly Excommunicated for Heresie or gross Crimes is as real though not so visible now as we may learn from Theophylact How saith he did he deliver them to Satan He cast them out of the Church he turned them out of the Sheepfold and exposed them naked to the Wolf for as once the Cloud overshadowed the Tabernacle so doth the Spirit the Church of Christ Therefore if any be out of the Church he is deserted by the Spirit and so becomes miserable and an easie Prey to Satan Such is the Punishment of Excommunication (n) Theophylact in 1 Tim. i. 20. For the Devil is always ready to take those into his Power who are alienated from God saith S. Ambrose (o) Ambros Com. in eundem loc And so dreadful a thing was it accounted in the Primitive Times to be thus Anathematized and delivered to Satan That they generally used these Anathema's rather against Opinions and Practices at large than against Persons contenting themselves with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bare Separation of those from the Communion whose Repentance they could possibly hope for Which perhaps those charitable Bishops might learn from the Apostles who though they did Anathematize the most notorious Criminals and the Ringleaders of Heresie and deliver them to Satan by the worst sort of Excommunication like the Jewish Cherem yet they were content only to warn the Faithful to avoid the Society of other Sinners agreeable to the lower sort of Jewish Excommunication by Niddui For as to the Authors of Schism the Apostle bids them mark and avoid them Rom. xvi 17. which being to be done by all the Christians of that Church it must amount to an excluding them from their Religious Assemblies and Civil Conversation also Though Grotius thinks there was yet no fixed Government of the Church at Rome if there had S. Paul had ordered these to be Excommunicated which not being in the Peoples power all they could do was to avoid them The like Rules the Apostle gives to the Thessalonians whom he commands in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ to withdraw themselves from every Brother who walketh disorderly 2 Thess iii. 6. which being pronounced so solemnly in Christ's Name and by his Authority is a kind of general Sentence of Excommunication upon which they were to avoid such Mens Company So again ver 14. He who obeyed not the Apostles Orders they were to signifie his name to S. Paul in an Epistle (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 14. of Complaint and by forbearing to hold any Communion with him shame him into amendment Yet not to hate him during this his Separation and Exclusion but to admonish him that if possible he might be reduced before he was utterly cut off from being a Brother For these Admonitions did regularly precede the Solemn Excommunication as we learn from S. Paul's directions to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus where the Bishop was openly before all the Congregation to rebuke notorious Offenders for a terror to others 1 Tim. v. 20. And if this would not prevail but he was forced to Excommunicate them he then enjoyns him as in the Presence of God and Christ and his holy Angels who were present in the Church where these Consures were laid on to proceed impartially ver 21. and not hastily to Absolve them again by the Ceremony of
Laying on of Hands Cypr. Epist ad Pleb num xii before they had repented lest he should make himself liable to other Mens sins ver 22. In like manner S. Paul advises Titus his Vicegerent and Successor in Crete concerning those Jewish Seducers who subverted many and concerning those Cretians who were seduced by them To rebuke them sharply (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus i. 13. See 1 Cor. xiii 10. that they might be sound in the Faith And more plainly Chap. iii. 10. he commands him After the first and second Admonition to reject a Man that is an Heretick which is a direction for depriving him of the Communion of the Church since whomsoever the Bishop did reject he was necessarily excluded from Divine Offices and all the Faithful who cleaved always to their Bishop renounced such a Man's Consersation for in so doing they observed our Saviour's Order that when any would not hear the Church they should count him as an Heathen man and a Publican Matth. xviii 17. which was the Case of an obstinate Heretick that would not hear the Bishop's Admonitions And as the more Religious Jews would not eat with Publicans or Sinners i.e. Gentiles so the Faithful were enjoyned by the Apostles with notorious Criminals no not to eat 1 Cor. v. 11. that is not to eat a common Meal with them as the Jews would not eat with one Excommunicated by Niddui and indeed eating was a sign of Friendship which Orthodox Christians were not to have with these who were an abomination to them Genes xliii 32. and Galat. ii 12. Now it is in my Opinion a very weak Enquiry to ask here Whether this eating be meant of the Lord's Supper or no Because it is certain à minori ad majus that if a Christian might not eat an ordinary Meal with an excommunicate Person in a private House much more ought he to avoid his Company in so high an Act of Religion as eating the Lord's Supper For no doubt whosoever was under Censure so as to be shut out of the Houses of Christians were not admitted to their Religious Assemblies For these Disturbers of Christian Unity like dead Branches or gangren'd Members were to be wholly cut off from the Body of Christ's Church as S. Paul speaks Galat. v. 12. in so much that S. John expresly forbids the Faithful to shew any kindness by way of common Civility to those who hold not the right Faith saying If any come to you and bring not this Doctrine do not receive him into your House nor bid him God speed 2 Epist S. John ver 10. Which aversation and utter disclaiming all Testimonies of Friendship were grounded on those Anathema's pronounced by the Apostles against all such notorious Hereticks who were by all to be esteemed as excommunicated ipso facto And hence arose that usage in the Ancient Church not to salute any that was excommunicated as we see in Synesius's Epistles (r) Synesij Epist 58. p. 503. and in the Capitulars (s) Capitul Francor lib. 5. cap. 42. p. 96. and we may be sure if they would not pray for them in way of usual Civility they would not endure them in their Houses of Prayer it being recorded of this S. John That he leapt out of the Bath unwashed when he saw Cerinthus the Heretick come in thither (t) Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. And truly it was useful and safe for the Orthodox Christians thus totally to renounce all Conversation with these Seducers whose words might easily infect them if once they held communication with them But if any Scruple yet remain concerning the excluding the excommunicated from Religious Assemblies and consequently from Prayers and Sacraments in the time of the Apostles the Instance of Diotrephes will sufficiently remove it for he bearing himself as a Bishop would not communicate with those who came from S. John and if any did hold Communion with them he Cast them out of the Church 3 Epist S. John ver 10. or Excommunicated them by forbidding them to come into the Christian Assemblies and denying to them the participation of Divine Offices which was the principal part of the Penalty in that Exclusion And his doing this to such as he counted false-Teachers and Men walking disorderly shews it was frequently practised in that time Thus we have seen how the Apostles exercised that Authority which our Lord Jesus gave them as often as there was Occasion And by what hath been said we may observe That they made Christ Jesus the Author of this holy Discipline and the Apostles with their Successors the sole Ministers thereof That they inflicted this Censure for Heresie Schism and for gross Impieties and Immoralities and counted the Person who was thus Censured in a very deplorable and damnable Condition and one who was no Member of the Church and so would have no Communion with him in Civil or Religious Actions yet in all this they aimed only at his Repentance and upon unfeigned signs of that the Church Governours were ready to Absolve him and take him in again which being the Pattern of our Excommunication proves it to be of Divine Right § II. By what is Recorded in S. Paul's Epistle to Timothy and Titus it doth appear That the Apostles communicated that Power of hearing Complaints and of rebuking and censuring Offenders which they had received from Christ unto those Persons whom they fixed as Bishops in the Churches they had planted And it was necessary they should do so because otherwise they had not invested them with sufficient Power to discharge their Duty nor to keep the Churches committed to them in good order And as an undoubted Proof that the Primitive Bishops who succeeded the Apostles had this Authority vested in them we shall now shew That they did exercise this Power of the Keys in the purest Ages of the Church and declared they did it by Commission from Christ and his Apostles which considering the Charity and Integrity of those Ages none can imagine they would have pretended if it had not been really so The first Instance we shall remark is that famous Excommunication of Aquila of Pontus who had translated the Old Testament into the Greek Tongue and who was Converted and Baptized by the Disciples of the Apostles at Jerusalem yet continuing his former vain belief of Astrology and also drawing Schemes of his own Nativity he was admonished and rebuked by all the Doctors of the Church for this and not amending but rather opposing them and contentiously disputing with them about Fate they cast him out of the Church as one unlikely to be saved saith Epiphanius (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. de ponder mensuris This happened about the year of Christ 120. in the Reign of Adrian and about twenty years after S. John's death In which Relation we note First That this Censure was inflicted by the Doctors of the Church that is the Bishops met perhaps in a Synod at
Cyprian and the African Bishops and not only so but also rebuked and confuted yea Excommunicated by all the holy Bishops of the whole World (w) Novatiano nuper retuso refutato per totum orbem à Sacerdotibus Dei abstento Cypr. Stephan lib. 3. Ep. 13. And he advises Stephen Bishop of Rome to send Letters into France to declare Marcion Bishop of Arles one of Novatus his followers Excommunicate and that another might be put in his place (x) Idem ibid. Which passage about Novatian or Novatus as he is sometimes called is also in Eusebius who saith By a Roman Council of Sixty Bishops and more than so many Priests and by the Bishops of divers other Provinces in their Synods he was declared Excommunicate (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 6. cap. 35. pag. 178. And he also mentions his Excommunication by the African Bishops as before Which Zonaras expresseth by his being Cast out and Anathematized (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zonar in 8. Can. Concil 1. Niceen words of the same import with the former and implying his being declared Accursed as well as cast out of the Church To this we might add more out of the same Father as where he calls Papianus his judging of his Bishop making himself a Judge of God and of Christ who saith to his Apostles and so to all Bishops that succeed them in that Office He that heareth you heareth me (a) Te judicem Dei constituas Christi qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes Praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ Ordinatione succedunt c. Cypr. Epist lib. 4. Ep. 9. And where he saith No Man can have God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother and if any could escape out of Noahs Ark then they may escape who are out of the Church (b) Cypr. lib. de simplie Praelat But these are sufficient to shew that S. Cyprian believed the Bishops were the Apostles Successors and Christs Vice-gerents and had their power from him to Censure the disorderly who by that Sentence were put out of the Church in which alone Salvation could be had About the year 270 that numerous Council of Bishops and Clergy assembled at Antioch and deposed Paulus Samosatenus from the Bishoprick of that City for Heresy and other heinous Crimes yea they deprived him of the Communion of the whole Catholick Church under Heaven (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 7. cap. 23. pag. 205. and when he would not yield up his Possession to that Successor which the Council had placed in his stead they intreated Aurelian who was then Emperor to compel him thereunto who decreed the Possession should be granted to him whom the Bishops had chosen (d) Idem ibid. cap. 24. for he though an Idolater thought it just that he who would not obey the Sentence of those of his own Faith should be deprived of having any part with them (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeret. sab 8. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Dividend or Share of the Profits of the Church So that Mr. Selden might have spared that note (f) Seld. Synedr l. 1. cap. 13. pag. 274. De voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid. Jul. Polluc l. 15. c. 13. That this looked not like an Opinion of Divine Right for the Bishops to desire an Heathen Emperor to do that which they could not effect For they had first rejected this Heretick according to the Power given them by Christ and if he yet kept possession of the Church and the profits it was no diminution of their Spiritual Power to call in the Secular Magistrate to compel him to quit the place and temporal advantages which is all that is meant by Eusebius his saying That he was with extream disgrace driven out of the Church by the Secular Power (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. c. 24. But his being Excommunicated by the Council and by the Judgment of all the Bishops is mentioned also by Theodoret who further observes That Lucian who was Paulus his Scholar in this Error remained a long time Excommunicated for the same viz. during the time of three Bishops (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apost Can. 10. I will not trouble my self to produce any more instances of the practice of this Discipline during the time that the Empire was in the hands of Heathens only I shall note what those famous Apostolical Canons which were undoubtedly made in this Period by the Primitive Bishops say with respect to this matter And first the tenth Canon is remarkable which saith He that prays with an Excommunicate Person though it be in a private House shall be Excommunicated himself (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 73. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 79. By which we see that whatever the Jewish Custom were the Christians renounced all Communion with the Excommunicate in Religious Offices In the rest of those Canons there is frequent mention made of Excommunication under divers Phrases yet to the same purpose viz. Of being separated being wholly cut off from the Church and wholly cut off from the Communion being cast out of the Church being punished with separation not being allowed to pray with the Faithful And in all those Canons the penalty for the greatest Crimes in the Clergy is to be deposed in the Laity to be Excommunicated And particularly He that receives one that is Excommunicated in one City when he comes to another City without commendatory Letters is to be Excommunicated himself (k) Apostol Can. xii xiii In the Case of Simony perpetual Excommunication is decreed (l) Ibid. Can. xxix In the Case of Schism three Admonitions must precede the Censure (m) Ibid. Can. xxxi And none must absolve but the same Bishop who Excommunicated (n) Ibid. Can. xxxii To enter into a Synagogue of the Jews or a Meeting of Hereticks to pray with them is Excommunication (o) Ibid. Can. Lxiv Which with many other Canons do shew that the Discipline of the Church was then strictly observed when the Bishops had no Authority from Secular Powers and when it was only the belief of a Divine Commission granted to them which prevailed upon the People to submit to it To these Canons we will add the Council of Elliberis which was held before Constantine began to Reign Anno 305. And in this Council there are many plain Evidences concerning the use of this Rite For there it is Decreed That Apostates to Idolatry Murtherers Adulterers and such like heinous Offenders should be Excommunicated and never received into the Church again Can. 1 2 5 6 7 c. Parents that marry their Daughters to Jews or Hereticks were to be Excommunicated for five
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
Concil Nicaen Tom. 2. p. 72. were by various steps and Degrees admitted to the peace of the Church and the participation of Holy Offices again although they did begin to be sensible of their Crimes For they made four Orders of these Penitents First The Mourners who stood without the Church Lamenting their Sins in Sackcloth and Ashes kneeling down to the Priests and Faithful who went in and begging their Prayers for them When they had continued under this severe Discipline one or more years according to the nature of their offence they were then let in to the Church-Door and stood there below among the Catechumens and heard the Scriptures read and Preached whence they were called Hearers and then these were excluded out of the Church for some Years After this they were admitted into the lower part of the inner Temple where the Faithful stood but so as that they were to fall down prostrate to beg Pardon of the Bishop and therefore they were called the Prostrate and these also were sent away after the Prayer for Penitents was said over them Lastly The Bishop admitted them to stand up among the Faithful and stay all the time of Prayers among them Yet so as they were still excluded from the Participation of the holy Sacrament and these were called The Standers up In which state having continued a while they were Absolved and admitted to full Communion by partaking of the blessed Eucharist Now this whole description of these Orders of Penitents which is so frequently mentioned in all the Authors of this Age that we cannot understand any of them without the knowledge of it I say all this was determined only by Ecclesiastical Canons and by the Bishops Authority without any Grant from the Emperors yet it was freely submitted to by all good Christians and is an unanswerable proof That the whole Church did then believe Bishops had Power from God to expel Offenders from Sacred Assemblies and Offices and that they only could bind and loose This shews they doubted not but that such as were Excommunicated by the Bishop were in danger of damnation and till they became Penitent were as Heathens and Publicans and in a worse Estate than the new Converts not yet Baptized And since this Discipline began before the Empire was Christian and continued long after it without any Grant from the Secular Powers it follows That it was Founded Originally on a Divine Right which great Truth we will now further confirm from the Practice and Opinion of the most eminent Holy Bishops of these Ages St. Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria Excommunicated one of the Emperors Prefects who did much oppress the Churches of Libya and certified S. Basil of it by his Letter whereupon S. Basil also excommunicated the same Person in his Church (y) Baron Annal An. Dom. 370. Where we may observe the Custom of Bishops sending Epistles to other Churches that they also might avoid the Communion of such as they had Excommunicated Of which we have a memorable instance in S. Augustine who Excommunicated Primianus the Donatist and sent his Tractatorian Letter to all his fellow Bishops to avoid him (z) Conducibile existimavimus omnes Sanctos consacerdotes c. hâc nostrâ Tractatoriâ commonere ut omnes Primiani Communionem diligenti curâ horreant Aug. Conc. 2. in Psal 36. Vide item Epist 162. For he that was censured and excluded in one Church was so in all and not to be admitted into Communion again without the consent of him that first cast him out About this time lived that famous Bishop Gregory Nyssen who is very clear for the Divine Right of Excommunication saying Do not believe that Excommunication is a piece of Episcopal presumption for it is a Law of our Fathers an ancient Order of the Church beginning from the Law of Moses and was Established in the Gospel (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen Orat. de Castigat Where we see it is evidently affirmed That though it had been Practised under the Law yet it was Established under the dispensation of Grace and on that ground always used in the Church before his time And here we cannot but note Mr. Selden's partiality who designing to make this a proof that Christian Excommunications were derived from the Jews translates the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae à lege traxit originem et in gratiâ obtinuit (b) Seld. Synedr l. 1. cap. 10. p. 226. contrary to the plain Sense of the phrases and the meaning of that Father who doth not say it had its Original from the Law and obtained under the Gospel but only that it began under the Law and was confirmed or established in the Gospel S. Ambrose lived not long after viz. An. 380. And he speaking of the Power of absolving Penitents saith Christ granted this to his Apostles which from the Apostles is transmitted to the Episcopal Office (c) Ambros de poenit l. 2. cap. 2. Tom. 4. p. 403. And adds The Prodigal which went into a far Country is he that is separated from the Holy Altar for he is removed from Hierusalen that is in Heaven and from being a Fellow-Citizen with the Saints and of the Houshold of God (d) Ibid. Cap. 3. p. 404. Again he notes That it is the part of a good Bishop to labour to heal the weak and to take away spreading Ulcers to scorch some rather than take them wholly away Yet finally what cannot be healed to cut it off with grief (e) de Officijs l. 2. cap. 27. Tom. 4. p. 61. So that he reckons this properly and only the Bishops Office Yea to shew how little he thought this Power was derived from the Emperors it is well known that he did interdict the Emperor Theodosius from the Communion for some time telling him That after the bloody slaughter of so many Men He ought to submit to that Bond which by the Sentence of God above was laid upon him being a Bond that was medicinal and designed for his Cure Which advice the good Emperor submitted to and returned very penitent to his Palace for he had been brought up in the knowledge of Gods Word and understood what was properly the Office of a Bishop and what was the Office of a King (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Histor lib. 5. cap. 17. pag. 158. They are the words of Theodoret and shew that Excommunication was then known to be no part of the Princes Office but only of the Priests and that by Authority given them from God whence the same Historian saith That the Emperor a while after lamented because he was not only excluded from the Church but from Heaven it self since Christ had declared What they bound on Earth should be bound in Heaven (g) Idem ibidem So that no doubt the Emperor who believed this did think Excommunication was of Divine Right and founded upon the same Text we now alledge for
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
several injurious practices and would not absolve him no not at the Peoples request leaving that to Theophilus Only he had impowred those Presbyters which should be present when he should be nigh unto death to restore him to the Communion for saith he None shall dye under this Bond laid on by me (i) Synesij Ep. 67. Theophil pag. 215. Which manifestly shews that he esteemed it a dreadful thing for any to dye under this Sentence and that it might make their Estate very hazardous in another World and therefore it is wonderful how Mr. Selden could infer That this looks as if he thought this Bond not of Divine Institution but of Humane Invention (k) Seld. Synedr 1. cap. 13. p. 285. For it proves the contrary since if it were only a Humane Invention it is no matter whether it were taken off or no from one who is bidding adieu to Mankind nor could it be any prejudice to a Man at Gods Tribunal if it were not laid on by his Authority Therefore it was this belief which made the Old Canons so careful to restore those who had not fully gone through the Degrees of Penitence unto the Communion of the Church in case of mortal Sickness lest if they died bound on Earth they should be bound in Heaven Soon after lived Prosper An. 433. who saith The greater Sinners must be sharply rebuked and if this will not bring them to amendment as rotten Members of the Body they are to be cut off by Excommunication lest like to dead Flesh not taken away they corrupt the sound parts (l) Prosper de vit contempl lib. 2. cap. 7. It would be tiresome to my self and the Reader to search any further in so undeniable and clear a Matter and therefore without enquiring any further into the declining Ages of the Church We will here conclude That it was the Sense of the Primitive Catholick Fathers That Excommunication was exercised by Divine Right and by Authority derived from Christ himself § IV. We will now go on to consider the Sense of the Councils in this Period concerning Excommunication And out of innumerable instances there of the use of this Rite we will only select the most material And first upon that Principle That the Whole Catholick Church was but one and that whosoever was cast out by any one Bishop was cut off from the Body of Christ The Nicene Council decreed according to an Ancient Canon meaning the 32 Canon Apostolical That whosoever was cast out by one Bishop should not be received into the Church again by another (m) An. 326. Concil Nicen. I. Can. 5. Bev. Tom. I. p. 64. By which they declared that they believed Christ had given the power of judging to every Bishop as to all those under his Charge and yet since Bishops were but Men and might chance to vary from those rules which Christ had left them to judge by through Passion or Partiality this Great Council provides That if any be unjustly Excommunicated the matter shall upon Appeal be tried in a Synod of neighbouring Bishops to be held twice in each year and there the Case is to be tried finally And the like Order of not receiving those into one Church who were cast out of another without the Sentence of a Synod of Bishops is renewed in all succeeding Councils (n) An. 341. Concil Antioch Can. 6. An. 314. Concil I. Arelat can 16. An. 305. Concil Ellib Can. 53. An. 347. Concil Sardic Can. 13. An. 397. Concil Tamin Can. 4. An. 559. Concil 3. Paris Can. 7. An. 570. Concil I. Lugdun Can. 4. An. 789. Capitul I. p. 213. Which shews this was the Opinion of all Ages There is no mention of any Appeal to the Emperors And though they were then Christian and had the Title of Pontifices Max. yet the Councils believing this Power wholly in the Bishops make the highest and last Appeal to be unto a Synod of them And this gave ground to that Custom mentioned before of the giving notice to the neighboring Bishops concerning Persons Excommunicated in any Church after which notice they were either to Excommunicate them over again or at least to avoid them as the Canons do shew (o) An. 441. Concil I. Araus Can. 11. An. 587. Concil II. Turon Can. 8. Iv◠Carnot ep 76. Yea the Popes themselves for many hundred years were content to agree to these Rules as their fellow Bishops did So that Benedict the Ninth did revoke an Absolution granted to a certain Count without the knowledge and consent of the Bishop of Auvergne who had Excommunicated the said Count (p) An. 1034. Epist Penedict 9. in Concil Lemov By which discipline the Men who fell under these Censures justly had no remedy but to repent and seek Absolution from that Bishop who best knew the nature of their Crime And for a further proof that no aid was to be expected from the secular Power but only from the Colledge of Bishops The famous Council of Sardis Ordains That if a Bishop in his anger do cast any man out of the Church he may go to another Bishop and intreat him to intercede for him with that Bishop who had laid the Censure on which Bishop ought to be willing to have this matter examined by his fellow Bishops but the person censured was to be in the same case till the matter was determined (q) An. 347. Concil Sardic Can. 14. Yea the second Council of Carthage Decrees That if any who were Excommunicated for their Crimes fled to the Court or to the Civil Judicatures those Bishops or Clergymen who received them should be Excommunicated themselves (r) An. 397. Concil II. Carthag Ca. 7. So little did the Fathers of that Age dream of any Power in the Christian Emperors as to Binding and loosing or of their own having it by any Grant from the Imperial Authority And here I cannot but digress a little to relate a most remarkable instance of God's approving the Bishops acts in censuring evil Men if it be true what is related by Faustinus and Marcellinus two Presbyters of the Luciferian Schism who wrote while the person most concerned was yet alive The story this * Faust Marcel Libell prec p. 26 27. When the Arrians by their interest in Constantius the Emperor had violently thrust out Maximus the Catholick and Orthodox Bishop of Naples from his See and got him sent into Banishment Maximus Excommunicated Zosimus whom the Arrians had unjustly put in his place and when Zosimus went into the Church to do his Office before all the Congregation his Tongue did swell and hang out of his mouth so that he could not speak one word and when he went out of the Church he was restored to his speech but going in again he fell into the same calamity and this so often that at last he resolved to quit the Bishoprick (s) An. 359. Which memorable Judgment in a Case where the Bishops
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
And when the Deacons have turned him out they are to return and beg of the Bishop to admit him to Repentance (h) Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 19. And a little after it is said If they do not separate a Wicked Man from the Church they make Gods House a Den of Thieves (i) Idem ibid. In the next Chapter The Bishop ought to remember his Dignity because he hath received power both to bind and to loose (k) Idem lib. 2. cap. 20. Afterwards the Bishop is directed to admonish him twice according to Christs precept who hath offended and if he be still obdurate then he is to declare his Obstinacy to the Church and after that to account him as a Heathen and a Publican and not to admit him into the Church as a Christian but to avoid him as a Heathen (l) Idem lib. 2. cap. 41. cap. 42. Finally There is reckoned up the several sorts of Offenders who are to be Excommunicated or to be utterly rejected (m) Idem lib. 8. cap. 38. Adulterers and all that minister to unlawful Lusts such as make Idols and live by the Stage those that use Divination and follow the Jewish or Gentile Superstitions all these are to be Excommunicated till they forsake their evil ways But upon their repentance to be received Which evidently proves That Excommunication was then believed to be the Bishops Office and that this power was derived from Christ and founded upon those Words of the Gospel which we have cited before It were endless to cite all the Councils which mention this Sacred punishment because it is mentioned in every one But it may be worth observing That in the famous General Council of Chalcedon which was confirmed by the Emperors Authority there are Decrees for Excommunicating some Offenders and for Anathematizing others (n) An. 450. Concil Chalced. Can. 2 4 7 8 15 16 20. 27. And this Canonical punishment is particularly ordered to be inflicted on any belonging to the Church who forsake the Judgment of their own Bishop and fly to secular Tribunals (o) Ibid. Can. 9. So that the Bishops did determine what Offences were thus to be punished and the Emperors were so far from hindring them that they confirmed all their Determinations so that such as were obstinate durst not but submit to them in regard the Civil Powers gave them the force of Laws and by Temporal Penalties compelled Men to obey the Canons which is one great end of Christian Magistrates as Mr. Selden confesseth out of Isidore The Magistrates would not be necessary in the Church but only that what the Priest cannot effect by the Word and Doctrine the Magistrate may cause to be done by the Terror of his Discipline (o) Isidor Hispal Sent. l. 3. cap. 53. But to proceed It was a manifest Sign that these Ages did believe Excommunication had its effect upon Mens Souls and not only excluded them out of the Society of Christians upon Earth but also put them into extream danger of Damnation in the next World because in all the Old Councils such care is taken that none who had submitted to Penitence should dye without being absolved and admitted to the Holy Communion for their restoring to the Communion of the Visible Church could signifie little to them who were never like to walk abroad again or to come to the Church any more wherefore this was intended to prevent the sad effects which this Sentence unreversed might have upon them in another World as being laid on by the Authority of Christ The old Canons which take this care may be seen together in Albaspinaeus But the same Proviso was made in the Councils of this Age also viz. That such as were Excommunicated and fell into Mortal Sickness should have the Sacrament before they died (p) An. 524. Concil Ilerd can 2. Can. 5. Item An. 540. Concil 3. Aurel. Can. 6. Can. 16. Cum multis alijs And here also I must note That about this time there was a Custom Annually to Excommunicate some kind of Notorious Offenders which is mentioned in the third Council of Orleance (q) An. 540. Concil 3. Aurel. Can. 13. Can. 30. though some would pretend it to be a Custom of later times only As to the Condition of Persons Excommunicate the Ancient Discipline was still observed They were to put on the habit of Mourners (r) An. 506. Concil Agathens Can. 15. none were to eat with them (s) An. 507. Concil I. Aurel. Can. 13. For which the Apostles words are quoted (t) An. 524. Concil Ilerd Can. 4. They were to be deprived of all Conversation and discourse with the Faithful (u) An. 531. Concil 2. Tole tan Can. 3. And finally whosoever did either Pray with these or Eat or Converse with them were also to be Excommunicated (w) Concil Bracar l. Can. 33. An. 563. An. 590. Concil Antissid Can. 38 39. So that we may see the Ancient Discipline was still in force until the year 600 after Christ and that with little or no Variation unless in the dealing more gently with Penitents because the World could scarce bear those ancient severities so many years together After this we may observe out of Gregory the Great that it was then the General Opinion That Bishops held the place of the Apostles and they who had obtained this Degreee for Government had received the power of Binding and Loosing Yea that whether the Pastor laid on this Bond justly or no it was to be dreaded by those of his Flock (x) An. 600. Greg. M. hom 26. in Evang. Tom. II. pag. 129. And in his Epistles which passed for Law through divers Ages there are many Instances of the exercise of this Power which S. Gregory would not have any Bishop use rashly nor to revenge his private wrongs because it was designed for more Spiritual ends (y) Greg. M. Epist lib. 2. ind XI ep 45. Item ibid. ind c. X. Ep. 34. And it seems the Pope did not then pretend a General Commission to Absolve all that other Bishops Excommunicated for he gives this reason why he Absolves one of Milan because the Bishop who censured him was dead and no Successor chosen (z) Ibid. ind XI epist 65. And in the Instructions he gives to Augustine the Monk for the right Governing the newly Converted English Saxons he doth allow him in some Cases to Excommunicate (a) Greg. resp ad interrog August Cap. 7. Spelm. p. 98. though since it was a new planted Church he adviseth him to proceed gently However it is certain that the use of this Censure came into this Nation with their Christianity And that Almighty God did shew his Judgments upon those who despised this Sentence which was pronounced in his Name may be seen in that memorable Example related by Beda who tells us That S. Chad Bishop of the East-Saxons Excommunicated one of King Sigebert's Earls for an
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
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
signified So the Fathers use the Word Passover not for the Jewish Feast upon their Paschal Lamb but for the Christian Festival in Memory of Christs Resurrection So also they use the word Sacrifice for the Commemoration of Christs one Oblation in the Eucharist not for a real Bloody Sacrifice The like might be observed of many other Words viz. Apostle Baptism Presbyter c. which were Jewish Phrases but used by the Christians in a quite different sense Wherefore supposing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie only an excluding from Civil Rights among the Jews which is not true as was shewed before it doth not follow that it must signifie no more among the Christians Again He objects that a certain Monk did Excommunicate the younger Theodosius who would not be satisfied till the same Monk had absolved him (x) Idem lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 171. è Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 36. And hence he infers that others besides Bishops may Excommunicate without any formal process as the Custom was among the latter Jews I reply this bold Fact being a single Instance is no Argument that such a thing might lawfully be done yea the Patriarchs Opinion was that the Emperor needed no Absolution from so rash a Sentence And it was in Compliance with the Emperors fears that this absolution was procured yet it is not improbable this Monk was in Priests Orders because Theodosius desires the Patriarch to give him Licence to loose the Bond who had laid it on However if the Monks zeal transported him beyond the bounds of his Duty that is no ground of Argument nor Precedent for us to follow He also objects the saying of S. Hierom upon that place of S. Matthew xvi 19. concerning the power of Binding and loosing Which words S. Hierom saith some Bishops and Priests not understanding Pharisaically thought they could condemn the Innocent or absolve the Guilty whereas before God the Life of the Criminal is considered rather than the Sentence of the Priest And he goes on to compare this with the Office of the Levitical Priests who did not make the Leprous clean or unclean but discern and declare who were so and saith in like manner the Priests and Bishops now do not by Binding or Loosing make Men Guilty or Innocent but by vertue of their Office discern and declare who are really so (y) Seld. Syn. lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 285. ex Hieron Com. in Matth. 16. And Mr. Selden thinks this argues that S. Hierom did not think Christ had given the Clergy such a Jurisdiction as they claim from these words I Answer that we do not pretend to any such Power as to condemn the Innocent or clear the Guilty but Grant that God doth not always follow the Judgment of the Church which may be imposed on sometimes (z) Petr. Lomb. sent lib. 4. And that the power of Loosing is not granted absolutely but upon Condition of the parties Repentance (a) D. Basil reg brev qu. 15. But we do affirm that when the party is really Guilty and the Priest deelares him to be so he is not only to be excluded out of the Christian Assembly but as S. Hierom cited before saith He is in a sort judged before the day of Judgment And we have proved above that S. Hierom did hold the Clergy had this power from Christ but it is no wonder if the Servants who Act by Commission be obliged to those Conditions which their Master binds himself to Neither Angel nor Archangel nor the Lord himself will Pardon any saith S. Ambrose but the Penitent (b) Ambros Ep. 28. ad Theodos August We do not vindicate the abuse of this power nor defend any that use it amiss but only we affirm it is a very dreadfulâ—-thing for the Guilty to be Excommunicated and a very comfortable thing for the Penitent to be absolved by him who hath the power of judging granted by Christ himself and a Man ought to fear his own Estate when the Embassador and substitute of Christ doth judge him unworthy of the Christian Communion lest as S. Chrysostom speaks Heaven should follow Earth and lest the Lord should ratifie above what the Servant hath done below I am sure this great Truth firmly believed and well considered would be a powerful means to bring Sinners to Repentance whereas the teaching Men to despise this Sentence not only deceives men but hardens them to their destruction I find no more Objections relating to Ancient times and Mr. Selden proceeds from thence to affirm That the French Emperors in the West did order limit permit or restrain Excommunication as those in the East had done but we have fully answered all those quotations by which he pretends to prove this in our Account of the Capitulars before where we have shewed there is nothing to make out Mr. Seldens Opinion There remain only two particulars not considered before the First is that Article of Peace between the French and German Princes An. 860. Whereby it is agreed with the consent of divers Bishops That no Offenders shall be Excommunicated till the Bishop according to the Gospel Precept have admonished him to repent and if he refuse this Admonition complaint is to be made to the King or his Officers to compel him to submit to penance and to amend and if this will not prevail then the Offender is to be Excommunicated for his Souls health (c) Seld. Synedr lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 192. Which Law doth suppose the Bishops power of Excommunication grounded on S. Math. xviii And since Christ there directs all possible means to be used to bring the Sinner to Repentance before he be put into the State of a Heathen and Publican I do not see but this Law proceeds upon the same ground and no doubt in that Age they did believe Excommunication to be a dreadful thing since it was the highest penalty and last remedy to be used So that this doth not prove the Power of Excommunication was not Originally in the Bishops by the Grant of Christ but only that it was so dreadful in its effects that all other ways were first to be tryed towards Offenders Yet withal if we consider the Law well we shall see the Civil Authority is complained unto only to bring the Offender to submit to Ecclesiastical Discipline not to take the cause out of the Bishops hands The second particular is that place cited by Ivo Catnotensis out of the Capitulars That if the King receive any of the Offenders to his Favour or admit them to his Table The Priests and Christian Assemblies ought to receive these into Ecclesiastical Communion that he who is reconciled to the Prince may not be kept at a distance from the Priests of God (d) Seld. ut sup cap. 10. pag. 193 194. Where Mr. Selden wonders that Kings should have such a power of Absolving in an Age when the Bishop of Rome dared to Excommunicate them And it were a
greater wonder if this Custom should prove that Bishops had not the power of Binding and Loosing by Divine Right since it was so generally believed they had this right in that Age wherein it is said this Custom was in use Wherefore it must be observed first that Mr. Selden Confesses it was a Pagan rite mentioned in Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus for Kings to give a sort of Absolution to involuntary Slayers of Men by admitting them to their Table And this Custom was in France before the Kings became Christian as seems probable by that example of King Guntram's receiving a Bishop to his Favour that had been Excommunicated for suspicion of Treason upon which he was without any Judgment of a Synod restored to his Bishoprick (e) Circa An. 580. Greg. Turon lib. 5. cap. 19. lib. 7. cap. 16. soon after those Kings had forsaken Paganism So that it is probable enough those Princes after their Conversion might retain this Barbarous Custom and that whether the Bishops would or no in which case there can no good Argument be drawn from a Heathen Custom obstinately retained by a People lately Barbarous to invalidate the Law of Christ But we need not fly to that refuge For these Culpati Offenders here mentioned are not all Excommunicate Persons but only such as were Excommunicated for Treason To prove which we must observe that in the fourth Council of Toledo the Bishops began to pronounce most dreadful Anathema's against such as broke their Oath of Allegiance and Rebelled against their King (f) An. 633. Concil 4. Tolet. Can. 75. Bin. Tom. II. par 2. pag. 357. Which kind of Anathema or Sentence of Greater Excommunication was also used afterwards in the Eastern Empire (g) An. 1026. vid. Seld. pag. 212. against Rebels and Seditious these therefore were the Culpati Offenders whom the Bishops were to absolve if the King forgave them who was the party principally offended And to prove this we need go no further than the third Canon of the Twelfth Council of Toledo out of which this Law of the Capitulars is verbatim transcribed and of which it is an Abbreviation the words of which are We see with grief some of the offenders Ex numero Culpatorum received into the Princes favour but remaining Banished by the College of Priests which evil is caused by the liberty Princes take to oblige others to what themselves will not observe so that they will eat and converse with those which they have caused to be separated from the Church But because the remission of those things they do against the King and Country is by the former Canons (h) An. 636. Concil 5. Tolet. Can. 8. Bin. Tom. II. par 2. pag. 336. reserved to the Prince alone against whom they have offended therefore hereafter in this Case no Priest shall forbear Communion with them but those whom the King receives to his favour or admits to his Table c. just in the words of the Capitular cited above (i) An. 681. Concil XII Tolet Can. 3. Bin. Tom. III. par 1. pag. 272. Whence we may observe that these offenders were only Rebels and if the King would pardon these there was no reason the Church should keep them Excommunicated when they had satisfied the party offended this being no more than what is granted to a private Person whose complaint causes any Man to be Censured by the Church to whom if the offender make satisfaction the Church will withdraw the Sentence And one thing more is plain by this Canon that the Bishops by a Canon of a former Council had granted the Kings this priviledge to acquit such as offended against their Crown so that the power in the Prince was by Delegation from the Bishops at first and therefore this can never prove the Bishops acted by Delegation from the King in the Case of Excommunicating and Absolving And if any do wonder the Bishops should give the King this Priviledge they must consider that every Excommunicate Person ought to be absolved when he gives good Evidence of his Repentance and because a Rebel can give no greater Testimony of his Repentance than so to carry himself as to get the Kings Pardon therefore on this Evidence the Offender was to be absolved yet so as by this Canon it appears the Bishops Absolution was to follow the Kings Pardon before the Criminal could enjoy the liberty of Ecclesiastical Communion These are all the Objections which Mr. Selden can meet with in Antiquity to oppose our Assertion all which we have fully considered and now we should also examine those which he brings for later times out of the Laws Statutes and Usages of Modern Kingdoms within the last 500 or 600 years But before we answer these Allegations we will premise a few things First That if Christ granted and the Church enjoyed this power for above 1000 years together the Laws and Usages of particular Countries afterwards cannot deprive the Clergy of this right though they should expresly decree it Secondly That the Roman Church in these later times did so abuse this Sacred Censure prostituting it to serve the ends of Avarice and Ambition and making it a Secular Engine to advance themselves into Temporal Power and Possessions yea and disturbing the Governments of all Nations with their ill management of this once Divine Sentence that it is no wonder if Princes did use all means to remedy this evil and for their own safety and the quiet of their Kingdoms committed to them by God did frequently prohibit these proceedings Thirdly that in so doing they did not oppose Christs Institution but only the gross abuse of it to ends for which our Lord never did design it So that they did not meddle with that part of Excommunication which purely aimed at the Conversion of Criminals and the Reformation of Manners they did not oppose or check the Bishops in the Spiritual part of their Office in doing as the Primitive Pastors did but only when they used their power for Secular ends And commonly all the difference between the Empire and the Priesthood was concerning some outward Appendixes to Excommunication annexed by the favour of devout Princes which being abused by the Ecclesiasticks Princes would have taken away again or limited so as they might not be a grievance to them and their Subjects But the power it self as Christ gave it no King ever attempted to take away and therefore these instances will not much concern my Opinion who am pleading only for the Primitive sort of Excommunication attended with those modern circumstances as it is exercised in the reformed Church of England where it never did disturb the Government but is rather very useful to it De Marca hath well observed there is a deep silence among the Ancients about the Churches invading the jurisdiction of the Prince for the ancient Bishops only minded to keep up the Canonical discipline (k) De Marca de concordia Tom. I. l. 4.
instrumental to their Reformation Indeed the long disuse of open Penance to which of Old the greatest Personages were forced to submit (l) Vid. exempl in vitâ Henric. Chicheley pag. 21. hath made it unhappily necessary to accept Commutations in many Cases and the charge makes many forsake the Sin But I dare affirm this course is taken not because of the easiness of the Clergy but because of the stubbornness of the Laity who will not submit to a Penance which only declares what they really are and what they are known to be who hate not to be Wicked but only to be thought so and who refuse to take a little Temporal shame though it would rescue them from Eternal shame And I fear if our zealous Bishops should attempt a vigorous Reformation there would be some employed to study Evasions and to encourage the Offenders to despise the Methods of their cure Others who reckon it their highest Priviledge to be wicked without controul would exclaim against this as a Violation of their Liberties As the Vicious Monks and Lay-men of Old when that Pious and Zealous Bishop of Lincoln Robert Grosthead conscientiously set upon visiting and reforming his Diocess Openly reviled him for making so strict an enquiry by his Archdeacons and Rural Deans through his Bishoprick into the Chastity and manners of both Noble and Ignoble they called it Tyrannizing over his People and bringing a grievous Scandal upon many to the Detriment of their good Name which ought not to be done (m) An. 1246. Matth. Paris pag. 716. And at last they procured a Prohibition to hinder that good Bishop in his proceedings on pretence it tended to the disgrace of many As if the Plaister and not the Sword which made the wound must be blamed for the painfulness of the Cure and as if it were not more disgrace to be really wicked than to be censured for it in order to our amendment To conclude the Church must either be allowed freely to use her Discipline or excused from the Scandal she suffers by the encrease of notorious Sins But she will never regain her Primitive Honour till this Divine Rite be restored to its ancient vigour for our Lord did institute it for the Credit and Reputation of his pure and holy Religion and if it were duly used it would certainly have that blessed effect The second end of Excommunication is the Reformation of the Offender here and his Eternal Salvation hereafter as S. Paul in many places doth declare (n) 1 Tim. i. 20. 2 Cor. xiii 10. 1 Cor. v. 5. 2. Thessal iii. 14. if the event be the Sinners Eternal Condemnation that is not from the intention of the inflicter nor the natural effect of the Medicine but from obstinacy of the Patient For this Censure works properly by the two powerful Motives of Shame and Fear upon the Consciences of Evil Men and by one or both of these means would always bring them to Repentance if they did not wilfully obstruct it For first Shame is not only the desert but the natural Consequence of Sin All good and Wise Men who are the best Judges count the vitious vile and base foolish and wretched persons and so long as Men have any sense of Honour loft the apprehension of this disgrace will make deep impressions on them (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aul. Gel. lib. 19. cap. 6. and make them careful to redeem their credit by acting more wisely and virtuously for the future Now while evil Men can hope they are concealed they are apt to go on in their Wickedness But when this holy Censure pulls by the Vail and publishes their Sin and Shame to all the Congregation their impudence can no longer protect them when all others do condemn them they then begin to condemn themselves For none but those of desperate obstinacy and hopeless impenitence (p) Ego quidem illum periâ—sse puto cui perijt puder Plautus can endure to think of being generally infamous and detested He that can thus boldly despise Fame will soon come to despise all Vertue (q) Tacit. Annal. lib. 4. p. 478. But few have arrived at this height of Impiety wherefore this Method will work upon all that have any spark of goodness left For doubtless it is a most shameful thing for a Christian so to behave himself as by Christs Law and by those who judge in his stead to be openly Sentenced as unworthy to remain in the Church or to have any Conversation with the Faithful People yet this shame is most just they have shamed the Church by their Vices and ought to be put to shame before the whole Congregation 2 Cor. ii 6. and it is a blessed shame if it bring the Offender to a sorrow for his Sin and to amendment of Life Secondly if the Sinner be not wrought on by Shame perhaps Fear may bring him to Repentance and this Fear is apt to be produced by this Censure rightly understood There is nothing hardens Evil Men more than the forgetting that eternal Vengeance which their Sins deserve But this dreadful Sentence is an Emblem and a forerunner of the terrible Judgment at the last day It sets Hell and Damnation naked before their Eyes This casting out of the Church clearly represents their being cast out of Heaven and the delivering them to Sathan foreshews to whose power they are like to be doomed by God and his Holy Angels It may be they have supported themselves with vain hopes hitherto but for the Physician to declare us mortally sick or the Lawyer to assure us our cause is desperate will stagger the most daring confidence Much more ought it to make us tremble when he that judges in Christs Name and by his Authority he whose Sentence on Earth is confirmed by his great Master in Heaven shall pronounce us worthy of Everlasting Burnings and deliver us over to them unless we repent immediately This prospect doth often terrifie the most obdurate and presumptuous Sinners and it would more constantly have this Blessed effect if the Sentence were pronounced with the same gravity as it was wont to be of old and if all the Congregation out of a deep sense of the woful Estate of the Excommunicate Person would express their pity for him by tears and a visible Sorrow And since this Holy Censure is so sit an Instrument to convert obstinate Sinners we ought highly to esteem it and to take care that by our ill-management of it it do not lose its desired effect The third end of Excommunication is to preserve the sound from being corrupted by the example and the Conversation of Scandalous Sinners Which we learn from S. Pauls comparisons of the leaven to be purged out lest it spread over the whole mass 1 Cor. v. 6 7. and the gangrened Limb which is to be cut off lest it corrupt the sound parts 1 Tim. ii 7. And hence by express command of holy Scripture 1 Cor. v. II. 2