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
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.
cap. 11. §. 1. And so do our Reformed Bishops Wherefore I am not concerned how the Papal encroachments were tolerated or restrained because Excommunication was rightly managed before they were in being and is now after they are cast out And now a brief review of these objections will sufficeâ—y wherefore we will here represent them all together He alledges many particulars to this purpose viz. That Eadmerus saith concerning William the Conqueror That he would not suffer any of his Barons or Ministers to be prosecuted or Excommunicated for Incest Adultery or any other Capital Crime (l) Seld. de Synedr lib. I. Cap. 10. pag. 197. Which seems to be an odious representation of a Monk who was concerned in the controversy between Anselm and the Crown for Eadmerus Author of this Charge was one of Anselms Monks The truth therefore I suppose was that King William expected to have notice before any of his Court were Excommunicated for that is one of the Customs of their Fathers which the English Nobility got to be enacted for a Law in the Statutes of Clarendon (m) Statut. Clarend Matth. Paris An. 1164. p. 100. But it is not credible that any Christian King should presume to forbid Discipline to be exercised in such Cases wherein the Law of God and the example of the Apostles required it should be used and if King William had forbid any such thing his prohibition had been impious and unjust as being against the express Law of God But for that custom of the Bishops acquainting the King first before any such Sentence were issued out against his chief Officers there seems to be some reason for it First Because the King is supposed to be able to bring these to amendment without any severity Secondly in that age many things were annexed to Excommunication by Princes bounty to the Church so that if this Person were one of whom the King had great need in his Affairs he might thus have become useless to him on the sudden to the great dammage of his Government Thirdly The Prince himself might thus unwarily become lyable to Excommunication by conversing with the Excommunicate So that this Custom requires notice be given to the Prince first and with his leave the Offender may be Excommunicated Nor ought we to suppose that any Christian Prince who saw a good Bishop only designing reformation of some scandalous Officer or Servant of his would deny his leave for the Bishop to censure him and if he did I dare venture to say Might overcomes Right For I am not of Mr. Seldens Opinion That Secular Laws and Customs are always just but I believe pious Bishops have often for peace sake submitted to unjust Laws and Customs both rather than disturb their Country or raise Sedition against their Prince Again He objects divers Sentences of Excommunication denounced in Parliament against the infringers of Magna Charta and other Liberties of the Church and People I reply Mr. Selden grants this is not properly Excommunicating but only a Threatning of this Sentence in general and a declaration that they all believe the Person so offending deserves to be Accursed and Excommunicated by the Bishops and since so many Bishops were present in Parliament the Sentence was theirs properly and the rest only expressed their agreement to it And withal Excommunication was by the consequents attending it even as to a Mans outward condition become one of the most grievous Penalties of all others in this Age and so it is no wonder if Princes who had annexed these Consequences to it did oblige the Clergy to pronounce it with general assent on solemn occasions to make their Laws the better to be observed Though I am apt to question whether it were well done to use it to such Secular purposes We have indeed one Statute since the Reformation objected also by Mr. Selden (n) Stat. 5 6 Edvard 6. Cap. 4. Vide Seld. ut supr pag. 173. which decrees Excommunication for striking in the Church or Church-yard but this is not only a Law made by the Bishops consent but also it relates to a matter of the Church and is no more but a confirmation of divers ancient Canons which they supposed would be better observed if the whole Parliament did assent to them and pass them into a Secular Law as was often done by the Primitive Emperors in the Civil Law and by the French Kings in the Capitulars but neither they nor our Parliament ever intended hereby to take the matter out of the Clergies power or to assume this power into their own hands Yea the Statute cited expresly saith The Ordinary shall issue out the Sentence Again Mr. Selden saith The Kings of France Spain and England c. do allow Appeals from the Bishops Consistory in many cases I reply That many cases are tryed in that Court by the pious favour of Christian Princes who truly believed Bishops fittest to judge in causes concerning Testaments Legacies Guardianship Divorce c. Now in these matters which are judged by Bishops not by any express Law of God but by favour of the Prince he may see that Bishops judge rightly and therefore the King did of old grant Prohibitions on great occasions and call some of these matters into his Temporal Courts where anciently he sat himself which Custom being confirmed by time is practised to this day but this no way concerns the Bishops Authority which Christ gave him and if the Sentence be for Heresie or any other Scandalous Offence for which of old Excommunication was inflicted or if it only tend to reformation of Manners and to the Salvation of the Criminals Soul no Appeal lyes So that our opinion of the Divine Right of Excommunication is not disproved by these proceedings But he argues further That the Kings of England have some times sent out their Writs to command Bishops to revoke their Excommunications of which he gives some instances (o) Seld. Synedr lib. I. cap. 10. pag. 201. c. To this I reply That all the cases he specifies are notorious violations of that power which Christ had entrusted the Bishops with tending to the hindring the King Precepts from being executed and to the oppression of his Loyal Subjects Now since the King is and ought to be Supreme in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil no doubt it is his Office and Duty to see that all Persons do rightly use the power they have and if they abuse it he may hinder them or punish them for it and in so doing he doth not take away the Power it self from those who use it well nor deny it to come Originally from Christ As if a King do imprison or banish a Priest for preaching Sedition none will say that he thereby denies any Priest to have a power from Christ to preach good Doctrine And truly if the Clergy do abuse their power they ought to be corrected for it for our Saviour who set up Kings as
well as Priests and made Princes the Supreme never intended to give his Ministers any power to disturb the Publick Peace or oppose the good Government of the World And if Princes had not power to hinder such unjust Sentences they could not govern their Kingdoms nor do their duty And when the Pope and his Clergy strove with Kings for the Supremacy it was high time for them to check these dangerous attempts or else they would not have sitten any longer in their Thrones than the Pope pleased But all this is now out of doors and therefore the objection signifies nothing as to our Protestant Bishops exercising this Authority because they yield the King the Supremacy in all Causes as the Primitive Bishops did And even in Popish times though the Kings did prohibit the abuse of this power yet at the same time they owned the Right to be solely in the Bishops For Edward the third whom Mr. Selden instances in did by his Letters request John Stratford Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops of his Kingdom to Excommunicate all notorious Malefactors and Disturbers of the Peace of Church and State which request they granted in a Council at London (p) An. 1342. ap Spelm. Concil Tom. II. p. 581. And whatever other objections Mr. Selden hath raised relating to the times before the Reformation they cannot imply what he intends because it was the General Opinion That the Clergy who he confesses consented to many of these limitations had a Right from God to Excommunicate and absolve Hence in the Charter of William the Conqueror He that is prosecuted for an Offence according to the Bishops Laws shall come and give satisfaction according to the Canons to God and his Bishop (q) An. 1085. ap Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 14. And Matth. Paris affirms Robert de Marmiun who died Excommunicate to be in the State of Damnation (r) An. 1143. Matth. Paris pag. 80. And the forms of Excommunication used about this time were generally prefaced thus We in the Name and by the Authority of Almighty God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and by the Authorty of St. Peter and St. Paul c. do Excommunicate (s) An. 1215. Matth. Paris p. 270 An. 1217. Constit Ric. Sarum Spelm. Tom. II. p. 158. Of which there are very many Forms (t) An. 1222. Concil Oxon. Spelm. Tom. II. p. 181. Item Anno 1276. Constit Dunelm Spelm. ib. p. 319. Et An. 1308. ibid. p. 456. which do manifestly prove that the Bishops did openly claim this as a Divine Right which appears also from their publick Declaration One of which shall suffice here The Prelates of the Church who carry Saint Peters Keys must consider how great the power of Binding and Loosing is which Christ hath committed to them as S. Chrysostom saith Man Binds but the power was given by Christ the Lord gave Men this Honour And since Excommunication is a Condemning to eternal Death it ought not to be inflicted but for Mortal Crimes c. (u) An. 1287. Syn. Exon. cap. 43. Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 383. Which with very many evidences of like kind doth shew That whatever consent the Clergy gave to any limitations of this Power it could only be meant of the abuse of it in unjust causes or manners of proceeding but cannot be expounded of their intending to divest themselves of this Divine Right which they always claimed and openly declared as the ground of their Excommunications And that our Ancient Kings did not pretend to prohibit the Bishops from exercising this power in any just Causes which by the Law of Christ or the practice of the Primitive Church belonged to them may appear from King Edward the Seconds Charter of Prohibitions which were Answers to certain grievances of the Clergy Presented to that King and his Parliament Wherein it is declared That if a Prelate impose Corporal Penances only for Sin committed and the Offender would commute it the Kings Prohibition in that Case hath no place And whereas some had gotten the Kings Letters to require the Ordinary to absolve such as he had Excommunicated by a certain day or else to appear and shew cause why they had Excommunicated such a Person it is declared Such Letters should never be granted hereafter but where the Excommunication was found to hurt the Kings Prerogative And whereas when those who held of the King were cited before the Ordinary out of their Parish and Excommunicated for their Contumacy the Kings Writ to Arrest them after 40 days was sometimes denied The King declares such a Writ never was denied nor never should be denied hereafter (w) An. 1316. ap Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 484. All which are printed in our Statute Books for Law (x) An. 9. Edvard 2. An. 1315. pag. 98. And before that time it was enacted in Parliament That Excommunicate persons imprisoned at the Bishops request should not be repleviseable by the Common Writ nor without Writ (y) An. 3 Edv. primi An. 1275. cap. 15. pag. 27. Soon after was the Statute of Circumspectè Agatis made which charges the Temporal Judges not to punish the Clergy for holding Plea in the Court Christian of such things as be meer Spiritual viz. of Penance enjoyned by Prelates for deadly Sin as Fornication Adultery and such like And in divers cases there related the King declares his Prohibition shall not lye (z) An. 13 Ed. prim An. 1285. pag. 70. These I think are manifest proofs of the Clergies having a Divine Right to Excommunicate for Impieties and Immoralities and all that Mr. Selden hath heaped up to intimate the contrary for these times is sufficiently answered hereby And as to all his Objections relating to the times since our Reformation without going out of my own profession or medling with his Law Cases I can prove that the best reformed Churches abroad and our own at home have held and maintained that the Clergy have power by the Word of God to Excommunicate scandalous Offenders The Helvetian Confession cites the places of Matth. xvi about the Power of the Keys and John xx of the remission of Sins and declares the Ministers Authority to admit or to exclude out of the Church is grounded thereon (a) Confess poster Helv. Art 18. The Bohemian Confession is very large in professing their Belief That Christ hath given his Ministers power to sever Sinners from the fellowship of Christ and from the participation of the Sacraments to cast them out of the Christian Church to shut the Kingdom of Heaven upon them and finally to deliver them to Sathan (b) Confess Bohem cap. 14. The Belgick Confession also doth affirm that they retain Excommunication and other Appendixes of Ecclesiastical Discipline as necessary by the Precept of Gods Word (c) Confess Belg. Art 32. and when they Corrected this Article as Mr. Selden pretends (d) Seld. de Syned lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 233. they still