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.

• [Page 2]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 [Page 3]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 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 Joh. xviii. 36. Audite Ju­daei & Gente [...] — 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 [Page 4]suffering evil Acts to be done 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 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. [...]. 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 [...]. 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 [Page 5]excluded at Argis from all Mens houses and conver­sations: [...]. 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 [...]. 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 [...] 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 Se D [...]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 [...] Stobae. Serm. 165.. And that Example in Herodotus where five Cities of Ionia did ex­clude the sixth City from all Communion in their Sa­crifices; because one of their Citizens called Agasicles, took away a Brazen Tripod which was dedicated to A­pollo Herodot. lib. 1. Clio. pag. 69.. And we may find instances wherein Men were also excommunicated for other crimes; such as unlaw­ful Lusts —discedite ab aris Queis tulit he­sternâ gaudia nocte Venus. Ti­bul. lib. 2. eleg. 1., a crime so odious, that if we may believe Aelian, the very Dogs that were kept in Vulcan's Tem­ple near Mount Aetna which fawned on all pure Wor­shippers, would have found out those which were so pol­luted, and driven them out of the Holy place Aelian de animal. lib. xi. c. 3.. We need not instance in any more particulars, for Plutarch reports That Apollo did command Murtherers and all [Page 6]wicked Persons to go out of his Temple [...] Plut. de sera num. vind. — Paean so­litus templis arcere nocentes. Lucan. lib. 5.; not that the Deity did this in Person, but by the Priests, who in the name of the Gods were wont to proclaim before the Sacrifices began, That no Unhallowed, nor Profane per­son, none that were polluted with Blood or other crimes should dare to stay there, or come near the place — procul, ô, procul este profani, Conclamat va­tes, toto (que) absi­stite luco. Vir­gil. Aen. 6., as Virgil declares in the Sacrifice of Proserpina, using the very same words, as Brissonius notes Brisson. de sormul. lib. 1. pag. 2., which of old were used by the Greeks on the same account [...] Callim. hym. 2. [...]. hym. Apol. & apud Orph. — [...] —; and no doubt these were the Solemn Form of denouncing all such unworthy of the Sacrifices: For the foremen­tioned Brissonius hath cited many Testimonies to prove that this Proclamation was alwaies made, not in the Sa­crifices of any one Deity, but of all the several Gods. So Medea when she acts as Priestess of Hecate, uses the like form Hinc procul Aesonidem, pro­cul hinc jubet ire ministros, Et monet arca­nis oculos remo­vere profanos. Ovid. Metam. l. 7. p. 227.: As doth also the Principal of those who were employed in the Sacrifices of Cybele Et procul hinc moneo, pro­cul hinc [...]u [...]e­cun (que) prof [...]nae. Sil. Ital. lib. 17.. And for those who knew themselves guilty, they did so reverence these words, that they presently withdrew, taking them as spoken from the Deity; and believing the Divine Vengeance would seize them if they should presume to stay; as we more fully learn from Suidas, who thus de­scribes this matter, Those who were to offer cryed out [...], that is, who is here? Then the people charitably answered, [...], many and Good Persons: And this the Sa­crificers did, that they whose Consciences accused them of any impurity, might withdraw themselves from the Holy Rites Suidas ver­bo [...];. And we need not with the Learned Selden so nicely distinguish between this Monitory Excommuni­cation, and that which was more solemnly denounced against particular persons; Since the Heathens did esteem this Monition to be so Sacred, that even Nero himself, though an Emperor for his Quality, and irre­ligious enough in other things, durst not come to the Eleusinian Rites after the Sacred Officer had proclaim­ed, That no impious or unclean Person should be present there, as Suetonius relates: And the Historian mentions it as a demonstration of the Purity and Innocence of the ex­cellent [Page 7]Emperor Antoninus, that he went to these Sa­crifices in the Temple of Ceres at Athens Cereris templum adit ut se innocen­tem probaret. Capitolin. vit. M. Antonin. Phi­los. p. 213.; which custom was of longer continuance, it seems: For Lam­pridius notes that Alexander Severus (who did refuse those undue divine honours to which some of his Pre­decessors pretended) in this worthily imitated the Gods, That he proclaimed, None should enter his presence (as they say in the Eleusinian Sacrifices) who did not know himself innocent Jussitque quemadmodum in Eleusiniis sa­cris dicitur, ut nemo ingredia­tur nisi qui se innocentem no­vit. Lamprid. vit. Alex. Sever. pag. 525.. Yea, as long as Paganism was retain­ed, this usuage was kept: For Julian the Apostate had ba­nished and excluded the Christians from all publick As­semblies Julian. Epist. 42. Nazianz. Invect. in Juli­an. orat. 1.: And in those times the Criers was wont to proclaim according to the Athenian manner, That if a­ny Atheist, Christian, or Epicurean were come to see the Sa­crifice, they should be turned out Vide Luci­ani Pseudo­mant. pag. 489.; for they falsly took the Christians then for Impious Persons. But withal we may note, that the Christian Bishops did not suffer their People to be present at any of these Sacrifices; for when an Hymn was to be sung to Bacchus, and in the Preface to it Procla­mation was made, that such as were not initiated, and such as were unclean should go out of the doors; Apollinaris and his Father (who were both of the Clergy) with some of the Laity, stayed to hear it; whereupon the Laity were admonished, and these two of the Clergy were excommunicated by Theodotus Bishop of Laodicea, and not received in again till they were reconciled by a solemn Repentance Sozomen hist. lib. 6. cap. 25. pag. 389.. But to return to the Gen­tiles; Tertullian informs us, That all Heathen mysteries did drive away the Profane Semper im­piae initiatio­nes arceant profanos. Ter­tul. Apolog.. And yet this was no where done with more Authority or more Solemnity than among the ancient barbarous Gauls; among whom the Druids were their Chief Priests, and had in so very great Veneration, that Caesar who lived in Gallia, and must needs know their Laws, saith, If any private or pub­lick Person stand not to their Decrees, they forbid him their Sacrifices, which is the highest punishment among them; for they who are thus interdicted, are reckoned in the number of the impious and wicked; all men turn away from them, and [Page 8]will not meet them, nor speak with them, lest they should be infected by coming near them; nor can they have any benefit of the Law, nor receive any kind of honour Caesar de bello Gal. lib. 6. pag.. And Ta­citus hath informed us, That the Germans, who had the same Rites of Religion, use to punish Cowards, and such as lost their Shields (who were great Offenders a­mong that warlike People) with excluding them from their Sacrifices and their Councils Tacit. An­nal. lib. 14.. Whence we may observe, That the Priests were the Inflictors of these Censures, and when any one was judged contumaci­ous to the Priests Laws, he was first cut off from all com­munion in Sacred things; and then as a consequent to that, the People also denied him all common Civilities, as one odious to God and Men. And we ought not, with Mr. Selden, to think this a meer Civil Punish­ment; because the deprivation of Civil conversation did follow upon the Excommunication from Sacred Offices, as Caesar clearly expresses it. And though it be true that it was a custom at Rome for private Persons sometimes Majores quoties dirime­rent amicitias, solent interdi­cere Domo. Ta­cit. Annal. lib. 6. p. 595., even for private Injuries, to forbid Men their House; and for the Magistrates, for Crimes against the State only, to Interdict all Men the accommodating Criminals with Fire or Water Appian. de Bell. Givil. lib. 1. Livius passim & Dion. Ha­licarn.; yet it doth not follow that the same Interdict of Civil commerce might not be observed upon the Priests excommunicating Men from Sacred Offices, since it seems very natural for the People to infer, That those whom the Sacred Officers declared to be unworthy to converse with the Gods, were also unworthy to have any conversation with them; and when the greater Priviledge was taken away, the less would follow of it self: So that we may conclude, That the Druides and German Priests did principally use this as a religious punishment on the most notorious Offenders; and that this exclusion from their Sacrifices was esteemed the worst and most grievous Penalty that could be inflicted; though they had other kinds of Pa­nishments from all Antiquity: For Aventinus saith, Tuisco the first Law-giver of the Germans, allowed none but the [Page 9]Priests to execute, bind, or chastise Malefactors, that so Men might not only take it for a Corporal Penalty by the Princes command, but as due Vengeance from the Gods Aventin. Annal. l. 1. p. 12.. Where­fore Excommunication was then thought a sadder Pe­nalty than Stripes, Imprisonment, or Death it self. Which Opinion of these poor Barbarians, will rise up in Judgment one day against those wretched pretenders to Christianity, who slight the Censures of the Church of Christ, and value not their just exclusion from those Di­vine Ordinances which he hath appointed. Finally, This general Consent of all Nations (thus explained) doth declare, That Natural Reason did teach the very Heathens, who wanted the Revealed will of God, that it was necessary to the Being and the Honour of Religi­on, to give their Priests a power to cast out all notorious, infamous, and scandalous Criminals from their Tem­ples, and to exclude them from all communion in their Sacrifices; which proves my first Assertion, That Ex­communication is partly founded on Natural Reason. But whereas some (especially those who belong to the Civil Courts, and for their Interest would decry Eccle­siastical Jurisdiction) would perswade us there is no o­ther Foundation of Church Censures, but only this light of Natural Reason, and the Practice of the Greeks and Romans Vid. Selden de Synedriis, l. 1. c. 10. p. 224., I shall now proceed to shew the evidence we have to prove it is of Divine Institution.

§. III. The second ground of excommunication is the practice of the Jews, by which I do not mean the con­ceits of those Rabbins who lived long after the destructi­on of the Jewish Polity, who have discoursed frivolously about this Rite, and loaded it with many superstitious if not ridiculous adherencies, which while some learn­ed Men industriously hunt after, they lose the substance, and that which is principally considerable to us Christi­ans; that is, The grounds we have in Scripture to prove that something analogous to our Excommunication was in use before the Destruction of Jerusalem. And we [Page 10]must begin this account with the Infancy of the World, because what God did in the Patriarchal times, was written to guide the Jews when they came to be the on­ly Church and People of the most High. And first, it is plain that Adam upon his Transgression was cast out of Paradise by the Ministry of an Angel, which was a sort of excommunicating him from the place where he enjoyed the Divine Presence in the most immediate manner, Genes. iii. 24. and some of the Ancients make this the first pattern of this Sacred Rite. Again, This Discipline was more plainly exercised upon Cain, who had been instructed in the way of worshipping God, Gen. iv. 3. and making Solemn Offerings with his Fa­ther and the rest of that Family. But when he wilful­ly murdered his pious Brother Abel, God pronounces the Sentence of Excommunication upon him, which Cain professes was an intolerable Punisnment, ver. 13. For hereby first he was to be turned out of the Assem­blies for Religion, which he calls being hid from Gods face. Secondly he was declared unworthy to converse with the Innocent, which is expressed by his being a Fugitive and a Vagabond in the Earth. Thirdly he was devoted to destruction, so that it would have been no Crime to kill him, as he complains when he saith, That every one who found him would slay him, ver. 14. Which is so express a place, that some learned Men find all the kinds of Excommunication asterwards used among the Jews, in this Divine Censure. 1. The Niddui or Sepa­ration; 2. The Cherem, Anathema or Curse; And 3ly, the Schamatha, or exposing him to Divine Venge­ance; For God set a Mark on him to reserve the Judg­ment upon Cain solely to his own inflicting: Howe­ver, this plainly declares that the Lord would have all wilful and obstinate Offenders separated and excluded from the founder part of the Church. And since Noah was the great High-Priest after the Flood, it is not im­probable that the Curse he pronounced upon Cham for despising his Father, was a sort of Cherem, since he takes [Page 11] Japhet into the Tents of Sem, the designed High-Priest of the true God, and leaves Cham and his Race out of that blessed Priviledge, Genes. viii. 27. The like Curse old Jacob pronounces upon those two cruel and treacher­ous Sons of his who had murdered the poor Sechemites, viz. Simeon and Levi, Gen. xlix. 6. where he seems to re­nounce their Communion in those words, O my Soul, come not thou into their secret, unto their Assembly mine ho­nour be not thou united. Which shews that such as were accursed for their notorious Crimes, were not worthy of the Society of pure and holy Persons. Under Moses Law there was a new way of worship instituted, con­sisting of divers carnal Ordinances, suited to the genius of the Jewish People, and to those Ages and Parts of the World, and these outward Rites were typical of more spiritual and moral Observances which were to succeed them in Gospel times [...] Hebr [...]. 1.. And while this Oeco­nomy lasted, it is no great wonder if the most visible ex­ercise of Excommunication was upon the persons who had some legal impurity upon them: For all who were so polluted the Priest excluded from Sacred and Civil conversation, for so long a time as the uncleanness re­mained, and until the Rites for purifying had been per­formed according to the Priests direction, and then they were admitted in again, and restored to their former Priviledges (see Levit. xiii, xiv, xv.) by the Priests con­sent and permission. Now these persons who were thus legally unclean, being unfit for that legal Worship, were justly excluded from it, and were to all intents and purposes in the state of Excommunicate persons du­ring this their Separation, as far as concerned the loss of their External Priviledges; and if in a more Spiri­tual Religion the Spiritual Sword cut deeper, when it is used on greater Offenders, it is no wonder: But still this treatment of the legally unclean by Divine Institu­tion, was a Type and Fore-runner of the Gospel Cen­sures: And these natural Diseases and External Polluti­ons were plain Emblems of those moral Impurities, [Page 12]which were to exclude those who were Jesus his profes­sed Disciples, from the Assemblies which were to meet in his Name: And the Type was so clear an indication of this, that the learned Grotius thinks even the Jews could not but make the inference themselves, viz. That if a leprous person was turned out of the Assembly, lest he should infect others with his Disease, so much at least ought to be inflicted on wicked and lewd Men (whose Examples were contagious, and their actions a reproach to the whole Society) that their Crimes should be marked with a publick detestation Grot. Com­unent. in Luc. vi. 22.. And on this account some think David did abstain from the Publick Worship for some time af­ter he had committed his great Sin, and therefore he prays in his Penitential Psalm li. vers. 11. Cast me not a­way from thy presence, &c. Yet if any make it still matter of admiration, How it comes to pass there are so few Instances in the Old Testament of any that were Ex­communicated for real Sins and immoral or impious A­ctions? There being but one clear Example of this kind, viz. that of the Tribe of Benjamin, which was publick­ly denounced accursed in a Religious Assembly, Jud. xx. 12. and all conversation with them renounced by a so­lemn Oath, Chap. xxi. 1. for abetting the lust and cruelty of the men of Gibeah: I say if this be strange to any, we can give some satisfactory Reasons, Why the Instan­ces were so few under the Ceremonial Law: For first, it must be noted that in those days, Almighty God for the conviction of a stubborn and unbelieving Nation, did very usually strike those who committed great and scandalous Offences, either with sudden death, as Corah and his Complices, Numb. xvi. 32. the Bethshemites, 1 Sam. vi. 19. Uzzah, 2 Sam. vi. 7. and many others, and so executed the highest and heaviest sort of Excommu­nication, the Schammatha, upon them to terrifie others from the like Crimes: Or at least, he did lay such loath­som Diseases upon the Offenders against his Laws, as did even by the Rules of the Ceremonial Law sufficiently expose them to a necessary Exclusion out of the Con­gregation, [Page 13]and cut them off from both civil and religi­ous Conversation, as may be particularly seen in the case of Leprosie; with this Miriam was smitten for speaking evil of Moses the Ruler of the People, and thereupon by the Priest she was declared unclean, and by the express command of God excluded out of the Camp, and so consequently from the Tabernacle and Publick Wor­ship seven days; which was so plain a Declaration of God's Will, as to the turning out open Offenders from the Congregation, that we may justly believe Excom­munication took its rise from this and the like instances Num. xii. 14. LXX. [...] Ad hoc exemplum in­stituti [...] à Synagogâ, & inter Chri­stianos ab Ec­clesiâ. Grot. in loc.. And we may note, That while Miriam stayed be­fore the Tabernacle, the Schecina removed, to shew that if Offenders were not excluded, his Presence should not stay with them, ver. 10. And further we may observe, God did this as a mark of publick Disgrace, to shame her into Repentance, and warn others; whence that phrase, If her Father had spit in her face, ver. 14. Another Exam­ple of this kind, and more plain, we have in King Uz­ziah, who would in the pride of his heart Officiate as a Priest: But the High Priest and his Brethren interdict­ed him from coming into the Sanctuary, as one that had Apostatized from God's Law 2 Paral. xxvi. 18. LXX. [...].; and he not valuing the Interdict, was immediately smitten by the Lord with Leprosie, and so forced to go hastily out of the Temple, and he remained separated from all Civil Society, and from the Publick Worship also until the day of his death Ver. 21. [...].: For the Text expresly mentions his dwelling in a several house, and his being cut off from the House of the Lord; which is a clear sign it was a divinely inflicted Excommunication, and it was most fit to be only done by God's hand, since it was executed on a King. To this I might add the like Plague inflicted upon Gehazi for the Sin of Lying, by Elisha, who was God's special Messenger, and therefore to be cast out of his Presence, signifies an exclusion from the true Worship of God, as well as from the Society of Men, 2 Kings v. 27. and Chap. vii. ver. 3. The Jewish Doctors also affirm, That [Page 14] David was smitten with Leprosie for his great Sin, and that he was thereby uncapable of coming into the Con­gregation, which occasioned that Prayer, Cast me not a­way from thy presence — and restore me to the joy of thy Salvation Psal. li. ver. 11, 12. Munster.. And thence he prays to be purged with hyssop Ver. 7. see Levit. xiv. 6.. And that this is not a meer Rabbinical fan­cy, may appear from those Complaints in the other Pe­nitential Psalm, where he says, He was weak, and desired God to heal him, Psal. vi. 2. and speaks of God's hand ly­ing heavy on him day and night, till all his moisture was dried up, Psal. xxxii. 4. Yea expresly, Psal. xxxviii. he de­clares there was no soundness in his flesh, ver. 3. and that his wounds stank, and were corrupt, ver. 5. so that his lovers and friends stood aloof from his sore, and his kinsmen would not come near him, ver. 11. And that he was excluded from the Publick Worship also, seems plain from Psal. xlii. ver. 2, 4. &c. Again, This may be further confirmed from that general Notion among the Jews, That all Sickness and Diseases were laid on Men by God for some notorious Sin, which is plain from the Disciples asking, Who had sinned, the blind Man or his Parents, Jolin ix. 2. and from our Saviour's reckoning it was all one for him, to bid the Paralytick take up his Bed and walk, and to say to him his Sins were forgiven him, Matth. ix. 4. be­cause the Disease being inflicted for some Crime, the remitting the Crime was also a removal of the Punish­ment; and Jesus by these miraculous Cures on Mens Bodies, evidently proved to the Jews (who were all of this Opinion) that he had power to forgive Sins, and consequently was the Messiah. Now if the Original of this Opinion of theirs be enquired into, we may con­clude it came first from God's threatning Diseases to those who transgressed his Law, Deuter. xxviii. 27, 28, 35, &c. and secondly from the frequent Examples they had seen, of the miraculous smiting of evil Men with sudden and sad Distempers, in the very act of their Sin. Now while this extraordinary way of punishing and disgra­cing Sinners (suitable to the hardness of this Peoples [Page 15]hearts) was made use of by God, there was not so much need nor occasion for the Priests to excommunicate Men for Immoralities, since God took the matter into his own hands: and no doubt these apparent Judgments were so terrible, that such as had done any grievous Sin durst not come to God's House till he was attoned. And it may be noted, That in the infancy of the Chri­stian Church the Lord proceeded the same way with the Corinthians who profaned the Holy Communion, striking many of them with sickness and weakness, and some with death, 1 Cor. xi. 30. to warn the rest, and to provide for the keeping his Sacred Ordinances from prophanation, in a Church where, as S. Chrysostom notes, by reason of the Schism, there was no exercise of Discipline at that time: Now these Methods sufficiently shewed it was the will of God that notorious Sinners should be excluded; they did the work, and served to the ends of Excom­munication; they bound up the Parties, so that they wanted, if not commerce with men, yet however con­verse with God; for they could not go to the Temple till both the Sin was pardoned and the Sickness removed together: And that restauration was their Absolution Isa. xxxviii. ver. 22., and also a warning not to offend again John. v. 14.. These Methods therefore of miraculous smiting Sinners, might well occasion the seldom use of any Excommunication for Immoralities, which is the first Answer to that Que­ry, Why there are so few Instances of that Discipline under the Law of Moses, exercised by the Priests upon scandalous Offenders. A second Reason may be taken from the Jewish form of Government, which was a Theocracy; God himself was their Supream Ruler and Law-giver, and they had not two Laws, one Sacred and the other Civil; nor two Tribunals, as there are in other Nations: The Priests there had the chief Autho­rity in the Sanhedrim, and in all other Councils, and the power of Temporal Punishments, 2 Chron. xix. 8. The High-Priest was the first Person in the Sanhedrim, ibid. ver. 11. And the determining of all Controversies, [Page 16]and punishing all Offences was principally in them Deut. xvii. 9, 12.; so that the King himself was to advise with the Priest in all matters [...] Joseph. in App. lib. 2. Vide Phil. de vi­ta Mosis. Joseph. Antiq. lib. 4. cap. 8.; and it was Capital to any of the People to disobey their order. Now while the Priests had this power, and the Nation was governed by God's Law, and its own Magistrates of Divine appointment; all Moral Evils and Impieties were (if small) expiated by chargeable Sacrifices, and so the Offender was reconci­led by the Priest to God and the Congregation: But if the Crimes were great, or done presumptuously, Deut. xvii. 12. they were to be punished with death, as in the case of Murther, Exod. xxi. 14. abusing their Parents, and Men-stealing, ver. 15, 16, 17. Witchcraft and un­lawful Lust, Exod. xxii. 18, 19. Idolatry, ver. 20. The sin of Fornication in a Woman before Marriage, and of Adultery in both Men and Women, and the sin of a Rape committed on a betroathed Woman, Deut. xxii. 21, 22, 23, &c. These, and many other Crimes, were in that Law punished with death by the Sentence of the Priest, and so there was no need of any solemn Excom­munication, as Mr. Selden himself confesseth, even there where he is magnifying this Objection of the want of Instances in the Old Testament for the exercise of Ex­communication Neque ne­cessarium eis visum est, ut adhiberetur excommunica­tio quamdiu sui erant juris. Seld. de Syne­driis lib. 1. c. 7. p. 77.. This stiff-necked and rebellious People were not to be reformed by so gentle a Method as Separation from the Assemblies, or the disgrace of Ecclesiastical Censure, Duro nodo, durus cuneus: Almigh­ty God therefore was forced to use a harder wedge to so knotty a piece, and to invest his Priests with a pow­er to cut them off with the material Sword, which un­der the Spiritual Oeconomy and Paternal Regiment of the Gospel, is now (as S. Augustine observes) changed into Reproofs and Excommunication Hoc nunc a­git in Ecclesiâ excommunica­tio, quod agebat tunc interfectio. Aug. Quaest. in Deut. lib. 5. c. 38. Phinees Sacer­dos adulteros si­mul inventos ferre ultore transfixit, quod uti (que) degrada­tionibus & ex­communicatio­nibus significa­tum est esse fa­ciendum hoc tempore. Idem de Fid. & Oper. cap. 6., as more suita­ble to the Gospel Spirit, Luke ix. 55. and to the gracious design of making Men virtuous out of love to God, and not (as under the Law) meerly for fear of bodily pu­nishment, which was inflicted without mercy on those who by two or three Witnesses were proved to have [Page 17]despised Moses's Law, Hebr. x. 28. Yet as the Apostle there notes, those who despise this gentle Method shall have a sorer punishment, even a dreadful Judgment exe­cuted on them by God at last, ver. 27, 29, 30, &c. Wherefore there being so apparent difference between the state of things under the Law, and under the Go­spel, it is not to be wondred at, if those Priests who had so much Secular Authority, did not so often exer­cise this power of Excommunication, as the Gospel Priests do, who have nothing to do with Corporal Pu­nishments: And yet still it is clear there was a Method then to separate the notorious Criminals from the Con­gregation, and that by God's own appointment; yea, there was somthing like Excommunication in these Le­gal capital Punishments: For it seems the Cherem or Curse of God was supposed to be upon that Man who thus suffered, as Moses shews, saying, He that is hanged is accursed of God, Deut. xxi. 22. and thus Christ is said to be made a Curse for us, Gal. iii. 13. And the impi­ous Canaanites, who were destroyed by Joshua, were thus accursed: yea the very Phrase for killing those who had deserved Death for their Treachery in the Book of Mac­cabees, is Anathematizing, or Cursing them [...] 1 Mac­cab. v. 5.. So Jezabel being executed, is called A cursed Woman 2 Kings ix. 34.. And when Saul had pronounced this Cherem upon all that eat that day, Jonathan falling under that Curse, must have dyed if the People had not rescued him 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 [Page 18]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 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 [Page 19]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 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 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 [Page 20]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. Rab. Ben­jamin. ap. Seld. de Synedr. lib. 1. c. 7.. And Josephus mentions such a kind of Excom­munication against the Jews of Delos 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 old English Version uses the word Excommunicated in both places: Which Decree was actually put in execution, and the Penalty inflicted upon the poor blind Man whom our Saviour had restored to sight, John ix. 34. [Page 21] They cast him out; that is, they excommunicated him; and when Jesus heard of it, ver. 35. He receives him into the number of those that believed in him, declaring to him that he was the Son of God. And a little be­fore our Saviour's Passion, he foretels his Disciples that the Jews would Cast them out of their Synagogues, John xvi. 2. where Vatablus again in the Margin hath Excom­municabunt vos, they will excommunicate you: of which he had also warned them before, and armed them a­gainst the fear of this Censure, by assuring them They should be blessed by God, when they were thus ill trea­ted by Men; saying, Blessed are you when Men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their Company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil for the Son of Mans sake, Luke vi. 22. Which is a plain de­scription of Excommunication: For this Separation is plainly Niddui Niddui, est remotio ab ali­orum congressu tam Sacro quam politico & domestico ad quatuor passus. Instit. ep. Hebr. pag. 55., the lesser sort of Excommunication, by which they excluded the Offenders from any near con­verse with them, either in Civil or Sacred Actions, the Person thus separated being not to come within four Paces of any other Jew, either in any Religious or Com­mon place, as Buxtorfius doth inform us: So that these were not quite excluded from the Temple, but only made to come in at a Gate peculiar to themselves, and to worship at a distance, and separated from the rest of the Jews, which Gate was called the Gate of Mourners (said to be built by Solomon;) and this I suppose was the reason why the Publican (who may well be thought to be under this Sentence of Separation) is said to wor­ship standing afar off, Luke xviii. 13. But the whole Rite is fully described by R. Juda in the Book of Musar; When Solomon built the House of the Sanctuary, he built two Gates, one for the Rejoycers, and the other for the Mour­ners and the Excommunicate— If any came in by this Gate with his upper lip vailed, they knew he was a Mourner, and said to him, He that dwelleth in this House chear and com­fort thee. If his upper lip were not covered, they knew him to be under Niddui, and said unto him, He that dwells in [Page 22]this House put it into thy heart to hear the words of thy Bre­thren, that they may receive thee R. Juda, lib. Musar, fol. 95. col. 1.. Which Custom may well be thought very ancient, if we observe how early the Primitive Christians placed their Penitents in this manner at the Church door, and how they there begged the Prayers of the Faithful who went near and worshipped. But to return to the place of S. Luke, Dr. Hammond thinks that reproaching them, and casting out their name as evil, is a description of Cherem, the high­er kind of Excommunication, wherein they did pro­claim the Person Accursed, and devoted him to suffer the highest and heaviest Judgment, as a most vile and desperately wicked Man. Which severe sort of proceed­ing, Grotius thinks was not used towards the Christians, till some time after our Saviour's Resurrection: So that the Learned Selden need not wonder why Christ and his Apostles did appear in the Jewish Temple and Syna­gogues, since he supposes them excommunicated: For first we have no Evidence that they were actually under this Censure, while mention is made of their coming to the Temple, nor is it likely they would have lost the opportunity of doing good to so many as met in those places, for any such unjust Sentence, if it had been exe­cuted on them by malicious Men, since they had an express Commission from Heaven to Convert the Jews; and in order to that, it was necessary they should meet in the Publick Assemblies; yea, though the Jewish Rulers threatned them never so severely, it is plain they omit­ted not their Duty. And lastly, if it were only Niddui, or the Separation which was inflicted on them, it seems they might come to the Religious Assemblies notwith­standing that Sentence: though Drusius thinks that Niddui only excluded from the Synagogue, and not from the Temple and its Service Drusij Prae­ [...]erit. lib. 4. in Johan. ix. 22.. But in this Case of our Saviour and his Apostles, I rather think that the Jewish Rulers were not content with so gentle a Penalty as this Separation for the Leaders of this new Society, and rather fought to suppress them by Imprisonment, Scourg­ing, [Page 23]and Death it self: For it seems evident to me that there was such a Punishment then in use as Excluding Men from Sacred as well as Civil Commerce, signified by that word Casting them out of their Synagogue. Which though Mr. Selden labours to expound only of Exclusion from Civil Commerce, meerly designing to make this a Penalty belonging to the Civil Magistrate; yet there are many Evidences that it must be expounded of inter­dicting Men from Religious Assemblies also: For the prime notion of a Synagogue is a place set apart prin­cipally for Acts of Religion; and because there was but One Temple in all Judaea for the most Solemn Wor­ship, to which all the Nation did resort, at some set times in the year, as well within the Borders of Canaan as without; it was very necessary for those in the remo­ter parts of Canaan, and especially for those of the di­spersion to have some places appropriate to Religion for their ordinary Duties at less Solemn Times: Such were those Schools of the Prophets in the Old Testa­ment, 1 Sam. x. 5. and Chap. xix. 23. And those called Synagogues in the New, which in our Saviour's time were undoubtedly Schools for Learning the Law, and Houses of Prayer or Proseucha's; Hence that of our Sa­viour, who notes that the Pharisees loved to stand praying in the Synagogues, Matth. vi. 5. and there also the Law was expounded, as is clear from many places of the New Testament, Matth. iv. 23. Luke iv. 16. Acts xiii. 15. especially every Sabbath Day, Acts xv. 21. Wherefore Philo calls these Synagogues The Houses of Prayer in every City [...] Philo legat. ad Ca­jum, and saith, They were Schools of Wisdom and Fortitude, of Modesty and Righteousness, of Piety, of Holi­ness, and of all Vertue. Nor is any thing more frequent in the Talmud, and those that expound it, than to men­tion Prayers made in the Synagogues Glos. in Baeb. Beracoth. fol. 2. col. 1.; So Maimoni­des tells us, Whereever there are Ten of Israel live together, there they must huild a House of Prayer to meet in at the hours for Prayer, and this House is called a Synagogue Maimon. Tephil. cap. ii.. And he saith it is forbidden for Men to pass by a Synagogue at the [Page 24]hours of Prayer 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 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 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 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 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 [Page 25]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 [...]. 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 [...]. 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 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 [Page 26]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 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 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 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 [Page 27]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 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 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 [Page 28]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 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 [Page 29]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 [...]. 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 [Page 30]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 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 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 [Page 31]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 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 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 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 [Page 32]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 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, [Page 33]&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 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 Rom. xiv. 13. 1 Cor. viii. 10., and therefore Scandals and Trespasses are used promiscuously [...], 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 [Page 34]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 [...] 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. 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 [Page 35] to remit and retain sins, John xx. 23. 'Tis 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 [Page 36]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, 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. 'Tis 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 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 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 [Page 38]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 [Page 39]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 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 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 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 [Page 40]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 [...]. 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 [...]. 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 [Page 41]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 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 [Page 42]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 [...], LXX. Deut. xvii. 17. xxi. 21. xxiv. 7. Haec ita (que) est vera lectio hu­jus loci non [...] quod D. Seldeno placet., yet sometimes in the Neuter 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. 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 [...] 2 Cor. ii. 6. [...] vocan­tur Poenae Ca­nonicae in Act. Consiliorum, & ap. Chrysost. de Sacerd. Grot. in [Page 43]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 [...] 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 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 2 Cor. ii. 1, 2, 3, &c. [...] Theoph., and making them sorry; that is, by ordering Offenders to be censured, which Act was [Page 44]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 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. [...]. 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 [Page 45]the Sense of this word Anathema, so often used con­cerning Excommunication [...], pag. 87. [...]. The­oph [...]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 Josh. vii. 1. Deut. vii. 26. & alibi., the name of one Spe­cies of Excommunication among the Jews. 'Tis 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 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 [Page 46]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 Conc. Con­stant. Can. I. Be­ver. Tom. I. p. 85.: So doth the Council of Gangra close every Ca­non with this Anathema 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 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 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 [Page 47]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 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 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 [Page 48]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 [...], 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 [...]. 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 [Page 49]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 Synesij E­pist. 58. p. 503., and in the Capitulars Capitul. Francor. lib. 5. cap. 42. p. 96., [Page 50]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 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, [Page 51]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 [...] 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 Jerusalem. Secondly, That it was after two Admonitions, as Christ advised, Matth. xviii. Thirdly, That hereby he was thrust back into that same estate he was in before his Baptism. About [Page 52]thirty years after Cerdon the Heretick came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, An. 153. and at first confessed his Error in the Church, and lived orderly, but being found out to have taught it in secret often, and often to have recanted it again, he was at last admonished, and turned out of the Assembly of the Faithful Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. & ex eo Euseb. l. 4. c. 11.. Soon af­ter came Marcion to Rome also, whose Father being Bi­shop of Sinope in Pontus, had Excommunicated this Son of his for the Crime of Fornication, and refused to re­ceive him in again: Nor would the Presbyters of the Roman Church (who had conversed with the Apostles) receive him into Communion, though he had offered 200 Sesterces to their Church Epiph. Pa­nar. l. 3. Tom. I. haeres. 42. p. 135. Tertul. de prae­script. haeret. c. 30. p. 212. semel atque iterum e­jecti— novissime in perpetuum dis­sidium relegati. Tertul. ibid., but rejected him and his Offering also; which was in the time when Hyginus their Bishop was dead, An. 155. And Tertullian adds, That Valentinus and Marcion having been once and a­gain cast out, at lest they were for ever Excommuni­cated by that Church, which he saith was in the time of Eleutherius: whose next Successor Victor, about the year 192. excommunicated Theodotus the Heretick then living at Rome, for denying the Divinity of our Savi­our Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 27. p. 145. [...]., as Eusebius relates: And had he exercised this Power only upon those of his own Church, he had not met with so much opposition; but he (about the year 198.) Excommunicated the Bishops of Asia, for not a­greeing with him in the time of keeping the Feast of Easter Euseb. ibid. l. 5. c. 23. p. 142., which rash act of his displeased many even of the Western Bishops; and Irenaeus particularly, who sharply rebukes him for it, shewing that none of his Pre­decessors had ever done such a thing to Excommunicate Foreign Churches for a difference only in a Matter of Ceremony: yet still this shews the practice of Excom­munication was frequent in these early times. And the manner of inflicting these Censures is soon after (An. 200.) described by Tertullian, who speaking of the Re­ligious Assemblies of the Christians, saith, There are Ex­hortations, Rebukes, and the Divine Censure; for they judge with great Authority, as being assured of God's Presence a­mong [Page 53]them; so that if any so offend as to be excluded from communicating in Prayers, from the Assemblies, and from all Sacred Commerce, it is a strong presumption of their Con­demnation in the last Judgment: The Presidents of these As­semblies are divers ancient and approved Persons Tertul. A­pol. c. 39. p. 31.. In which eminent Testimony we see there were Admoni­tions first, and then sharper Rebukes preceding the Cen­sure, according to our Saviour's Method: And for the Authority of these Censures, it is expresly said to be Divine, and upon Christ's Promise to be with those who met together on this occasion in his Name, Matth. xviii. 20. Tertullian affirms they are certain of God's Presence with them in this Act; yea, since our Lord had said, What they bound on Earth should be bound in Hea­ven, he reckons that the last dreadful Judgment will go according to this Ecclesiastical Sentence. And as to the Effect of this Excommunication on Earth, the Party under it is neither to come into the Church, nor to pray or have any commerce with the Faithful. Finally, The Bishop and his Clergy are the Dispensers of this Disci­pline, and the Governours of Christian Assemblies; and if any doubt of this last particular, the same Tertullian speaking of what was (in the Apostles days and his own too) in the Bishops Power, expresly saith It was in his power to Excommunicate Ut extra Ecclesiam quis detur— erat in Praesi­dentis officio. Tert. de pudicit. c. 14. p. 556.; which are so clear Confu­tations of all our Innovators in this Matter, that these places alone might silence them: Yet there are more passages in this Father to this purpose: As where he saith, Whoredom and Murder are interdicted, and the Gla­diators are driven out of the Church Tertul. de Idololat. c. 11. p. 91.. And where he affirms, That Christians marrying with Heathens are count­ed guilty of Whoredom, and are to be excluded from all Com­munion with the Faithful, according to the Orders of the A­postle, who saith, With such no not to eat Arcendos ab omni communi­catione frater­nitatis. Tert. ad uxor. l. 2. c. 3.. And for o­ther unlawful Lusts, he saith, They did not only exclude them from the Church Porch, but allowed them not to come near that holy place, being not barely Vices, but mon­strous Crimes Non modò limine verùm omni Ecclesiae tecto submove­ [...]nus. Tert. de pudicit. c. 4. p. 557.. And Albáspinaeus hath observed, [Page 54]That in the first Ages of the Church, Murtherers, A­dulterers, Apostates, and such like notorious Offenders, were irreversibly Excommunicated; and if they were admitted to remain among the Penitents, yet they would not Absolve them, nor restore them to the Com­munion of the Church so long as they lived; till by de­grees the Discipline of the Church slackened Albaspin. observ. l. 2. c. 8. &c., and then certain years of Penance were enjoyned those Of­fenders; and if they gave signs of great Sorrow and hearty Repentance after that time, they were by cer­tain steps restored to the Communion of the Church. And now we have mentioned that Learned Author, it may not be amiss to hear his description of the state of Excommunicate Persons in these times of which we now speak, They were not only driven from Religious Assem­blies, but all despised, abhorred, and fled from them as putrid Members, fit to be cut off: It was counted a sin to treat or make bargains with them; none would salute them, or call them Brethren; none would look on them, speak to them, or invite them to a Meal; yea, so strict were they, that none would joyn with them in Prayers, to God Albaspin. l. 1. obs. 1. p. 2.. Which Cha­racter is the more to be esteemed, because he there proves all this by the Canons of very ancient Councils, which Excommunicate those who pray with these Per­sons Apost. Can. 10. Laodic. Can. 33. Anti­och. 1. Can. 2. Carthag. 4. Can. 73., and those who have any Conversation with them, or be in the same House, or Feast with them, or speak to them Antioch. 1. Can. 2. Arelat. 2. Can. 30. Antissiod. Can. 39., as may be seen more at large in that Author. All which abundantly proves, That the Christians of that Time did look upon the Excommu­nicate to be in a damnable Condition, and that they were odious to God and Men: and though this may seem severe, yet many good ends were gained by this Discipline; for this tended exceedingly to the Honour of the Christian Church, which thus shewed its dete­station of all wickedness; and it was an excellent means to bring the Sinners to a Sense of their Transgressions, and a Purpose to amend, as well as to preserve and warn the Faithful that they did not fall into the like [Page 55]Crimes, lest they suffered in the like kind. Soon after this, the famous Origen flourished (An. 230), Who is very clear as to the exercise of this Discipline; Affirming, That among the Christians some were ordained to enquire in­to the Lives and Actions of those who were admitted, and such as did unlawful things, were by these forbidden to come to their Common Assemblies [...] & p p.. And their discipline was very severe towards all Sinners, especially those who were de­filed with Lust, whom they drove out of their Communion, and like the Pythagoreans, lamented them as dead to God [...]. Orig. in Cels l. 3. p. 142.. Where these ordained Censors of Manners are, no doubt the Bishops and Clergy, and the Criminals are not only deprived of Sacred but Civil commerce also, yea and e­steemed as quite out of Gods favour, and dead to all hopes of Salvation, while they remain in that estate. The same Au­thor also, in his Homilies frequently mentions this Rite, telling us, That every unclean person is cast out of the Assem­bly of the Pious Orig. hom. 8. in Lev. 12.. And though he should be concealed from the Bishop, or escape being cast out by partiality, yet he is con­demned by his own Conscience Idem hom. 12. in Lev. 21.. And elsewhere he saith, The Bishop casts one out of the Church that many may be pre­served sound Idem hom. 9. in Jesai. 13.. Yea he expresly interprets the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven of this very Discipline. He that judges uprightly hath the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and opens to them that are absolved on Earth, so that they are loosed in Heaven. Again, he shuts to them who by right Judgment are bound on Earth, so that they are as it were bound and judged in Heaven Idem hom. 1 in Matth. 16.. Finally, to this matter also he applies the phrase of delivering to Sathan Idem hom. 12. in Matth. 20.; saying, The Bishop ought sometimes to use his power and deliver Sinners to Sathan, for the destruction of the Flesh, that the Spirit may be saved. In all which places this learned Father plainly shews, That the Excommunications in his time were laid on by the Bishops, and were derived from the Power left by Christ, and exercised by his Apostles; so that no doubt he thought them of Divine right. Not long after him followed that Excommunication of the Heretick Noetius, Author of the Patripassian Blasphemy, [Page 56]who was cited before the Presbyters of Ephesus (they having then no Bishop, Ann. 240), and after two Ad­monitions, he and his Companions persisting in their Heresie, were expelled out of the Church, and he and his Brother continuing obstinate to their death, were denyed Christian burial Epiphan. Panar. lib. 2. Tom. I. haeres. 57. p. 213.. Which was another Cere­mony attending these Primitive Excommunications, to shew the detestation they had of them; and this con­tinues among us to this day; But none is more full of in­stances and clear in the Divine original of this holy Dis­cipline than S. Cyprian, that blessed Martyr, who lived about the Year 250. in his Epistle to Cornelius Bp. of Rome, he expresses his joy That Cornelius had Excommunicated Felicissimus the Novatian, and cast him out of the Church there, who in Africa long before had been cast out of it by the Majesty of God, and the severity of Christ the great Judge. So S. Cyprian calls the Censure which he and his fellow Bi­shops had inflicted on him; for as he there observes, The Bp. is for the present a Judge in Christs stead, to whom if all Christians were obedient, none would presume (after his Con­secration) to make themselves Judges, not of the Bishop, but of God —Pulsum de Ecclesiâ esse, de quâ jam­pridem Dei ma­jestate & Chri­sti domini ju­dicis nostri se­veritate depul­sus est— Sacerdos ad tempus juden vice Christi, &c. vide Cypr. ad Cornel. l. I. ep. 3.. And a little after he mentions Fortuna­tus, Maximus, Privatus, Foelix, and Jovinus (Novatian Hereticks all) which he had Excommunicated and cast out of the Church at Carthage; and though they did (as he speaks) despise the Majesty and Censure of God, yet he desires Cornelius not to receive them into his Commu­nion; but to warn all his People to avoid their Company and Discourse, to have no Commerce with them, no nor so much as to eat with them; and for this he cites those places of Scripture which we have quoted before, viz. If he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen man, and a Publican, Matth. xviii. 17. and Withdraw from every Brother which walketh disorderly, 2 Thess. iii. 6. And a Man that is an Heretick, after the first and second Ad­monition reject, Titus iii. 10. So that we are not the first who have applyed these places to Excommunication, but S. Cyprian did it above 1400 years ago, and his Expositi­on [Page 57]may well be more authentick than our yesterdays Criticks, who would extort some other meaning from them. And since he is so clear for the Divine Right up­on which Excommunication is founded, we shall not much value what interest and design hath since persua­ded some to say to the Contrary. But to proceed; In his Epistle to Pomponius, the same S. Cyprian commends him for Excommunicating a Deacon and others for Fornica­tion, telling him, That if they were obstinate, they could not on good grounds hope for Salvation; for if under the old Law, those who obeyed not the Priest were to be slain with the material Sword, doubtless by parity of reason, the Proud and Contumacious are slain with the Spiritual Sword when they are cast out of the Church; for there is no life out of it; since the House of God is but one, and there is no Salvation but in the Church Spirituali gladio superbi & contumaces necantur, dum de Ecclesiâ eji­ciuntur. Cypr. ad Pompon. l. 1. ep. 11.. Again, In his Epistle to Rogatianus, who had complained to him of one of his Deacons who had reproached and abused him, he bids him use the power of his Honourable Office a­gainst him, and either Depose him, or Excommunicate him, together with his Companion in that Crime Fungaris circa cum pote­state honoris tui, et cum vel depo­nas vel abstine­as, &c. Cypr. ad Rogat. l. 3. ep. 9.. Another instance there is of Novatian the Heretick, who was Excommunicated by S. 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 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 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 [...]. 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 [...]. Zonar. in 8. Can. Concil. 1. Niceen., words of the same import with the former, and [Page 58]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 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 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 [...] 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 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 [...]. Haeret. sab. 8.; Where [...] signifies a Dividend, or Share of the Profits of the Church. So that Mr. Sel­den might have spared that note 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 [Page 59]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 [...]. 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 [...]. 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 [...]. 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 Apostol. Can. xii. xiii.. In the Case of Simony, perpetual Ex­communication is decreed Ibid. Can. xxix.: In the Case of Schism, three Admonitions must precede the Censure Ibid. Can. xxxi.. And none must absolve but the same Bishop who [Page 60]Excommunicated Ibid. Can. xxxii.. To enter into a Synagogue of the Jews, or a Meeting of Hereticks, to pray with them, is Excommunication 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 [Page 61]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 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 [Page 62]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 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 [Page 63]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 speaking of his Apostles determining in the Schools, [Page 64]or solving Cases of Conscience, but of the power they should have to punish contumacious Offenders and injurious Persons. And though Mr. Selden objects, it is not Whosoever ye shall bind, but Whatsoever; yet he answers himself, saying, That it is true, Persons may be signified by the Neuter Gender: pag. 159. Final­ly, For his Fancy that the force of Excommunica­tion depended on private Pacts among the Christians; it is not to be imagined that Murderers and Adulte­rers, perjured Persons and Apostates, would have scrupled breaking these parts, or have been so terri­fied and dejected by an Excommunication, if it had only relied on their own promise to obey it. I grant indeed, the Christians did vow in Baptism and the Eucharist, to observe Christs Commands, and submit to his Injunctions, among which doubtless they reckoned this so much reverenced Discipline, to which they were subject, for that they believed it to be exercised in Christs Name, and by vertue of his Authority: We conclude therefore, That Mr. Sel­den hath gained nothing by this prolix Excursion, but only to convince us that he wished Excommuni­cation were not of Divine Right, though he be not able to prove it; And no question we are much sa­fer in believing with those Holy Primitive Bishops, who might know the mind of Christ, and the pra­ctice of the Apostles much better than our Modern Criticks, and who are more likely to tell us the Truth, than those who espouse a Party, and serve Ends of Revenge, for Censures not undeservedly laid upon them.

§. III. Our next Enquiry as to practice is, Whether this Rite of Excommunication was used and believed of Divine Right after the Empire became Christian: And this we must do the more largely to confute the Error of Erastus (espoused also by Mr. Selden) who at­tempts [Page 65]to prove, That in a Christian State there is no need of any such thing as a power of Excommunica­tion in the Church-men, because the Magistrate now may punish all Crimes; and that it was only for Want of this blessing of Christian Magistrates which forced the Primitive Bishops to use Excommunication. To which Mr. Selden adds, That after the Empire became Chri­stian, the Bishops derived their Power to Excommuni­cate from the Princes Grant. There is no better way to find out the truth herein, than to consult the Re­cords of those Ages, and to enquire into the Opinion of the most eminent Fathers after Constantines time, and into the practice of those Ages which retained the Primitive purity. And though we cannot bring in all things of this kind between the years 300. and 500. (for that would be to write a Church History, not a Discourse upon one single point) Yet we will remark that which is sufficient to baffle this modern and ill grounded Conceit. And first, Whereas it is most certain that the Bishops did Excommunicate in Constan­tine's time, yet no Writer of that Age doth affirm they did it by any Power from the Emperor; and Mr. Selden out of his vast stock of reading (at this dead lift) could not bring one single Memorial of the Emperors giving the Bishops a Power to Excommunicate in all this Period of time. 'Tis true, these first Christian Emperors, and Constantine particularly, did Ordain, That if any Litigants desired to have their causes tried be­fore the Bishops, they might leave the Secular Tribunal, and that the Bishops Sentences should be firm, and of more Authority than those of other Judges, yea, as valid as if they were delivered by the Emperor himself. As also, that the Magistrates and their Officers should execute their Sentences, and that the Decrees of their Councils should be Valid Sozomen. hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 9. p. 206. Circa An. 314. Vide Cod. Theodos. l. 16. Tit. 2. in fine.. Which Law doth indeed give them a New Power not granted by Christ, but never mentions Ex­communication; Yea, it ordains that these Sentences should be executed by another method, even by the [Page 66]Civil Magistrate and his Officers. Mr. Selden indeed produces another Law (as if it were a Repeal of this) in the time of Valens, Gratian, and Valentinian, Ann. 376. above 60. years after. But that Law seems to except only Criminal Actions from the Bishops Cognizance Vid. Seld. Synedr. l. 1. cap. 10. p. 187.. And if we consider the complaints of the good Bishops in that Age, who were burthened with divers Civil Causes, or look upon those Laws of Arcadius and Honorius Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 4. de Epist. Aud. L. 7. An. 398. & L. 8. An. 408., and of Honorius and Theodosius, which allow Men to chuse Bishops for deciding their Civil Causes, and declare their Sentence to be firm and Valid, We shall easily perceive that Constantines Law was never re­pealed, nor this practice difused. But this doth not at all belong to Excommunication, which Power the Bishops exercised by the virtue of Christs Commission in cases of Heresy and Scandal, and that not by consent of the Parties, as they did this Power of decision of Civil Causes. So that Mr. Selden ought not to make Excommunica­tion depend. on these grants: For the Emperors Authority did not precede, but follow the Bishops Act in Ex­communication; so that if the person Censured pro­ved obstinate or troublesome, he was Banished or Im­prisoned by the Imperial Power. As we see in the Case of the Arians, who were Excommunicated by the first General Council of Nice; and the Emperor Constantine did Ordain, That those who submitted not to the Decree of the Council, should be banished Sozom Ec­cles. hist. lib. 1. cap. 19. p. 221.. And that the Bishops did exercise this Power in their own right, as derived from Christ, is manifest from the whole History of that Age; Arius himself, and all his Associates, were Excommunicated at Alexandria, first by Peter, and then by Alexander the Bishops of that City Idem ibid. Cap. 14. p. 215., before any application was made to the Emperors, and before the Nicene Council was Called: And that most famous Council, in almost every Ca­non, supposes the Bishop to be the Judge of such as are to be kept out, and such as are to be let into the Church. And those Holy Fathers do decree concern­ing [Page 67]Penitents and lapsed Persons, according to the ancient usage of Ecclesiastical Discipline under Hea­then Emperors, without any alteration made upon the account of Constantine's being a Christian; Ma­king the Bishop the sole Judge of the time of Ex­cluding these Offenders from Communion in Sacred Offices. To this we may add that Accurate Scheme of the admirable Discipline of these Primitive Ages, which is described in the Canonical Epistles of Grego­ry Thaumaturgus, S. Basil, and others of the Primi­tive Bishops: By which we see, that such as were first Excommunicated by the Bishops for Fornication, Adultery, Murder, Perjury, Apostasie, and other Crimes Vid. Leo­nem Allatium de Narthece Vet. Eccl. §. 19. p. 94. Et Bevereg. Not. ad. Can. xi. 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: [Page 68]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 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 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, [Page 69]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 [...]. 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 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 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 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 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 [Page 70]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 [...] 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 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 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, [Page 71]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. 'Tis true he hath an Oration with this Title, Concerning the un­fitness of Anathematizing the living or the dead 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 [Page 72] 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 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 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 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 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 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 [Page 73]Prince which truly binds the Offender 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 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 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 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 [Page 74]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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 Idem de fide & oper. cap. 2. Tom. IV. pag. 13.; which in another place, [Page 75]he saith, doth the same under the Gospel, as putting to death did under the Law 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 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 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 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 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 [Page 76]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 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 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 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 [Page 77]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 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 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, [Page 78]should not be received into the Church again by another 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 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 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 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 [Page 79]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 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 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 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 [Page 80]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 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 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 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 An. 341. Concil. Antio­chen. Can. 2.; which Canon is renewed in the fourth Council of Carthage 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 [Page 81]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 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 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 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 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 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 Alter. Syn. ejus Can. 4. item ap. Spelm.: Where grounding the Censure upon our Saviours words, they Charitably Condemn all [Page 82]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 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 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 [Page 83]Repentance 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 Idem ibid.. In the next Chapter, The Bishop ought to remember his Dignity, because he hath received power both to bind and to loose 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 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 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 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 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 [Page 84]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 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 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 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 An. 506. Concil. Aga­thens. Can. 15., none were to eat with them An. 507. Concil. I. Aurel. Can. 13.; For which the Apostles words are quoted An. 524. Concil. Ilerd. Can. 4.. They were to be deprived of all Conversation [Page 85]and discourse with the Faithful 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 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 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 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 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 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 [Page 86]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 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 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 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 [Page 87]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 An. 753. Pipin. cap. 9. Ca­pitul. Tom. I. pag. 172.: Which Law is repeated again by some of the Successors of this Pious Prince 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 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 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, [Page 88]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 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 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 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 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 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 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 [Page 89]Confiscated 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 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 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. 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 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 [Page 90]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 [Page 91]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 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 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 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: 'Tis true, the admitting them to sit as Judges in Tempo­ral Causes was by delegate power from the Empe­rors, [Page 92]and therefore Mr. Selden hath produced many Rescripts to grant them that power, but not one can he (or any man [...]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. 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 [Page 93]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 Bever. An­not. Tom. 2. p. 89.. But this Law bears date the 4th. of the Ides of January following, and under the same Consuls 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 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 Justin. Co [...]. L. I. tit. 4. L. VII., and they who have chosen the Priests to hear their cause 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 [Page 94]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 Selden Sy­ned. L. I. cap. 10. p. 177., and remained in force above Sixty years; and if it were narrowed An. 376 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 Ibid. p. 190.; and the great Bishops at that time exercised all manner of Jurisdiction 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 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 Justin. Cod. L. l. tit. 1. L. V. praef.; And that he followed the holy Priests herein Ibid. L. VI. praefat., and did Anathematize all them that had been Anathematized in the four General Councils Ibid. L. VII. §. 3, 4 & 5.; Yea, he saith that all the Bishops which were present had subscribed these Anathema's 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 [Page 95]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 Seld. Synedr. l. I. cap. 10. p. 173. Item Binius Tom. I. par. 2. pag. 260.. Now it would be a very weak assertion, to say these Lay-Men did in this renouncing Heresy with Anathema's exercise the office of Bishops; and yet that is as true and reason­able as to think or affirm, that Justinian did take upon him by his own Imperial Authority to Excommuni­cate these Hereticks by Anathema's: For when the Ana­thema was a formal Sentence, it was always pronoun­ced by a Bishop. Sixthly, his most specious Argu­ment is that Novel Constitution of Justinians, which Mr. Selden saith, was a Law made by him as the supreme Arbiter of Excommunication Seld. de Syned. p. 172.: And a little after he cites it at large, and speaks very great things of it Ibid. p. 191.; as if the Bishops by this Law might not Excommuni­cate otherwise than by the rules he prescribed. And lest we should seem to fear this terrible Law, we will transcribe it also; the words are these, We for­bid all Bishops and Priests to exclude any person from the holy Communion, before the cause be shewed for which the Ecclesiastical Canons command it to be done. And if any do exclude any one from the holy Communion on other accounts, he that is unjustly Excommunicated shall be absolved and admitted to the Communion by a greater Priest; And he that presumed to Excommunicate him shall by his superior Priest be deprived of the Communion, so [Page 96]as his Superior sees fit; that what he hath done unjust­ly he may suffer Justin. Authent. Collat. 9. tit. 6. Nov. 123. Cap. xi. p. 171. Et Basilic. Tit. 9. cap. 9. p. 124. Et Photij Nomocan. p. 124, 125.. Now for answer to this Objecti­on, I might reply, that this Law comes too late to wrest this Divine Right out of the Bishops hands; for if Justinian had attempted to take this power from them after 550 years Possession, and an Original title from Christ and the Apostles, it had signified no great matter. But if we review the Law, we shall find no such thing was designed by it: For we see he doth not hinder Bishops to Excommunicate for any offences which the Canons had made liable to that Penalty: And that was all Heresies and all sorts of Impiety and Immorality, as might easily be proved if need were. And these Canons were made by the Bishops in all Ages: So that this was no abridging of their Liberty; nor were they tyed to any other rules than those of their own and their Predecessors making; By which rules Here­ticks, Schismaticks, Murtherers, Adulterers, perjured Persons, the malicious, the profane, and all sorts of scandalous offenders were to be Excommunicated; and to say they must censure none but these is to give them all the liberty Christ had allowed them, or their Predecessors used. And though it be said, the cause must be first shewed; This doth not mean it must be shewed to the Emperor or any Secular Magistrate, only the Bishop must proceed regularly, and first warn the Criminal (as Christ himself directs, Matth. xviii) and then convict him of the offence. So that the Per­son Excommunicated may know what fault he is pu­nished for; which is so just and reasonable a tempera­ment, that he deserves not to be trusted with any power of judging by God or Man who will not observe this. Nor can Excommunication attain the end which Christ appointed it for (even the conversion of the Sinner) unless the Bishop do thus proceed; so that Christ as well as the Emperor requires this, which implies no more, than that this weighty Censure ought not to be rashly and unjustly laid on, contrary to the rules of [Page 97]Christ, who was the Author of it, and to the pra­ctice of the Ancient Church. And for the Emperor to make such a Law doth no more disprove the Cler­gies Divine Right to Excommunicate, than our En­glish Laws (That the Clergy shall Pray at such times and in such Gestures and Habits, and by such a Form agreeable to Gods Word; And that they shall Preach in such certain places or on such days, and not vent any Heresie or Sedition in their Sermons) do prove that our Clergy have not Authority from God to Pray and Preach; and the like may be said of the Sacraments. No doubt the Supream Powers ought to see that all Men of all ranks do that duty which God requires of them, orderly, uniformly, and so as may be for the common benefit, and in so doing they do not invade any Persons Right. 'Tis true, if that Emperor had forbid the Bishops to Ex­communicate any Man for any Cause, (as he that gives may take away a Delegated Power) or if our Laws should wholly forbid the Clergy to Pray, Preach or Administer the Sacraments, then the Divine Right would be invaded; but not when they only direct us to exercise our Power wisely, orderly, and pro­fitably: This is no more than for the Civil Magi­strate to make a Hedge for Gods Law, as Mr. Selden observes, and indeed argues very well against this false inference of his own Seld: lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 277 & pag. 288.. Besides after all this flourish, Mr. Selden well knew, that this Law is no other than what the Canons of the Church had de­creed before Justinians time; For the Famous Canons of Carthage do Ordain, That no Bishop shall rashly or lightly de­prive any one of the Communion, nor for any fault only known to him by the private Confession of the parties [...]. Concil. Carthag. Can. 134. vid. Can. 133. Bever. Tom. I. p. 668.; Which former Canon being the same with this Law, is repeated in fol­lowing Canons and Councils of later times An. 552. Concil. 5. Aurel. can. 2. An. 750. Excerp. Egberti­can. 48. Spelm. pag. 263. Et in Capitular.. So that Justinian laid no restraint upon them, but what the Clergy had before agreed to lay upon themselves; and this Law is but a Confirmation of a Former [Page 98]Canon; Yea, if the making such a Decree demon­strate a Supream Arbiter of Church Censures, then the Clergy were Supream Arbiters of them long be­fore, and many years after. We may now leave this Objection, when we have observed, that this Novel doth not make the Emperor Judge, or pu­nisher of this rashness, but the Metropolitan, he is to Excommunicate the unjust Excommunicator, not the Emperor; which shews, that the offending Bi­shop did not act by a Delegate Power, for if he had, the Emperor would have been the punisher; and if ever any Emperor should have Excommunicated, this had been a fit occasion when the Bishops abu­sed the power they gave them; but Lo, here is none mentioned to execute this Sentence, but the offenders own Metropolitan, one of his own Order: And therefore this Novel Constitution plainly supposes, none but one of the Clergy could Excommunicate; and this added to what we noted before concerning the French Capitular, forbidding rash Excommuni­cations, is a full reply to this seemingly formidable Objection. There are some other slight Objections relating to these times, which we will briefly here set down. First, he would prove the Christian Ex­communication to be the same with the Jewish, from the word [...], cast out of the Synagogue, which some Christian Writers use for Excommunication Seld. Synedr. lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 272 & 276., but who knows not, that very many words which had been used by the Jews, were taken up by the Chri­stians, and used in a different sense from that which they Originally signified? So the Fathers use the Word Passover, not for the Jewish Feast upon their Paschal Lamb, but for the Christian Festival in Me­mory of Christs Resurrection; So also they use the word Sacrifice, for the Commemoration of Christs one Oblation in the Eucharist, not for a real Bloo­dy Sacrifice. The like might be observed of many o­ther Words, viz. Apostle, Baptism, Presbyter, &c. [Page 99]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 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 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 [Page 100]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 Petr. Lomb. sent. lib. 4.. And that the pow­er of Loosing is not granted absolutely, but upon Con­dition of the parties Repentance 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 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 dreadful [...]-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 [Page 101]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 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 [Page 102]from the Priests of God 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 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 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 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 [Page 103]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 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 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 [Page 104]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 [Page 105]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 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 suffice [...]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 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 Statut. Cla­rend. Matth. Paris. An. 1164. p. 100.: But it is not credible that any Christian King should presume to forbid [Page 106]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 [Page 107]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) 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 [Page 108]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 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 [Page 109]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 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 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 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 An. 1215. Matth. Paris p. 270 An. 1217. Constit. Ric. Sarum. Spelm. Tom. II. p. 158.; Of which there are very many Forms, 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, [Page 110]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. 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 An. 1316. ap. Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 484.. All which are prin­ted in our Statute Books for Law 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 [Page 111]Writ 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 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 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 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 Confess. Belg. Art. 32.; and when they Corrected this Article, as Mr. Selden pretends 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 [Page 112] 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 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 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 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 [Page 113]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 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, [Page 114]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 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 115]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 instrumental to their Reformation. In­deed the long disuse of open Penance, to which of Old the greatest Personages were forced to submit 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 An. 1246. Matth. Paris, pag. 716.. And at last they pro­cured [Page 116]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 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 [...]. 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 [Page 117]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 Ego quidem illum peri [...]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 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 [Page 118]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 Thes. iii. 6. we are to forbear all sorts of Conversation with the Excommunicate, which was religiously observed in for­mer Ages, and is strictly required not only by the Old Canons, but (which weighs more with some) by our own Ancient Laws; for Bracton saith, None may pray or talk with the Excommunicate openly or pri­vately, none may eat with them except some persons Bracton lib. 5. de except. cap. 23. §. 1.; that is, those of their own Family, and such as go to excite them to repent. Now it is very strange, that neither the Laws of God, the Practice nor Canons of the Primitive Church, nor the Laws of our own Country, can restrain us in this most Licentious Age, from freely conversing with such Offenders; By which we do not only obstruct one of those ends, for which Christ instituted this Holy Rite, but harden the Sinners in their Impenitence, and expose our selves to the dan­ger of being corrupted by the Conversation of these [Page 119]Impious and abandoned Wretches. For as those who have the Plague are said to be desirous to infect others, so Evil Men by their Discourse and Example propagate their Errors and their Vices, and labour to make others as wicked as themselves Malus bonum vult esse malum, ut sit sui similis. Plaut. Trinum. II. 2.. But our Spiritual Pastors by their Censures do all they can to separate the infe­cted from the sound, and by observing this Order and flying their Company we shall be safe. If they should suffer notorious Sinners to pass without a Mark set on them, we might have some excuse; but when they are condemned, our ruine is wilful if we associate with them. However it is just and necessary the Church should sentence open and Notorious Sinners, lest their impunity should embolden others to commit the like Crimes, till the number of Offenders made them inso­lent and incorrigible; He that punishes one (saith the I­talian Proverb) threatens an hundred: And some exam­ples of exemplary justice done upon some of the most noted and publick Offenders, will be a means to check these growing Evils, and be a warning to others not to fall into those Sins, for which Christ and his Church hath appointed so severe and dreadful a penalty.

Finally, since Excommunication was so certainly in­stituted by Christ for these excellent ends, Let all Christians in their places labour that it may obtain them: Let the Magistrates (according as the Law requires) compel the obstinate to submit to this Medicine for their Souls. Let the Bishops, to whom this Discipline is committed, use it only on great and just occasions; and with such deliberation and solemnity that it may make a due impression upon such as fall under it. Let such as suffer it, be angry at nothing but the Sin which brought it on them, and submit to a little shame here, to rescue them from Eternal shame hereafter; let them with Tears, Fasting and Prayers, seek the Peace of God and his Church, looking on themselves to be (as real­ly they are) in a damnable condition till they be absol­ved. And let all others fly those Sins which will bring [Page 120]this Curse on them; and while they avoid the company of the Excommunicate, let them pity and pray for them, and encourage them to a speedy Repentance: And let none dare to vilifie or despise this Divine In­stitution, for this is to despise Christ himself, and to har­den Sinners to their Eternal Damnation; yea, it is to hinder the effect of one of the most powerful means to convert Sinners, and to curb those Wickednesses which are the shame of our Religion, and the ruin of many Souls. The poor Greeks believe from very many credible Examples, that such as dye Excommuni­cate are accursed by God; and that their Bodies grow black in the Grave, and swelled like a Drum, so that they cannot rot till they be absolved Leo Allat. Epist. de quo­rund. Graec. opin. §. 14. Eucholog. Jac. Goar. pag. 689.; And it is not improbable, God may by Miracle keep up the reputa­tion of that poor oppressed Religion; but whether the matter of Fact be true or no, the Opinion hath an ex­cellent effect upon those Christians, making them Vene­rate their Clergy, and fly notorious Sins, for fear of Ex­communication and this Curse which follows it. From whence we may learn how evil Instruments they are, who by false arguings and manifest mistakes do go about to teach Men to despise this sacred Discipline; And since the restoring it to its Primitive esteem is so excellent a means to convert Sinners, and extirpate all notorious Vices, to repair the honour of God and Religion, and to wipe off the Scandals which this Church hath suffered by the Wickedness of its Members, and the Malice of its Enemies; I hope this will be thought a useful and sea­sonable discourse; for I have therein proved this great Truth, That Excommunication is undoubtedly ground­ed upon the Institution of Christ, and express Pre­cepts of Holy Scripture.