A DISCOURSE Concerning EXCOMMUNICATION.  
By THOMAS COMBER DD. Precentor of York.   printer's or publisher's device 
LONDON, Printed for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West end of St. Paul's Church.   

THE INTRODUCTION.  
THE notorious increase of Atheism, Faction, and Debauchery in this and the last Age, is too evident to be denied, and too mischievous to be mentioned without sad reflections: But while many express their Piety in bewailing the Matter of Fact, few do exercise their Consideration, either in searching after the Causes of this deplorable Evil, or enquiring into the proper Remedies for it. 'Tis true, there may be many Causes of so complicated and spreading a Contagion, and divers Methods contrived for its Cure: But there is one great and eminent occasion of this universal Corruption that seems to be peculiar to our Times, and the Mother or the Nurse to most of those Vices and Errors which are the Reproach of this Age, viz. The contempt of Excommunication: For this being the only means that the Church hath to punish these Crimes (which the Secular Tribunals seldom or never take Cognizance of) If Men by Ignorance or Evil Principles can arrive at Impudence enough to despise this Sacred and Salutary Penalty, they have nothing left to restrain them from committing and openly abetting these Offences, which by this means are grown so general, and so daring, that they are the Scandal of our Reformation, the Ruin of many thousand poor Souls, and cry to Heaven for that Judgement which upon Earth they never meet withal. It is manifest that the Schismatics and the Profane, the Atheistical and those who are of most profligate Conversations, do all conspire to make the Church's Discipline contemptible, weak and ineffectual, and all strive to deprive her of that Power which they know she would use for the Cure of those Vices, which they indulge and resolve to continue in. But it is a mighty Charity to these our Enemies to undeceive them, and let them see that Excommunication is not really less dreadful, because some men for vile ends do falsely represent it as Brutum Fulmen: And it may be a happy means of reforming the Age, to manifest the Divine Original, the Sacred Authority, and the Fatal Efficacy of these Church Censures, which if they were rightly understood, reverenced as they deserve, and prudently dispensed, would contribute extremely toward the rooting out of evil Principles and wicked Practices, and prevent the Damnation of many great Offenders, who die in their Sins, because they despise their Remedy, and trample on the means of their Reformation. If men truly discerned the terrible Consequences of living and dying under a deserved Excommunication, they would carefully avoid those Sins which pull it on their guilty Heads; or if unwarily they did offend, and fall under this Censure, they would (as of old in the Primitive Church) never rest till by Prayers and Fasting, Charity and Mortification, they had made their Peace with God, and by a due Submission to some Salutary Penance, obtained the Absolution of their Spiritual Governor; and how far this would go toward the preventing or healing these damnable and destructive Offences, every man may discern: Impunity is the great incentive to Sin; and while the Punishments of the next World are invisible and distant, and those which Christ Authorized the Church to inflict in this, are falsely thought insignificant, Faction and Impiety must grow and increase without remedy or redress, and the multitude of Offenders and frequency of the Crimes will harden the bad, and infect the better sort, to the utter ruin of Religion itself. If indeed these bold and merry Sinners, who are under the Church Censures for their real Crimes, were as safe as they are secure, it would be less necessary to give them the trouble of Conviction; but alas, the Sentence is as weighty, and more fatal when it is despised, as when it is revered, and shall finally fall more heavy on these arrogant Wretches, because the Contempt of a Divine Institution is added to all their other Iniquities, and the slighting of that Remedy which God himself appointed for their Cure, comes in as well for a Reason as an Occasion of their Condemnation. I am sure all Ages and Places, all Religions and Countries, have reverenced this Sacred Rite, and why we alone should trample on it, no Reason can be given, but what will import us to be worse than Jews, Turks, or Pagans: Nor can any man in his Wits imagine that there is more liberty left to Sin, or that the Penalties inflicted for it, are of less weight to Christians, than under those exploded and false Religions; and therefore if Excommunication be dreaded there, and all the Crimes which cause it, is it fit that either the Faults or the Punishment should be lightly regarded here? Whoever is of this temper, hath taken his Measures from false Guides, whose Interest it was to disparage this Holy Institution, because they had done some Crimes to deserve it, and it is their Duty, and for their Soul's health, to rectify this dangerous Mistake; in order whereunto we will clearly, plainly, and impartially show, First, The Divine Original of it: Secondly, The Universal Practice of it: Thirdly, The Ends for which it was Instituted: which will give all unprejudiced Persons a right Notion of this useful and weighty matter.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning EXCOMMUNICATION.  

CHAP. I. Of the Original of Excommunication.  
§. I. ALthough we consider Excommunication as it is now used in the Christian Church, yet because it was not first practised there, we must dig deeper to discover the Foundation thereof; and it will add much to the Veneration of it, to show, That it was ever reverenced, as well by the Jews as the Gentiles, before it was adopted into Christianity by our blessed Saviour: Wherefore we will demonstrate, that this Sacred Rite hath its Original from these three things.  

First, From the Light of Natural Reason, and the Practice of the Gentiles, who had no other Guide.  
Secondly, From the Custom of the Jews before our Lord's Incarnation.  
Thirdly, From the express Institution of Christ in the New Testament.   
First, The Light of Natural Reason shows us, That no Society ever did, or can subsist without Governors; nor can those Governors 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 itself must be precarious, and would soon come to ruin, as wanting sufficient Means to preserve itself: 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 entrusted the Church with such a Power, Reason and Necessity would have compelled the Rulers of the Church to have assumed it, because the Church cannot subsist without it. No man can so much as govern one Family in the Capacity of a Father or Master, unless he be invested with power to let in and turn out of his Family, such as he sees fit, and to dispense or withhold the Benefits belonging to his Family as he sees Occasion; much less can a larger Society be maintained in Peace and Safety without the exercise of such a Power. And as the Father or Master may and doth exercise this Authority within his own Family, though it be a part of the Commonwealth, without damage to the Prince's Power: So in this Society of the Church, since the ends of it are different from that of the Civil Government, the Ecclesiastical Governors may exercise their Power and Authority without encroachment 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 Privileges while they live upon Earth: But the ends of the Spiritual Governors are to make Christians holy here and happy hereafter, and their Rules and Punishments are both suited to this end. The Rules are Precepts of Piety and Charity, and the Penalties are proportionable, viz. not Corporal 
(a) Nullum ibi discrimen sanguinis sub incruentâ disciplinâ timebatur. Aug. add 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 jealousy for their Authority, on the account of this Spiritual Jurisdiction from his Servants, who declares His Kingdom is not of this World 
(b) Joh. xviii. 36. Audite Judaei & Gente●— non impediam dominationem vestram in hoc mundo. Aug. in loc. . They are to watch for men's 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 Persuasion, by Spiritual Promises and Threaten, 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 Governor in his proper way punish those who act contrary to the welfare of their own or others Souls, whether by teaching false Doctrine, or setting a bad Example. And as there are three ends of outward and civil Punishments, First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Instruction to the Offender to repent and amend: Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Warning to others not to follow so bad an Example: and Thirdly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vindication of the Society from the Scandal which might be cast upon it for suffering evil Acts to be done 
(c) Vidend. Aul. Gellius noct. Attie. lib. 6. c. 14. Clem. Alexandr. Strom. 4. : So also the Spiritual Penalties aim at the same ends, viz. To reform the Offender; To warn others not to follow the ill Example; And to clear the Church from that Scandal which the acts of evil Men, professing themselves Christians, may bring on it, if they be not punished: All which ends are obtained by this Spiritual Penalty of Excommunication duly inflicted by the Church, and humbly submitted to by the Offender; which doth clearly show 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 Governors should have this Power. And that none may doubt whether Natural Reason doth teach this, we will show 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 joining 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 Murderers should be excluded from the Drink-Offerings and Festivals, from the Temples and Public Assemblies 
(d) Demosth. Orat. in Leptin. . And the Scholiast on Aristophanes speaks of this as of an old Custom, That no Manslayer should partake of their Sacrifices. 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Scholar Aristoph. . And agreeable to this is that Edict of Oedipus in Sophocles, concerning a Parricide, That none of his Subjects should receive him into their House, nor speak to him, nor communicate with him in Prayers or Sacrifices to the Gods, nor wash their hands with him 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sophoc. in Oedip. . Whence it appears, That both Civil and Sacred Commerce was forbid to these Criminals; and though those who had slain their Mother in Euripides, mention only their being excluded at Argis from all men's houses and conversations: 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eurip. Oreste.  Yet we may infer they were much more uncapable of coming to the Sacrifices. Plato also ordains that such as strike their Parents should be expelled from their Cities and their Temples; and that whoever had any conversation with them should be excluded from the Assemblies and Sacrifices till they were purged 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plato de leg. 9 fol. 881. . And if it be enquired whose office it was to do this, we may learn that from Julius Pollux, who tells us there was one at Athens called the King of the Sacrifices, whose office was To proclaim that the contumacious (or rather, the unholy who were of contrary disposition to the holy Rites) should abstain from the Mysteries and other established Rites 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poll. Onomastic. lib. 8. cap. 9 pag. 397. . And Alcibiades, for having revealed the Mysteries of Ceres which ought to have been kept secret, was devoted to Divine Vengeance by the Priests in all their several ways of Religion 
(k) Se 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 Murder, but for any great offence either against Religion (as here) or against good manners. As in that remark concerning the Cercetae, now called the Circassians, who used to forbid all that did any injustice, to come into their Temples 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stobae. Serm. 165. . And that Example in Herodotus where five Cities of jonia 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 
(m) Herodot. lib. 1. Clio. pag. 69. . And we may find instances wherein Men were also excommunicated for other crimes; such as unlawful Lusts 
(n)— 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 
(o) Aelian de animal. lib. xi. c. 3. . We need not instance in any more particulars, for Plutarch reports That Apollo did command Murderers and all wicked Persons to go out of his Temple 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 
(q)— procul, o, procul este profani, Conclamat vates, totoque absistite luco. Virgil. Aen. 6. , as Virgil declares in the Sacrifice of Proserpina, using the very same words, as Brissonius' notes 
(r) Brisson. de sormul. lib. 1. pag. 2. , which of old were used by the Greeks on the same account 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Callim. him. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. him. 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 always 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 
(t) 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 
(u) Et procul hinc moneo, procul hinc ●u●ecunque 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 cried 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 
(w) 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 Emperor Antoninus, that he went to these Sacrifices in the Temple of Ceres at Athens 
(x) 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 
(y) 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 public Assemblies 
(z) 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 
(a) Vide Luciani Pseudomant. pag. 489. ; for they falsely 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 
(b) 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 
(c) 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 public Person stand not to their Decrees, they forbidden 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 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 
(d) 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 
(e) 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 mere 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 
(f) 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 
(g) 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 Privilege was taken away, the less would follow of itself: So that we may conclude, That the Druids and Germane 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 Lawgiver of the Germans, allowed none but the Priests to execute, bind, or chastise Malefactors, that so Men might not only take it for a Corporal Penalty by the Prince's command, but as due Vengeance from the Gods 
(h) Aventin. Annal. l. 1. p. 12. . Wherefore Excommunication was then thought a sadder Penalty than Stripes, Imprisonment, or Death itself. Which Opinion of these poor Barbarians, will rise up in Judgement 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 persuade us there is no other Foundation of Church Censures, but only this light of Natural Reason, and the Practice of the Greeks and Romans 
(i) Vid. Selden de Synedriis, l. 1. c. 10. p. 224. , I shall now proceed to show 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 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 God's 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 Judgement 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 Highpriest 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 Japhet into the Tents of Sem, the designed Highpriest of the true God, and leaves Cham and his Race out of that blessed Privilege, Genes. viij. 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 shows 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 Priest's direction, and then they were admitted in again, and restored to their former Privileges (see Levit. xiii, xiv, xv.) by the Priest's 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 Privileges; 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 Forerunner of the Gospel Censures: And these natural Diseases and External Pollutions were plain Emblems of those moral Impurities, 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 public detestation 
(k) Grot. Comunent. in Luc. vi. 22. . And on this account some think David did abstain from the Public 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, etc. 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 publicly 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. xuj. 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 terrify others from the like Crimes: Or at least, he did lay such loathsome 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, and cut them off from both civil and religious Conversation, as may be particularly seen in the case of Leprosy; 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 Public 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 
(l) 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 show 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 public 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 Apostatised from God's Law 
(m) 2 Paral. xxvi. 18. LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ; and he not valuing the Interdict, was immediately smitten by the Lord with Leprosy, and so forced to go hastily out of the Temple, and he remained separated from all Civil Society, and from the Public Worship also until the day of his death 
(n) Ver. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. : For the Text expressly 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. seven. ver. 3. The Jewish Doctors also affirm, That David was smitten with Leprosy 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 
(o) Psal. li. ver. 11, 12. Munster. . And thence he prays to be purged with hyssop 
(p) Ver. 7. see Levit. xiv. 6. . And that this is not a mere 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 expressly, 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 Public Worship also, seems plain from Psal. xlii. ver. 2, 4. etc. 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 ask, 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 Paralytic 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 men's 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 threatening Diseases to those who transgressed his Law, Deuter. xxviii. 27, 28, 35, etc. 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 People's 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 Judgements 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 profanation, 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 shown it was the will of God that notorious Sinners should be excluded; they did the work, and served to the ends of Excommunication; they bond 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 
(q) Isa. xxxviii. ver. 22. , and also a warning not to offend again 
(r) 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 Supreme Ruler and Lawgiver, 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. nineteen. 8. The Highpriest was the first Person in the Sanhedrim, ibid. ver. 11. And the determining of all Controversies, and punishing all Offences was principally in them 
(s) Deut. xvii. 9, 12. ; so that the King himself was to advise with the Priest in all matters 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Murder, 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 betrothed Woman, Deut. xxii. 21, 22, 23, etc. 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 
(u) Neque necessarium eis visum est, ut adhiberetur excommunicatio quamdiu sui erant juris. Seld. de Synedriis lib. 1. c. 7. p. 77. . This stiffnecked and rebellious People were not to be reform 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 
(w) 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 utique 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) merely for fear of bodily punishment, which was inflicted without mercy on those who by two or three Witnesses were proved to have despised Moses' Law, Hebr. x. 28. Yet as the Apostle there notes, those who despise this gentle Method shall have a sorer punishment, even a dreadful Judgement executed on them by God at last, ver. 27, 29, 30, etc. Wherefore there being so apparent difference between the state of things under the Law, and under the Gospel, it is not to be wondered 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 something 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 shows, 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 Anathematising, or Cursing them 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Maccab. v. 5. . So Jezabel being executed, is called A cursed Woman 
(y) 2 Kings ix. 34. . And when Saul had pronounced this Cherem upon all that eat that day, Jonathan falling under that Curse, must have died if the People had not rescued him 
(z) 1 Sam. xiv. 45. . Which makes it not unlikely, that before the Malefactor was put to death, some Curse was solemnly denounced on him, by which he was cut off from the Privileges of God's People. If it be objected to this, That we Christians have Civil Magistrates who do thus punish Malefactors with Death, and so we need not Ecclesiastical Censures now, any more than the Jews did: I shall reply with the most Judicious and Learned Grotius, whose words are, This Argument taken from the Jews, is of no force: For their Law for Penalties was wholly accommodated to a Carnal People, and all were equally obliged by it, so that the Commonwealth and Church there, was all one: But the Laws of Christ do require more, than either is or can be required of the Subjects of any worldly Empire. The most men mind evil things, and the Civil Laws do their Office if they restrain great Crimes, and such as most hurt the Public 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, aught to judge: Wherefore Constantine and the following Emperors, did rightly leave the Church its proper Judicatory, and confirmed it by their Laws 
(a) Grot. in Luc. vi. 22. . Which apposite place I could not but transcribe at large, to show the weakness of those, who (not considering the different circumstances of the Jews) do impose their Methods upon the Christian Church. And this may show 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 shows 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 extremely in this difference, between the proceeding of the Ancient Jews and the Modern Christians, and use this variety, as an Artifice to persuade the World that our Censures are not of Divine Institution, and to wrest all Authority out of the Church's 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 show it to be Fallacious; and that even while the Jewish Polity stood, there were Evidences enough to convince any unprejudiced Man, that it was always God's will, scandalous Offenders should be punished by those who had the ordering of Religion.  
But thirdly, After the Jewish Commonwealth was subverted, and their Government altered by the Babylonian Captivity, and afterwards when they were in subjection to the Romans, and had lost the power of the Temporal Sword, than they were obliged to make a frequenter use of Excommunication, and came nearer to the Form of the Christian Church, as we shall now show. 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 Supreme Powers 
(b) Idem in Luc. vi. 22. . So that though it be not true (which Mr. Selden affirms) that there were no Instances of this Rite (for we have showed in Miriam, Uzziah, and Benjamin there were some Examples) yet there were indeed far more Instances afterwards: For Ezra the Priest, on the Return from the Captivity, doth denounce an Excommunication against all that should not appear within three days to put away the strange Wives they had taken, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and the Penalty agreed upon between him and the Princes, was, That he who did not come up to Jerusalem, all his Goods should be forfeited (which seems to be the Civil Sanction) and himself should be separated from the Congregation of the Captivity (which was the Ecclesiastical Censure) Ezra 10.8. where we see the Commonwealth and the Church agreed in this matter. And the Interpreter of Josephus, in this Story hath kept the very word, he shall be Excommunicated 
(c) Ut excommunicetur, bonaque ejus sacro aerario addicantur. Joseph. Ant. l. xi. c. 5. ex interp. Gelen. pag. 29. , which is the sense of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he shall be made a Stranger; that is, cut off from the Communion of the Church, and be treated as an Heathen, according to our Saviour's description of the Excommunicate under the Gospel, whom we are to account as Heathens or Publicans, if they fall under the Censures of the Church for their Contumacy. Nehemiah also, who was the chief Ruler of the returning Jews in a General Assembly, wherein there were many of the Priests, did make the Congregation enter into a Curse and an Oath to walk in the Law of God; that is, saith Mr. Selden; They denounced an Excommunication against the breakers thereof, Nehem. x. 29. Aben Ezra also understands that Curse pronounced against those who had married strange Wives, Chap. xiii. 25. and the Expulsion of the High-Priests Grandchild, 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 judgement could be executed on them, they ought to repent and undertake to live better; but if the fear of God will not engage them to do this, we put them under an Anathema, and separate them from our Company according to that of Ezra x. 8. 
(d) Rab. Benjamin. ap. Seld. de Synedr. lib. 1. c. 7. . And Josephus mentions such a kind of Excommunication against the Jews of Delos 
(e) Joseph. Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 17. pag. 250.  in the time of Julius Caesar: But we shall not need collect these Examples, since it is more to our purpose to consider how the Matter stood in the time of our Saviour Christ, while the Romans had Supreme 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 itself 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. 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 foretells his Disciples that the Jews would Cast them out of their Synagogues, John xuj. 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 Man's sake, Luke vi. 22. Which is a plain description of Excommunication: For this Separation is plainly Niddui 
(f) 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 rejoicers, 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 cheer 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 this House put it into thy heart to hear the words of thy Brethren, that they may receive thee 
(g) 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 Judgement, 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 Public Assemblies; yea, though the Jewish Rulers threatened 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 
(h) 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, and Death itself: 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, merely 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. nineteen. 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 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo legate. ad Cajum , and saith, They were Schools of Wisdom and Fortitude, of Modesty and Righteousness, of Piety, of Holiness, and of all Virtue. Nor is any thing more frequent in the Talmud, and those that expound it, than to mention Prayers made in the Synagogues 
(k) Glos. in Baeb. Beracoth. fol. 2. col. 1. ; So Maimonides tells us, Wherever 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 
(l) Maimon. Tephil. cap. two. . And he saith it is forbidden for Men to pass by a Synagogue at the hours of Prayer 
(m) Idem ibid. cap. 6. . And again, Let every man go Morning and Evening to the Synagogue, and if any Man who hath a Synagogue in his City, prays not in it with the Congregation, he is an evil Neighbour 
(n) Maim. Tephil. cap. 8. Et Baeb. Berac. fol. 8. . And about our Saviour's time we are told there were 480 in Jerusalem; yea unto this day the Jews have Synagogues for Prayer and Religious Worship in all Cities where they are tolerated; for of these Buxtorf saith, They have Synagogues or Schools; so they call their Churches 
(o) Synagogas aut Scholas (ita nimirum vocant Templa ipsorum) habent. Buxt. Synag. c. 5.  where they always meet (saith he) at the appointed hours of Prayer, and there they perform their Prayers according to the directions of their Books 
(p) Idem ibid. . Which constant use of the Jews in calling the Places for their Religious Assemblies Synagogues, gave occasion to Christians also to call their Churches by the very same name; so S. James speaks of one coming into the Christian Synagogue 
(q) James two. 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 Governor, 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 administering Civil Justice: And hence Mr. Selden would infer the Civil Magistrates Power in Excommunication, and that this holy Interdict itself was chief, 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 chief 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 meddling 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 Public Temple, they sacrificed in private by themselves 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antiq. l 18. c. 2. . Yea, the Custom of these Essenes' among those of their own Sect, shows that the Excommunication then in use among them, was an Exclusion from both Religious and Civil Commerce; For if any of them were taken in any great Fault, they cast him out of their Society 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jos. Bell. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 7. ; and none of them would ever come near him after this Censure, under which he commonly died miserably. Athanasius also relates how the chief Priests and Elders at Berytus did excommunicate that Jew, and cast him out of their Synagogue, with whom an Image of our Saviour was found 
(u) Athanas. Tom. 2. p. 628. . And not to search for more Examples, the usage of the Modern Jews derived from their Fathers, doth abundantly prove that Excommunication was a deprivation of Communion in Sacred Offices; For when any is disobedient, They curse him, and declare him openly to be excommunicated, and in this Case it is not lawful for any to speak to him, or to come within four yards of him, neither may he come into the Synagogue or School, but he is to sit upon the Ground with his shoes off, as if he mourned for some of his dead Kindred; and this he must do till he be absolved by the Rabbins, and shall have received their Benediction. And if it be the solemn and grand Excommunication, then do all the People repair to the School, lighting black Torches and sounding Horns, they Curse him that shall do, or hath done such a thing: and all the Children and the People answer Amen; Leo Moden. History of the present Jews, Chap. 3. pag. 70. Which last Passage minds me of the second degree of Excommunication, called Cherem, which was not only a separating the Person from Religious and Civil Commerce, but declaring him Accursed; yea, they did actually Curse him, and wish dreadful Evils might befall him: Which kind of Anathema the Jews in their Synagogues uttered against Christ and all Christians, as Justin Martyr at large relates in divers places 
(w) Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 323, 335, & 363. ; yea, Epiphanius saith that the Jews in their Synagogue, twice a Day, at Noon and at Evening, did Curse and Anathematise the Christians, saying, O God, Curse these Nazarites 
(x) Epiphan. Panar. Sect. 29. p. 55. S. Hierom saith they did it thrice a day. Com. in Isai. v. 18. . And the like anathemas they pronounced against all those who read their Law in the Greek Tongue, till Justinian did forbid this by a particular Constitution yet extant in the Books of the Civil Law 
(y) Justin. Auth. Collat. ix. Tit. 29. Nou. 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 itself 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. xuj. 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 Judgement, Hebr. x. 27. Yea some Learned Men suppose that Enoch did thus excommunicate the wicked Wretches of his Generation, when he could not convert them by his Preaching; for his Prophecy gins with Maran-atha 
(z) Judas 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 College 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 itself pure 
(a) Grot. in Luc. vi. 22. p. 379. . But we need not fly to that refuge, for none can deny but that our Lord appointed his Apostles to call and convert a Society out of the World, and that he made them the Governors of this Society, giving them Rules to govern it by, and promising to be with them and their Successors to the end of the World, Matth. xxviii. 20. And since he conferred this Office on them, we must inquire 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. xuj. 15, 16. our Lord declares that he had made good his Name of Peter (signifying a Rock) in laying this sure Foundation, and assures him he would build his Church upon this Rock, that is, this Confession of Faith in Christ the Rock of Ages 
(b) Super hanc Petram firmae fidei. Epiphan. haer. Catarrh. 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 shows 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 lose 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. three 15. Ephes. two. 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 household of God by Baptism, and so making them Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to exclude men out of this household by Excommunication for notorious and scandalous Offences, and consequently to deprive them of the Privileges which belonged to them while they were regular Members of God's Family. And as a Prince, when he makes a Deputy or Viceroy, usually declares in his Commission, That what he doth in such a Province in his Name, and by his Power, the Prince will ratify and confirm: So our Saviour here tells Peter, and in him the rest of the Apostles, that whatever he binds or loses 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 losing) be somewhat harsh, the Exposition of S. Chrysostom doth well reconcile that difference; for he supposes the Power of a Viceroy to be here signified 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in loc. ; and as he can Lock up Men in Prison, or Release them according as they deserve, and hath the Power of the Keys committed to him, to separate the Innocent from the mischievous: So Christ here gives his Apostles like Authority in order to the well governing of his Church; only this is no Temporal Coercive Power, as many other Texts of the New Testament do declare, but a Spiritual Power suitable to the nature and ends of this Sacred Society. This being therefore the plain and natural Sense of the place, it is clear that our Lord did here give his Apostles a Commission, as well to exclude notorious Criminals out of his Church by Excommunication, as to readmit them upon their Repentance, promising to confirm their Acts so long as they judged by his Rules; and this may well be reckoned a proof that Excommunication is of Divine Institution. I confess this Text hath been strained too high by the Romanists, who though they cannot easily prove themselves Peter's Successors, yet would gladly ground their unjust claim to a Universal Monarchy over the whole Church upon this weak pretence, That Peter himself is the Rock on which Christ was to build his Church, and that this Privilege of the Keys is granted only to him and his Successors at Rome; which others have largely and learnedly confuted. And I need only say, That some of their own Communion, a few Ages since, did confess This Power was given not to Peter only, but to all the Apostles, yea to all the Clergy and the whole Church 
(d) Haec autem ligandi & solvendi potestas quamvis soli Petro data videatur, à Domino tamen & caeteris Apostolis datur, necnon etiam in Episcopis & Presbyteris toti Ecclesiae. Raban. Maurus. . And our Saviour himself (to anticipate this unjust Claim) doth afterwards twice grant the same Power to all the Apostles, which here he seems only to give to S. Peter, Matth. xviii. 18. John xx. 21, 22. Yet this false Gloss of the Romanists, with the wild and extravagant Inferences deduced from thence, hath put some Learned Protestants into the other extreme, 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 losing signify nothing else but determining what things are lawful, and these are said to be loosed; and what things are unlawful, which are said to be bound 
(e) Gamero in loc item Lightfoot horae Hebr. in Matth. . But we must not let the Sense of the Fathers, and the Power of the Keys to be at once wrested out of our hands by this Novel fancy: For first, the place cannot bear this Sense, since it is ridiculous to affirm that Christ gave his Apostles such a Power, That whatever they declared or taught to be unlawful on Earth, should be unlawful in Heaven, and whatever they taught was lawful, God would make that lawful; this were to give them a power which God himself never did assume, viz. to change the eternal and unalterable Rules of Good and Evil: And besides, in the parallel place where these words are repeated by Christ, Matth. xviii. 18. they are applied to Offenders refusing to Repent upon the Church's admonition; which obstinate sinners are to be avoided as Heathens and Publicans by private Christians; and if they value not this, as being an Act only of their Equals, Christ supposes his Apostles will then bind them by Excommunication, and to show 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 signify only Teaching; yea, after our Lord's Resurrection, he (who is the best expounder of his own meaning) declares that binding and losing signifies remitting or retaining of sins, John xx. 21. and turns the Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. into Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. Again, since the Misna, which is the oldest part of the Talmud, was written 150 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, which is later than any Canonical part of the New Testament 
(e) Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. lib. 2. pag. 148. , those Learned Men above mentioned ought not to expound the more ancient Phrases of the Gospel by these Talmudical expressions, yet even in the Talmud, Binding and Losing is often used for Excommunicating and Absolving 
(f) R. Samuel status cornu ligat, et flatus cornu solvit. Talm. Bab. Moed Katon c. 3. fol. 16. Os quod solvit, est, os quod ligat. Tract. Demai. cap. 6. §. 11. , which is the more obvious and natural Sense of the Words; and because the doing things forbidden by the Rabbins caused Men to be Excommunicated or Bound by this Censure, Therefore by a Trope the things themselves were said to be Bound: So that we may conclude, That our Saviour doth actually here give Authority to his Apostles, and to their lawful Successors, to shut Men, who are scandalously wicked, out of his Church, and to let them in again upon their Repentance, declaring their Sentence shall be ratified in Heaven. And thus the Ancients generally expound this place; and from thence they frequently speak of the Power of the Keys given by Christ to the Church, in order to the Excommunicating and Absolving of Sinners: Of which, because there are innumerable Instances, one or two shall suffice 
(g) Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro, i. e. potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata. Aug. Tract. 124 in Johan. Cum excommunicate Ecclesia, ligatur in Coelo excommunicatus. Aug. in Psal. 108. Vid. Ambros. de poenit. l. 1. c. 6. , that so Reason and Authority both may show 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 lose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven; the very same words with those spoken to Peter, Chap. xuj. 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, than 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. two. 12. nor yet suffer them to come into that Court of the Temple where they were wont to pray, Acts xxi. 28. for on the Gate was written, Let no Stranger go into the Holy Place 
(h) Joseph. Bell. Jud. lib. 6. cap. 14. . That is, they must no longer count this Man a Member of the Christian Church, nor call him a Brother, but esteem him as a Pagan, and one who never yet was admitted; or a Publican, who for living in open Sins was cast out, and with such a Man, the rest of the sound Christians were not to have any Commerce in Civil or Religious Matters. But if all this will neither shame nor terrify 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, etc. ver. 18. And because Christ was to be in Heaven, he assures them ver. 19 & 20. That whatever Public 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 itself. To which Grotius replies, That Christian Tribunals do not take away the power of judging from the Church, because the Civil Laws do only punish the grosser Crimes, and such as are most contrary to Civil Societies, but there are many Offences against Charity, Meekness and Patience, not forbid by the Civil Laws, but only by Christ's Laws, by which the Church judgeth; so that Constantine and his Successors did well to leave this power of Judging to the Church, and to confirm it by their Laws, as may be seen in the Acts of the Councils, and in the Code 
(i) Grot. Com. in Luc. vi. 22. . To which I shall add, That Christ here speaks not only of Injuries, but of all kinds of Sins which are called Scandals or Offences, because they may be an occasion of our brethren's falling into Apostasy or evil Practices if these go unpunished; and many Sins must be unpunished, if none be taken notice of, but those which the Civil Laws forbidden 
(k) Rom. xiv. 13. 1 Cor. viij. 10. , and therefore Scandals and Trespasses are used promiscuously 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. xviii. 7. but ver. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So also 1 Cor. viij. 12. : So that many evil things which are scandalous, and offend weak Christians, are still to be punished by the Church; and since the ends of Church Censures are to bring the Offender to Repentance, to clear the Church from the blot contracted by this Crime, and to warn others not to follow so ill an Example, and the nature of them is more gentle and more spiritual than the Civil Punishments, doubtless they may well subsist together in the same Nation, without subverting one another. Secondly, The Learned Mr. Selden seeks many Glosses for those words, Tell the Church, which he sometimes expounds of the Jewish Magistrates in the Synagogue, and sometimes of the whole Assembly, manifestly designing to take this Power out of the Bishop's 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 easy 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 expressly, that by the Church here, is meant the Governors of the Church 
(l) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 69. in Matth. Tom. II. p. 385.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theoph.  , whom Theophilact agrees with: And St. Augustine expressly affirms, That it is the Governors of the Church which have received this power from Christ, in this place of St. Matthew xviii. 17, 18. 
(m) Augustin. de Civ. Dei lib. 20. c. 9 p. 213. . And common Speech confirms this explication of the Fathers; for we say, He complains to the City, who complains to the Governors of it. But our Saviour puts it past all dispute, that he intended this Power only for his Apostles and their Successors, because to them, and no other, he grants a Commission to remit and retain sins, John xx. 23. '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 Governor, 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 joining 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 Governors 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 Privilege, we may read the fulfilling of them, when Christ ordained the Apostles for Governors 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 losing without a Metaphor, saying, Whosesoever Sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained, ver. 23. Which place evidently makes them Judges under Christ concerning such Offences as are committed by those in the Church, so that if they should find any Man obstinate in his evil ways, they might retain his Sins, that is, declare him unfit for, and unworthy of pardon, and consequently of the Church's Communion, wherein forgiveness is to be obtained; and while the Offender remains impenitent Christ declares his Gild remains on him, and his Sin shall not be pardoned: But if the party submit and repent, so that the Governors of the Church judge him sincere, and take off this Sentence, by declaring him penitent, than 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 order's sake, where the Offence is public, 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 Governors of the Church: And while there are Offences and Offenders in the Church (as there will be to the World's end) this Power must remain in the Church Governors 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 Emperors Edicts, which allowed the Jews liberty to observe their own Rites 
(n) Selden. Syned. c. 8. p. 120. . For though we grant that the Christians did for some few years after our Lord's Resurrection observe some of the Jewish Ceremonies, and were by the Gentile Writers grossly mistaken for a Sect of the same Religion many years after, yet they had a distinct Name within Ten years after Christ's Resurrection 
(o) Baron. Annal. Eccles. An. 43. , and were long before that Excommunicated and persecuted by the Jews, Acts viij. 1. Chap. ix. 2. and the Synod at Jerusalem had declared that the Gentile Converts need not observe the Ceremonial Law; So that the Christians were a distinct Society, and had Officers of their own, and Assemblies proper to themselves; and these Officers did exercise a Jurisdiction over them, and openly declared they derived their Power, not from the Jews, but from Christ, 2 Cor. x. 8. 1 Cor. v. 4. So that it is ridiculous to assert, That the right of Apostolical Excommunication was from the Jews, & there is a vast difference between their imitating some of the Jewish Forms or Customs in the exercise of these Censures, and their deriving a right from them, even as the Church of England doth imitate some of the Forms of the Roman Church in her Excommunications; but it doth not follow therefore that she derives her Right to excommunicate from the Pope or the Church of Rome. And for the Edicts of the Emperors 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 mere 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 Apostolic 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 Sacrilege of Ananias and Saphira, which was joined with a hope to deceive the Holy Ghost which dwelled in the blessed Apostle, and that our Lord might make his Officers Rebukes more dreadful, an immediate Judgement 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 baptised, Acts viij. 13. but it seems he had dissembled with God and Men, and only designed to make a gain of the Power of Miracles, which he vilely offered Money for, as if it had been only an Art which might be bought and sold; whereupon S. Peter declares him accursed, ver. 20. saying, His Money and he should perish together: By which Phrase he intimates, he was (as the Jews speak) under Cherem, and that he might separate him from the Church, he declares ver. 21. Thou hast neither part nor lot with us in this matter: which are the very words of the Tribes beyond Jordan, who express their fear of their Posterity being rejected from Communion with the other Tribes because of their distance, by this very Phrase, They will say unto them, Ye have no part in the Lord 
(p) Josh. xxii. 5. Cal. Par. Non estis inter quos est verbi divini Communitas. LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . And in the like form of Speech, the Bond of Society in Civil Matters was declared void, 2 Sam. nineteen. 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 shows, 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 show he did this for his Amendment, he still exhorts him to Repentance, ver. 22. & 23. Upon which the Offender immediately submits, and fearing some Judgement 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 Arabic Manuscripts, which in the Form of Excommunication say, Let him be accursed and excommunicated, as Peter excommunicated Simon Magus 
(q) Seld Synedr. l. 1. c. 8. p. 119. . The next Example is that of the Incestuous Corinthian, 1 Corinth. v. 1, 2. who had scandalously married his Father's Wife, yet the Church of Corinth connived at this notorious Crime, and had high thoughts of themselves, though this gross Scandal had been done among them, whereas they ought rather to have lamented the deplorable condition of the Sinner, and cast him out of their Church by Excommunication; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and ver. 13. doth not signify to take him away by death, but to drive or take him away from assembling with them: Only because this was a kind of Spiritual death, therefore the Ancient Church use to inflict this Censure with weeping and lamenting over the Offender, as if he had been really dead 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. constit. lib. 2.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. in Cells. lib. 3. p. 142. , which was not unlike the Custom of the Pythagoreans, who set a Coffin in the place of him that had forsaken their School. And if the Corinthians had been thus truly sensible of the sad estate of this vile Wretch, they would no doubt have cut him off from their Body as a common Annoyance, (as 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophilact.  Theophilact speaks) or as a gangrened 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 Public Worship in Christ's Name (for these Censures, as we noted before, were inflicted in Public 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 Judgement. As to which Phrase of delivering to Satan, it is certainly meant of Excommunication, both here and 1 Timoth. i 20. for as by Baptism Men were delivered from the power of Satan, Acts xxvi. 18. whence those Primitive Exorcisms and solemn Renunciations of the Devil: So when Apostates and Evil men broke this Covenant, and were cast out of the Church again, they were as it were delivered back to Satan, they became as Heathens, Matth. xviii. 17. and were under the Dominion of the Prince of Darkness: Yet to show 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. two. 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 enjoined them to avoid the company and conversation of Fornicators; that is, that the Church should Censure them, and the People have no Conversation with them; but he now explains himself, that he means not this should be extended to the Jews or Pagans, who were no professed Christians, and so not liable to its Discipline, and by whose Faults no Scandal could fall on the Church; but he now tells them who are to be Excommunicated and avoided, viz. those who pretend they are Christians, and yet are Fornicators, Covetous, Idolaters, Railers, Drunkards and Extortioners 
(t) Habes hic praecipuas excommunicationiz causas. Grot. in locum. , with these (though through the Schisms at Corinth, the Bishop could not so well Excommunicate them) the faithful People must not so much as eat a common Meal, and sure much more not admit them to their Religious Worship, and eat with them at the Lords Table, ver. 11. Now if any say S. Paul is partial in being more severe against Christians than Strangers, for the same Crimes; he answereth, ver. 12. That his Commission extended not to them that were without, they were to be left to God's Judgement; 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' Law, and by the LXX. often rendered in the Masculine Gender 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, LXX. Deut. xvii. 17. xxi. 21. xxiv. 7. Haec itaque est vera lectio hujus loci non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod D. Seldeno placet. , yet sometimes in the Neuter 
(w) Deut. nineteen. 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, than 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. two. 6. 
(x) Origen in Psal. xxxvii. Ambros. Hieron. Theoph. in loc. ) who had grieved the Church of Corinth, was exceedingly grieved himself, and in danger to be swallowed up of too much sorrow; wherefore S. Paul desires his Censure may be taken off, declaring that this public Reproof and severe Sentence 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. two. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocantur Poenae Canonicae in Act. Consiliorum, & ap. Chrysost. de Sacerd. Grot.  in the presence of the whole Congregation, having brought him to Repentance was a sufficient Penalty; and now he requires them to forgive him, and grant him Absolution, ver. 7. expecting they should obey him in all his Orders, as well the former for censuring, as these for absolving, ver. 9 First, Because in all his Orders he had respect unto their good: And secondly, Because he commanded them by the Authority, and as the Ambassador of Christ, who (in all these Judicial Acts of Excommunicating and Absolving) did represent the Person of Christ himself 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver. 10. Non in mea persona sed Christi qui dixit, Quaecunque solveritis in terra erant soluta in Coelo. Hieron. Ut factum Apostoli factum sit Christi. Ambros. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. , who had given this Commission to his Apostles, That whatsoever they should bind on Earth, should be bound in Heaven: So the Fathers expound this Phrase in the Person of Christ: And we may observe, That as S. Paul did Cast him out of the Church, not by their common Suffrages, (as S. Ambrose speaks) but with the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, by his Authority and Sentence, whose Ambassador on Earth the Apostle was 
(a) Ambros. Comment. in 1 Cor. v. p. 358. ; So he restores him again (upon his Repentance) not by any Suffrage of the Church Members, but by Christ's Authority, and as his Representative, which shows that the People are merely witnesses in this Case, but the Governors of the Church only act by Authority: The People's presence tends to the Solemnity, not to the validity of Excommunication or Absolution, which in this Instance are both plainly founded by S. Paul upon a Divine Authority, and deduced from that Commission granted by Christ to his Apostles, and consequently to their Successors. I have been the larger on this, because it is a fair Precedent drawn by the Hand of an Apostle, of the Practice of these two great Points of Jurisdiction, and a clear Commentary upon our Saviour's Commission, as well as a strong Proof that Church Censures are of Divine Right. Many other Expressions there are in these Epistles relating to this Matter (which we will only briefly remark) viz. all those which speak of S. Paul's coming to them in sorrow 
(b) 2 Cor. two. 1, 2, 3, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. , and making them sorry; that is, by ordering Offenders to be censured, which Act was always 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 repent 
(c) 2 Cor. xii. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Teoph. Eugere, dicitur, pro excommunicare. Grot. in 3 Cor. v. 2. ; which the Ancients expound of Excommunicating them. And in that sense we are to understand those places where S. Paul speaks of making them sorry with an Epistle, 2 Cor. seven. 8. and of the godly sorrow which worketh Repentance to Salvation, not to be repent of, ver. 10. Again, To this belongeth that Authority which made him ready to revenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. x. 6. which he calls The Authority which the Lord had given him for edification, and not for destruction, ver. 8. For whereas the Temporal Sword destroys the Criminals, these Spiritual Censures are designed to bring Offenders to Repentance and Salvation; and therefore the Apostle useth this Phrase again, Chap. xiii. 10. where having (as our Saviour directed, Matth. xviii. 15, 16.) admonished them twice by his Epistles, he assures them, that when he comes (which would be the third Application made to them.) He will not spare the Impenitent, 1 Cor. xiii. 2. but would use sharpness or severity, ver. 10. 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. vid Tit. i. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theoph.  that is, proceed immediately to Excommunicate them, according to that Power wherewith Christ had invested him, for edification and not for destruction: For which cause they ought not to think much at this Power which Christ had given the Governors 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 show this was no rash, but a deliberate Judicial Act, he repeats it ver. 9 And here it will be seasonable to inquire into the Sense of this word Anathema, so often used concerning Excommunication 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 
(f) Josh. seven. 1. Deut. seven. 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 Anathematised; but this is done for different reasons: None will come near the holy Gift, because it is Consecrated to God; but all men separate from the Excommunicated, as being unholy and alienated from God 
(g) ap. Theoph. in Rom. ix. 3. & ipse Chrysost. hom. 16. in 9 Rom. ita etiam Theodor. in loc. . And Theodoret notes that Anathema signifies not only that which is offered to God, but that which is alienated from him; and in the latter Sense he applies it to Excommunication, which Alienates men from the Common Body of the Church; and as S. Chrysostom speaks, Separates them from all, and alienates them from all, in Rom. 9 And in this Sense those who Apostatised 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 Countrymen, 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 thundered forth against all That love not the Lord Jesus, Let them be Anathema Maran-atha, 1 Cor. xuj. 22. only there is added an intimation, That the Lord will come and take Vengeance on those who are thus Accursed deservedly by the Church for corrupting the Faith: But of this Maran-atha we spoke 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 leveled 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 Catholic and Apostolic Church Anathematizes the Arrians: And the first Council at Constantinople pronounces an Anathema against every Heresy 
(h) Conc. Constant. Can. I. Bever. Tom. I. p. 85. : So doth the Council of Gangra close every Canon with this Anathema 
(i) Conc. Gangrenes. 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 Heresy: For Hymenaeus was an Heretic, 2 Tim. two. 17. denying the Futurity of the Resurrection; and Alexander had made Shipwreck 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 Anathematising, we may learn from Balsamon and Zonaras, who say that an Anathema is nothing else but a kind of dedicating one to Satan 
(l) Anathema dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Praef. ad Concil. Gangr. . And more largely, Such an one is an Anathema, that is separated from God: For as that which is offered to God is called an Anathema, and is separated from common uses; so he who is Anathematised, is torn off and cast out from the Society of the Faithful, who belong to God, and from God himself, and is set apart for the Devil, or rather sets himself apart for him 
(m) Zonar. in Can. 3. Goncil. Constant. Bever. Tom. I. p. 363. & Balsamon ibid. . And for this Exposition they cite the Apostle S. Paul in the places before produced. But because some late Authors would have this delivering to Satan, peculiar to the Apostles times; I shall grant, that the being seized with Diseases, which was the miraculous effect of it, was peculiar to those first Ages, while these wonderful and supernatural Penalties were necessary for confirming the New-planted Gospel; but the Title which Satan hath to such as are deservedly Excommunicated for Heresy 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 easy Prey to Satan: Such is the Punishment of Excommunication 
(n) Theophylact. in 1 Tim. i 20. . For the Devil is always ready to take those into his Power who are alienated from God, saith S. Ambrose 
(o) Ambros. Com. in eundem loc. . And so dreadful a thing was it accounted in the Primitive Times to be thus Anathematised and delivered to Satan, That they generally used these anathemas 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 Anathematise the most notorious Criminals, and the Ringleaders of Heresy, 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. xuj. 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 not fixed Government of the Church at Rome; if there had, S. Paul had ordered these to be Excommunicated, which not being in the People's power, all they could do was to avoid them. The like Rules the Apostle gives to the Thessalonians, whom he commands in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ to withdraw themselves from every Brother who walketh disorderly, 2 Thess. iii. 6. which being pronounced so solemnly in Christ's Name, and by his Authority, is a kind of general Sentence of Excommunication, upon which they were to avoid such men's Company. So again, ver. 14. He who obeyed not the Apostles Orders, they were to signify his name to S. Paul in an Epistle 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 14.  of Complaint, and by forbearing to hold any Communion with him, shame him into amendment: Yet not to hate him during this his Separation and Exclusion, but to admonish him, that if possible he might be reduced before he was utterly cut off from being a Brother. For these Admonitions did regularly precede the Solemn Excommunication, as we learn from S. Paul's directions to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, where the Bishop was openly before all the Congregation, to rebuke notorious Offenders for a terror to others, 1 Tim. v. 20. And if this would not prevail, but he was forced to Excommunicate them, he than enjoins 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 repent, lest he should make himself liable to other men's sins, ver. 22. In like manner S. Paul advises Titus his Vicegerent and Successor in Crete, concerning those Jewish Seducers who subverted many, and concerning those Cretians who were seduced by them, To rebuke them sharply 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Titus i 13. See 1 Cor. xiii. 10. , that they might be sound in the Faith: And more plainly, Chap. iii. 10. he commands him, After the first and second Admonition, to reject a Man that is an Heretic: which is a direction for depriving him of the Communion of the Church, since whomsoever the Bishop did reject, he was necessarily excluded from Divine Offices, and all the Faithful, who cleaved always to their Bishop, renounced such a Man's Consersation, for in so doing they observed our Saviour's Order, that when any would not hear the Church, they should count him as an Heathen man and a Publican, Matth. xviii. 17. which was the Case of an obstinate Heretic 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 enjoined (by the Apostles) with notorious Criminals not 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. two. 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 gangrened 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 expressly forbids the Faithful to show 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 Heretics, 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' Epistles 
(r) Synesij Epist. 58. p. 503. , and in the Capitulars 
(s) Capitul. Francor. lib. 5. cap. 42. p. 96. , and we may be sure, if they would not pray for them in way of usual Civility, they would not endure them in their Houses of Prayer; it being recorded of this S. John, That he leapt out of the Bath unwashed, when he saw Cerinthus the Heretic come in thither 
(t) Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. . And truly it was useful and safe for the Orthodox Christians thus totally to renounce all Conversation with these Seducers, whose words might easily infect them if once they held communication with them. But if any Scruple yet remain concerning the excluding the excommunicated from Religious Assemblies, and consequently from Prayers and Sacraments in the time of the Apostles, the Instance of Diotrephes will sufficiently remove it; for he bearing himself as a Bishop, would not communicate with those who came from S. John, and if any did hold Communion with them, he Cast them out of the Church, 3 Epist. S. John, ver. 10. or Excommunicated them, by forbidding them to come into the Christian Assemblies, and denying to them the participation of Divine Offices, which was the principal part of the Penalty in that Exclusion: And his doing this to such as he counted false-Teachers, and Men walking disorderly, shows 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 Heresy, 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 Governors were ready to Absolve him, and take him in again: which being the Pattern of our Excommunication, proves it to be of Divine Right.  
§. II. By what is Recorded in S. Paul's Epistle to Timothy and Titus, it doth appear, That the Apostles communicated that Power of hearing Complaints, and of rebuking and censuring Offenders, which they had received from Christ, unto those Persons whom they fixed as Bishops in the Churches they had planted. And it was necessary they should do so, because otherwise they had not invested them with sufficient Power to discharge their Duty, nor to keep the Churches committed to them in good order. And as an undoubted Proof that the Primitive Bishops, who succeeded the Apostles, had this Authority vested in them, we shall now show, 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 Baptised by the Disciples of the Apostles at Jerusalem, yet continuing his former vain belief of Astrology, and also drawing Schemes of his own Nativity, he was admonished and rebuked by all the Doctors of the Church for this; and not amending, but rather opposing them, and contentiously disputing with them about Fate, they cast him out of the Church, as one unlikely to be saved, saith Epiphanius 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. de ponder. & mensuris. . This happened about the year of Christ 120. in the Reign of Adrian, and about twenty years after S. John's death. In which Relation we note, First, That this Censure was inflicted by the Doctors of the Church, that is, the Bishops met (perhaps in a Synod) at 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 thirty years after Cerdon the Heretic 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 
(w) Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. & ex eo Euseb. l. 4. c. 11. . Soon after came Martion 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 
(x) Epiph. Panar. l. 3. Tom. I. haeres. 42. p. 135. Tertul. de prescript. 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 Martion 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 Heretic then living at Rome, for denying the Divinity of our Saviour 
(y) 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 
(z) 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, showing 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 shows 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 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 Judgement: The Precedents of these Assemblies are divers ancient and approved Persons 
(a) 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 expressly 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 bond on Earth should be bound in Heaven, he reckons that the last dreadful Judgement 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 Dispenser's of this Discipline, and the Governors 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 Bishop's Power, expressly saith It was in his power to Excommunicate 
(b) 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 
(c) 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 
(d) 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 
(e) Non modò limine verùm omni Ecclesiae tecto submove●nus. Tert. de pudicit. c. 4. p. 557. . And Albáspinaeus hath observed, That in the first Ages of the Church, Murderers, 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 
(f) Albaspin. observ. l. 2. c. 8. etc. , and then certain years of Penance were enjoined 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 join with them in Prayers, to God 
(g) 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 
(h) 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 
(i) 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 shown its detestation of all wickedness; and it was an excellent means to bring the Sinners to a Sense of their Transgressions, and a Purpose to amend, as well as to preserve and warn the Faithful that they did not fall into the like Crimes, lest they suffered in the like kind. Soon after this, the famous Origen flourished (An. 230), Who is very clear as to the exercise of this Discipline; Affirming, That among the Christians some were ordained to inquire into the Lives and Actions of those who were admitted, and such as did unlawful things, were by these forbidden to come to their Common Assemblies 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & p p. . And their discipline was very severe towards all Sinners, especially those who were defiled with Lust, whom they drove out of their Communion, and like the Pythagoreans, lamented them as dead to God 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. in Cells 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 God's favour, and dead to all hopes of Salvation, while they remain in that estate. The same Author also, in his Homilies frequently mentions this Rite, telling us, That every unclean person is cast out of the Assembly of the Pious 
(m) Orig. hom. 8. in Leu. 12. . And though he should be concealed from the Bishop, or escape being cast out by partiality, yet he is condemned by his own Conscience 
(n) Idem hom. 12. in Leu. 21. . And elsewhere he saith, The Bishop casts one out of the Church that many may be preserved sound 
(o) Idem hom. 9 in Jesai. 13. . Yea he expressly 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 Judgement are bound on Earth, so that they are as it were bound and judged in Heaven 
(p) Idem hom. 1 in Matth. 16. . Finally, to this matter also he applies the phrase of delivering to Satan 
(q) Idem hom. 12. in Matth. 20. ; saying, The Bishop ought sometimes to use his power and deliver Sinners to Satan, for the destruction of the Flesh, that the Spirit may be saved. In all which places this learned Father plainly shows, 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 Heretic Noetius, Author of the Patripassian Blasphemy, who was cited before the Presbyters of Ephesus (they having then no Bishop, Ann. 240), and after two Admonitions, he and his Companions persisting in their Heresy, were expelled out of the Church, and he and his Brother continuing obstinate to their death, were denied Christian burial 
(r) Epiphan. Panar. lib. 2. Tom. I. haeres. 57 p. 213. . Which was another Ceremony attending these Primitive Excommunications, to show 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 Christ's stead, to whom if all Christians were obedient, none would presume (after his Consecration) to make themselves Judges, not of the Bishop, but of God 
(s)— Pulsum de Ecclesiâ esse, de quâ jampridem Dei majestate & Christi domini judicis nostri severitate depulsus est— Sacerdos ad tempus juden vice Christi, etc. vide Cypr. ad Cornel. l. I. ep. 3. . And a little after he mentions Fortunatus, Maximus, Privatus, Foelix, and Jovinus (Novatian Heretics 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 citys 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 Heretic, after the first and second Admonition reject, Titus iii. 10. So that we are not the first who have applied these places to Excommunication, but S. Cyprian did it above 1400 years ago, and his Exposition may well be more authentic than our yesterdays Critics, who would extort some other meaning from them. And since he is so clear for the Divine Right upon which Excommunication is founded, we shall not much value what interest and design hath since persuaded some to say to the Contrary. But to proceed; In his Epistle to Pomponius, the same S. Cyprian commends him for Excommunicating a Deacon and others for Fornication, telling him, That if they were obstinate, they could not on good grounds hope for Salvation; for if under the old Law, those who obeyed not the Priest were to be slain with the material Sword, doubtless by parity of reason, the Proud and Contumacious are slain with the Spiritual Sword when they are cast out of the Church; for there is no life out of it; since the House of God is but one, and there is no Salvation but in the Church 
(t) Spirituali gladio superbi & contumaces necantur, dum de Ecclesiâ ejiciuntur. Cypr. ad Pompon. l. 1. ep. 11. . Again, In his Epistle to Rogatianus, who had complained to him of one of his Deacons who had reproached and abused him, he bids him use the power of his Honourable Office against him, and either Depose him, or Excommunicate him, together with his Companion in that Crime 
(u) Fungaris circa cum potestate honoris tui, et cum vel deponas vel abstineas, etc. Cypr. ad Rogat. l. 3. ep. 9 . Another instance there is of Novatian the Heretic, 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 
(w) Novatiano nuper retuso & refutato, & per totum orbem à Sacerdotibus Dei abstento. Cypr. Stephan. lib. 3. Ep. 13. . And he advises Stephen Bishop of Rome, to send Letters into France, to declare Martion Bishop of Arles (one of Novatus his followers) Excommunicate, and that another might be put in his place 
(x) Idem, ibid. . Which passage about Novatian or Novatus (as he is sometimes called) is also in Eusebius, who saith, By a Roman Council of Sixty Bishops, and more than so many Priests, and by the Bishops of divers other Provinces in their Synods, he was declared Excommunicate 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 35. pag. 178. ; And he also mentions his Excommunication by the African Bishops, as before: Which Zonaras expresseth by his being Cast out and Anathematised 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zonar. in 8. Can. Concil. 1. Niceen. , words of the same import with the former, and implying his being declared Accursed, as well as cast out of the Church. To this we might add more out of the same Father; as where he calls Papianus his judging of his Bishop, making himself a Judge of God, and of Christ, who saith to his Apostles, and so to all Bishops that succeed them in that Office, He that heareth you heareth me 
(a) Te judicem Dei constituas, & Christi qui dicit ad Apostolos, ac per hoc ad omnes Praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ Ordinatione succedunt, etc. 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 Noah's Ark, than they may escape who are out of the Church 
(b) Cypr. lib. de simply. Praelat. . But these are sufficient to show that S. Cyprian believed the Bishops were the Apostles Successors, and Christ's 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 Bishopric of that City for Heresy, and other heinous Crimes; yea, they deprived him of the Communion of the whole Catholic Church under Heaven 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 23. pag. 205. ; and when he would not yield up his Possession to that Successor which the Council had placed in his stead, they entreated Aurelian, who was then Emperor, to compel him thereunto, who decreed the Possession should be granted to him whom the Bishops had chosen 
(d) Idem ibid. cap. 24. ; for he (though an Idolater) thought it just, that he who would not obey the Sentence of those of his own Faith, should be deprived of having any part with them 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Haeret. sab. 8. ; Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Dividend, or Share of the Profits of the Church. So that Mr. Selden might have spared that note 
(f) Seld. Synedr. l. 1. cap. 13. pag. 274. De voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid. Jul. Polluc. l. 15. c. 13. , That this looked not like an Opinion of Divine Right, for the Bishops to desire an Heathen Emperor to do that which they could not effect: For they had first rejected this Heretic according to the Power given them by Christ, and if he yet kept possession of the Church and the profits, it was no diminution of their Spiritual Power, to call in the Secular Magistrate to compel him to quit the place and temporal advantages; which is all that is meant by Eusebius his saying, That he was with extreme disgrace driven out of the Church by the Secular Power 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 7. c. 24. : But his being Excommunicated by the Council, and by the Judgement of all the Bishops, is mentioned also by Theodoret, who further observes, That Lucian, who was Paulus his Scholar in this Error, remained a long time Excommunicated for the same, viz. during the time of three Bishops 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apost. Can. 10. . I will not trouble myself to produce any more instances of the practice of this Discipline during the time that the Empire was in the hands of Heathens, only I shall note what those famous Apostolical Canons (which were undoubtedly made in this Period by the Primitive Bishops) say with respect to this matter. And first, the tenth Canon is remarkable, which saith, He that prays with an Excommunicate Person, though it be in a private House, shall be Excommunicated himself 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. 5. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Can. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 73. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 79. : By which we see that (whatever the Jewish Custom were) the Christians renounced all Communion with the Excommunicate in Religious Offices. In the rest of those Canons there is frequent mention made of Excommunication under divers Phrases, yet to the same purpose, viz. Of being separated, being wholly cut off from the Church, and wholly cut off from the Communion; being cast out of the Church, being punished with separation, not being allowed to pray with the Faithful. And in all those Canons the penalty for the greatest Crimes in the Clergy is to be deposed, in the Laity to be Excommunicated: And particularly, He that receives one that is Excommunicated in one City, when he comes to another City without commendatory Letters, is to be Excommunicated himself 
(k) Apostol. Can. xii. xiii. . In the Case of Simony, perpetual Excommunication is decreed 
(l) Ibid. Can. xxix. : In the Case of Schism, three Admonitions must precede the Censure 
(m) Ibid. Can. xxxi. . And none must absolve but the same Bishop who Excommunicated 
(n) Ibid. Can. xxxii. . To enter into a Synagogue of the Jews, or a Meeting of Heretics, to pray with them, is Excommunication 
(o) Ibid. Can. Lxiv. . Which, with many other Canons, do show 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, Murderers, Adulterers, and such like heinous Offenders, should be Excommunicated, and never received into the Church again, Can. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, etc. Parents that marry their Daughters to Jews or Heretics, 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 Heresy was to repent three years before he were received to the Church's 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, show 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 falsely assumed a Power (as of Divine Right) which Christ never gave them: Nor would the Faithful have submitted to the severities of those Primitive Penances, nor have esteemed Excommunication so dreadful, or desired Absolution so Earnestly, if they had not firmly believed that their Bishops Acted by Authority from Christ and his Holy Apostles. And indeed the Evidence for this Opinion in this Age is so clear, that Mr. Selden confesses it, saying, Excommunication was even then believed to rely upon Divine Right, and express command of God 
(p) Jure etiam divino eoque praeceptivo eam niti existimatum jam est. Seld. Synedr. lib. 1. cap. 9 pag. 139. : Which Testimony is the more to be valued, because it comes from a Man who with more Learning than Success, most industriously labours to prove the Primitive Christians mistaken in this Notion: In which dispute, I must briefly note, there are many Evidences of his partiality: For first, when he professes to write of the use of Excommunication before Constantine, he spends not two Pages on that Copious Subject, viz. Lib. 1. Chap. 9 pag. 139, 140. and saith, this is enough and too much; and so indeed it is; enough to confute his Novel Fancy, and too much to be answered by those slight Evasions there made use of: For he spends all the rest of that Chapter to show the Error of the Primitive Doctors in this point. Secondly, He would gladly persuade 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 Man's assuming this Power; yet he pretends he knows not when this Custom ceased in the Christian Church, which doubtless never began there: For he confesses, That it is plain in Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullia's 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 Precedents 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 alleged by S. Cyprian 
(q) Cypr. lib. 1. ep. 11. , by S. Hierom, and S. Augustine also, only by way of allusion; and they argue only by parity of reason, That if the Legal Priests had Temporal, the Evangelical ought to have Spiritual coercive Power. The next place, viz. Math. xuj. 19 about the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he would evade, by pretending the Key is not an Instrument of Excluding, etc. whereas all know it is the Instrument of Opening and Shutting; and he himself citys Artemidorus to prove it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pag. 148. yea, he grants the Key is an Emblem of great Power and Authority among the Eastern Nations; and he quotes for this Isai. 22.22. pag. 147. whence it follows, That our Lord made the Apostles his Vicegerents and Stewards, and gave them this Power to lock Men up in the Bonds of their Sins, and keep them out of the Church on Earth, yea, and out of the Kingdom of Heaven too, if they did not repent. Nor will Mr. Selden easily persuade 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 signify, 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 spoke 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 shown 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 Church's Admonition. So for binding and losing, Matth. xviii. 18. (which the Ancients make one main ground of Excommunication) he forgets Christ's 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, 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 Christ's 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 Christ's Name, and by virtue 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 Critics, and who are more likely to tell us the Truth, than those who espouse a Party, and serve Ends of Revenge, for Censures not undeservedly laid upon them.  
§. III. Our next Enquiry as to practice is, Whether this Rite of Excommunication was used and believed of Divine Right after the Empire became Christian: And this we must do the more largely to confute the Error of Erastus (espoused also by Mr. Selden) who attempts to prove, That in a Christian State there is no need of any such thing as a power of Excommunication in the Churchmen, 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 inquire into the Opinion of the most eminent Fathers after Constantine's 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 Emperor's, 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 Bishop's Sentences should be firm, and of more Authority than those of other Judges, yea, as valid as if they were delivered by the Emperor himself. As also, that the Magistrates and their Officers should execute their Sentences, and that the Decrees of their Councils should be Valid 
(r) Sozomen. hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 9 p. 206. Circa An. 314. Vide Cod. Theodos. l. 16. Tit. 2. in fine. . Which Law doth indeed give them a New Power not granted by Christ, but never mentions Excommunication; Yea, it ordains that these Sentences should be executed by another method, even by the Civil Magistrate and his Officers. Mr. Selden indeed produces another Law (as if it were a Repeal of this) in the time of Valens, Gratian, and Valentinian, Ann. 376. above 60. years after. But that Law seems to except only Criminal Actions from the Bishop's Cognizance 
(s) Vid. Seld. Synedr. l. 1. cap. 10. p. 187. . And if we consider the complaints of the good Bishops in that Age, who were burdened with divers Civil Causes, or look upon those Laws of Arcadius and Honorius 
(t) Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 4. de Epist. Aud. L. 7. An. 398. & L. 8. An. 408. , and of Honorius and Theodosius, which allow Men to choose Bishops for deciding their Civil Causes, and declare their Sentence to be firm and Valid, We shall easily perceive that Constantine's 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 Christ's 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 Emperor's Authority did not precede, but follow the Bishop's Act in Excommunication; so that if the person Censured proved obstinate or troublesome, he was Banished or Imprisoned by the Imperial Power. As we see in the Case of the Arians, who were Excommunicated by the first General Council of Nice; and the Emperor Constantine did Ordain, That those who submitted not to the Decree of the Council, should be banished 
(u) Sozom Eccles. hist. lib. 1. cap. 19 p. 221. . And that the Bishops did exercise this Power in their own right, as derived from Christ, is manifest from the whole History of that Age; Arius himself, and all his Associates, were Excommunicated at Alexandria, first by Peter, and then by Alexander the Bishops of that City 
(w) Idem ibid. Cap. 14. p. 215. , before any application was made to the Emperors, and before the Nicene Council was Called: And that most famous Council, in almost every Canon, supposes the Bishop to be the Judge of such as are to be kept out, and such as are to be let into the Church. And those Holy Fathers do decree concerning Penitents and lapsed Persons, according to the ancient usage of Ecclesiastical Discipline under Heathen Emperors, without any alteration made upon the account of Constantine's being a Christian; Making the Bishop the sole Judge of the time of Excluding these Offenders from Communion in Sacred Offices. To this we may add that Accurate Scheme of the admirable Discipline of these Primitive Ages, which is described in the Canonical Epistles of Gregory Thaumaturgus, S. Basil, and others of the Primitive Bishops: By which we see, that such as were first Excommunicated by the Bishops for Fornication, Adultery, Murder, Perjury, Apostasy, and other Crimes 
(x) 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 Catechumen, 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 Standards up: In which state having continued a while, they were Absolved, and admitted to full Communion, by partaking of the blessed Eucharist. Now this whole description of these Orders of Penitents, which is so frequently mentioned in all the Authors of this Age, that we cannot understand any of them without the knowledge of it; I say, all this was determined only by Ecclesiastical Canons, and by the Bishop's 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 lose: This shows 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 Baptised. 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 Emperor's Prefects, who did much oppress the Churches of Libya, and certified S. Basil of it by his Letter; whereupon S. Basil also excommunicated the same Person in his Church 
(y) Baron. Annal. An. Dom. 370. . Where we may observe the Custom of Bishops sending Epistles to other Churches, that they also might avoid the Communion of such as they had Excommunicated; Of which we have a memorable instance in S. Augustine, who Excommunicated Primianus the Donatist, and sent his Tractatorian Letter to all his fellow Bishops to avoid him 
(z) Conducibile existimavimus omnes Sanctos consacerdotes, etc.— hâc nostrâ Tractatoriâ commonere ut omnes Primiani Communionem— diligenti curâ horreant. Aug. Conc. 2. in Psal. 36. Vide item Epist. 162. . For he that was censured and excluded in one Church, was so in all, and not to be admitted into Communion again, without the consent of him that first cast him out. About this time lived that famous Bishop Gregory Nyssen, who is very clear for the Divine Right of Excommunication, saying, Do not believe that Excommunication is a piece of Episcopal presumption, for it is a Law of our Fathers, an ancient Order of the Church, beginning from the Law of Moses, and was Established in the Gospel 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nyssen. Orat. de Castigat. . Where we see it is evidently affirmed, That though it had been Practised under the Law, yet it was Established under the dispensation of Grace, and on that ground always used in the Church before his time. And here we cannot but note Mr. Selden's partiality, who designing to make this a proof that Christian Excommunications were derived from the Jews, translates the last words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] quae à lege traxit originem, et in gratiâ obtinuit 
(b) Seld. Synedr. l. 1. cap. 10. p. 226. , contrary to the plain Sense of the phrases, and the meaning of that Father; who doth not say it had its Original from the Law, and obtained under the Gospel, but only that it began under the Law, and was confirmed or established in the Gospel. S. Ambrose lived not long after, viz. An. 380. And he speaking of the Power of absolving Penitents, saith, Christ granted this to his Apostles, which from the Apostles is transmitted to the Episcopal Office 
(c) Ambros. de poenit. l. 2. cap. 2. Tom. 4. p. 403. . And adds, The Prodigal which went into a far Country, is he that is separated from the Holy Altar, for he is removed from Hierusalen that is in Heaven, and from being a Fellow-Citizen with the Saints, and of the Household of God 
(d) Ibid. Cap. 3. p. 404. . Again he notes, That it is the part of a good Bishop to labour to heal the weak, and to take away spreading Ulcers; to scorch some, rather than take them wholly away; Yet finally, what cannot be healed, to cut it off with grief 
(e) de Officijs l. 2. cap. 27. Tom. 4. p. 61. . So that he reckons this properly and only the Bishops Office. Yea, to show how little he thought this Power was derived from the Emperors, it is well known that he did interdict the Emperor Theodosius from the Communion for some time, telling him, That after the bloody slaughter of so many Men, He ought to submit to that Bond, which by the Sentence of God above, was laid upon him, being a Bond that was medicinal, and designed for his Cure: Which advice the good Emperor submitted to, and returned very penitent to his Palace; for he had been brought up in the knowledge of God's Word, and understood what was properly the Office of a Bishop, and what was the Office of a King 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. Histor. lib. 5. cap. 17. pag. 158. . They are the words of Theodoret, and show, that Excommunication was then known to be no part of the Prince's 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 itself, since Christ had declared, What they bond on Earth should be bound in Heaven 
(g) Idem ibidem. : So that no doubt, the Emperor who believed this, did think Excommunication was of Divine Right, and founded upon the same Text we now allege for it. Yet that none may think this Instance favours the bold Fact of later Popes in Excommunicating Sovereign 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 persuasion, and advised him to submit to this, which was only a Spiritual Penalty for his Soul's health: And he was only under the least kind of Excommunication, and barely suspended from receiving the Sacrament. So also Pope Innocent dealt with Arcadius and Eudoxia for the injuries they had done to S. Chrysostom, Interdicting them in this Gentle Form, I the meanest of all, and a Sinful Man, to whom the Throne of S. Peter is now given, do separate and reject you and your Empress from partaking of the Immaculate Mysteries of our Lord Christ 
(h) Michael Glycas Annal. par. 3. An. 407. . This was all: And this is far from giving countenance to that impious usage of the later Popes, who have Anathematised Sovereign 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 persuade us) derive their Power to Excommunicate from the Emperor's being Pontifices maximi, and so from their Grants. To proceed, S. Chrysostom flourished about this time, An. 390. and we are to inquire 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 Anathematising the living or the dead 
(i) Chrysost. Tom. 6. hom. 37. pag. 439. ; In which he severely inveighs against the rash use of this dreadful Curse, which he thinks the Apostles used not against Persons, but Opinions: And indeed in the best Ages of the Church, the accursing particular Persons was very rare, and this highest sort of Excommunitating by anathemas (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 satisfy 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 shows, and particularly in the Case of Eudoxia the Empress, to whom he denied access to the Church, because being admonished to restore a Widow's Vineyard unjustly taken away, she refused it 
(k) Baron. Annal. An. 401. §. 9 . And for his Opinion Mr. Selden says, That S. Chrysostom, as well as the other Fathers of this Age, doth often own and admit the use of Excommunication 
(l) Seld. de Synedr. lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 212. ; Yea he reckons it of Divine Right, for he saith, concerning Binding and losing, Matth. xviii. What greater honour can be given to the Church than this, when Heaven itself takes the beginning of its Judgement from Earth? The Judge sits on Earth, the Master follows the Servant, and what he judges below, his Lord ratifies above 
(m) Chrysost. hom. 5. in Jesaiam, Tom. V pag. 152. . Again, he explains the Leaven, which S. Paul order the Church of Corinth to purge out, to be an Advice to Bishops, who suffer much of the old Leaven to remain within, when they do not cast out of their Borders, that is, out of the Church, the Covetous and Extortioners, and such as shall be excluded out of the Kingdom of God 
(n) Idem Tom. III. hom. 15. in 1 Cor. pag. 337. : Which, by the way, gives the reason of his strict proceeding against Eudoxia. And elsewhere speaking of the Discipline and Worship used in his time, he saith, They expelled those out of the holy Place, who could not partake of the Lords Table 
(o) Chrysostom. Tom. III. hom. 18. in 2 Cor. pag. 647. . Again, he threatens those who gave scandal to Infidels by their excessive mourning for the dead (making them think the Christians did not believe the Resurrection) that he would proceed against them by Ecclesiastical Censures, if they did not amend upon his Admonitions; citing that method of proceeding which Christ prescribes, Matth. xviii. 15, 16, 17. for his Commission, bidding them remember the power of binding and losing 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 Privilege; even as (saith he a little after) when a Prince order his Officer to bind a Criminal, it is not the Officer, but the Prince which truly binds the Offender 
(p) Idem hom. 4. in Epist. ad Hebr. Tom. IU. 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 forbidden 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 Judgement. And soon after he saith, They have power to deliver a man to Satan for the destruction of the Flesh, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 
(q) Hieron. ad. Heliodor. ep. 1. Tom. l. pag. 5. . Where we may note, That though some fancy the delivering to Satan proper to the Apostles time, yet even when the miraculous Penalty on the Offenders Body was ceased, the Fathers still called Excommunication by this Name, as S. Hierom doth here. And so Origen before him saith, A man is delivered into the power of the Devil when his fault is manifest, and the Bishop drives him out of the Church, that being observed by all, he may be ashamed and converted, so that at length his Soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 
(r) Origen. hom. 2. in libr. Judic. . And we may also here remark, That all those places which we produced before out of Scripture to prove the Divine Right of Excommunication, are so expounded and applied by the Fathers. But to proceed with S. Hierom, He having declared Vigilantius an Heretic, wonders very much, Why he was not Excommunicated by his own Bishop 
(s) Hieron. ep. 53. advers. Vigil. Tom. II. pag. 154. . And speaking of John Bishop of Jerusalem, who had undeservedly censured (as he thought) some who held the right Faith, he there informs us wherein the Censure did consist: For he saith, that this Bishop had prohibited them to enter into the Church, and forbidden any to receive them into their Houses while they lived, or to bury them when they were dead 
(t) Hieron. adv. error. Joan. Hi. Tom. II. pag. 258. . In another place he reckons this Censure to be from the Lord, saying, If we be cast out of the Congregation of our Brethren, and out of the House of God for any Sin, we ought not to resist, but to bear the Sentence patiently, and to say with the Prophet, I will bear the Indignation of the Lord, Mich. seven. 9 
(u) Idem in Ezek. lib. 5. Tom. IU. 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, Murderers, and other vicious persons 
(w) Idem Com. in Tit. cap. 3. Tom. VI p. 466. . These, with many more places in this Father, do still confirm our Opinion of the practice and the Original of Excommunication. To him we may add S. Augustine, who grew Eminent for his Learning and Piety about the year 410. And he interdicted his friend Bonifacius, a Count of the Empire, from the Communion, for taking a Criminal by force from the Altar, before the Bishop had seen him; and the Count owns his fault with sorrow, and sending the Man to S. Augustine, begs his Pardon, and entreats he may not be shut out of the Church, nor his Oblation rejected which he had made 
(x) Augustin. Epist. 187, & 188. Tom. II. pag. 166. (b). . In another place he saith, It was usual for offenders in the Church, to be removed from the Sacrament of the Altar by Ecclesiastical Discipline 
(y) Idem de Genes. ad literam lib. 11. cap. 40. Tom. III. pag. 152. (b). . And again, to show the Custom was universal, he tells us, Men must repent of Sins after Baptism, that if they be Excommunicated they may be received again; as they which are properly called Penitents do in all the Churches 
(z) Id. ep. 108. Tom. II. pag. 105. (a): . Yea, he grounds the right of Excommunication upon the express commands of Christ, and of his holy Apostles, affirming, That as Phineas under the Law slew the Adulterers, so now the visible Sword is ceased from the Church, we do the same thing by Excommunication 
(a) Idem de fide & oper. cap. 2. Tom. IU. pag. 13. ; which in another place, he saith, doth the same under the Gospel, as putting to death did under the Law 
(b) Id. quaest. in Deut. lib. 5. Tom. IU. pag. 62. . Again, he reckons up three deadly Sins which are especially to be punished with Excommunication, Uncleanness, Apostasy and Murder 
(c) Idem de fide & oper. cap. 19 . And for his Sense of the efficacy of this Divine Sentence, he teacheth, That When the Church doth Excommunicate, the person is bound in Heaven; and when he is restored by the Church, this reconciliation makes him loosed in Heaven 
(d) Idem Tract. in Johan. 50. Tom. IX. pag. 80. (b). . Which he proves by Christ's 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 losing Sins 
(e) Idem Tract. 124. ibid. p. 123. . And it is observable, that this Eminent Father always grounds Excommunication upon the power of Binding and Losing, which Christ gave the Church: As in that Epistle where he reproves a young Bishop, Auxilius, for Excommunicating a whole Family for the Master's fault, by which means (as S. Augustine notes) if a Child should be born in that House, it could not be baptised, no not though it were in danger of Death; such was the force of this Sentence; which he there calls A Spiritual Penalty binding the Soul, according to that of our Saviour; Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven 
(f) Aug. Epist. 75. Tom. II. pag. 71. (a). . So that we see this was the constant and current 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 Perfect of Pentapolis in Egypt under Theodosius, An. 411. for horrible Impieties and Cruelties which he and his Companions had been guilty of; the Form of which is contained in the Tractatorian Epistle, which the Bishop sent in the name of the Church of Ptolemais to all her Sister Churches throughout the World, in these Words; Let no Church of God be open to Andronicus and his Companions, to Thoas and his Associates, let every holy place, Chapel 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 die: And if any despise this as the Church of a little City, and Communicate with these Excommunicate Persons, as if he need not obey so poor a Place, he makes a Schism in the Church, which Christ would have to be but one: And if he be a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop, we will account him in the same state with Andronicus, and will never shake hands or eat with such a Man, much less will we Communicate with them- in the holy Mysteries, who take part with Thoas and Andronicus 
(g) Synesij Epist. 58. pag. 203. An. 411. . Where we see how strictly Excommunicate Persons were to be avoided, and how perfectly they were excluded from all Civil and Religious Converse and Communion: Yea Synesius saith, No man ought to call or count Andronicus for a Christian 
(h) Idem ibid. pag. 201. ; for this put him into the state of a Heathen, and wholly cut him off from the Body of Christ's 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 People's request) leaving that to Theophilus: Only he had empowered those Presbyters which should be present when he should be nigh unto death, to restore him to the Communion; for (saith he) None shall die under this Bond laid on by me 
(i) Synesij Ep. 67. Theophil. pag. 215. ; Which manifestly shows that he esteemed it a dreadful thing for any to die under this Sentence, and that it might make their Estate very hazardous in another World: and therefore it is wonderful how Mr. Selden could infer, That this looks as if he thought this Bond not of Divine Institution, but of Humane Invention 
(k) Seld. Synedr. 1. cap. 13. p. 285. ; For it proves the contrary: since if it were only a Humane Invention, it is no matter whether it were taken off or no, from one who is bidding adieu to Mankind; nor could it be any prejudice to a Man at God's Tribunal, if it were not laid on by his Authority: Therefore it was this belief which made the Old Canons so careful to restore those who had not fully gone through the Degrees of Penitence, unto the Communion of the Church, in case of mortal Sickness, lest if they died bound on Earth, they should be bound in Heaven. Soon after lived Prosper, An. 433. who saith, The greater Sinners must be sharply rebuked, and if this will not bring them to amendment, as rotten Members of the Body, they are to be cut off by Excommunication, lest like to dead Flesh not taken away, they corrupt the sound parts 
(l) Prosper de vit. contempl. lib. 2. cap. 7. . It would be tiresome to myself 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church was but one, and that whosoever was cast out by any one Bishop was cut off from the Body of Christ; The Nicene Council decreed according to an Ancient Canon (meaning the 32 Canon Apostolical) That whosoever was cast out by one Bishop, should not be received into the Church again by another 
(m) An. 326. Concil. Nicen. I. Can. 5. Bev. Tom. I. p. 64. . By which they declared that they believed Christ had given the power of judging to every Bishop, as to all those under his Charge; and yet since Bishops were but Men, and might chance to vary from those rules which Christ had left them to judge by, through Passion, or Partiality, this Great Council provides, That if any be unjustly Excommunicated, the matter shall upon Appeal be tried in a Synod of neighbouring Bishops, to be held twice in each year, and there the Case is to be tried finally. And the like Order of not receiving those into one Church, who were cast out of another, without the Sentence of a Synod of Bishops, is renewed in all succeeding Councils 
(n) An. 341. Concil. Antioch. Can. 6. An. 314. Concil. I. Arelat. can. 16. An. 305. Concil. Ellib. Can. 53. An. 347. Council 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 shows 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 neighbouring 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 show 
(o) An. 441. Concil. I. Araus. Can. 11. An. 587. Concil. II. Turon. Can. 8. Iv● Carnot. ep. 76. . Yea, the Popes themselves, for many hundred years, were content to agree to these Rules as their fellow Bishops did: So that Benedict the Ninth did revoke an Absolution granted to a certain Count, without the knowledge and consent of the Bishop of Auvergne who had Excommunicated the said Count 
(p) An. 1034. Epist. Penedict. 9 in Concil. Lemov. . By which discipline, the Men who fell under these Censures justly, had no remedy but to repent and seek Absolution from that Bishop, who best knew the nature of their Crime. And for a further proof, that no aid was to be expected from the secular Power, but only from the College of Bishops, The famous Council of Sardis Ordains, That if a Bishop in his anger do cast any man out of the Church, he may go to another Bishop, and entreat him to intercede for him with that Bishop who had laid the Censure on, which Bishop ought to be willing to have this matter examined by his fellow Bishops; but the person censured was to be in the same case till the matter was determined 
(q) An. 347. Concil. Sardic. Can. 14. . Yea, the second Council of Carthage Decrees, That if any who were Excommunicated for their Crimes, fled to the Court, or to the Civil Judicatures, those Bishops or Clergymen who received them should be Excommunicated themselves 
(r) An. 397. Concil. II. Carthag. Ca 7. : So little did the Fathers of that Age dream of any Power in the Christian Emperors, as to Binding and losing, 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 Bishop's 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. Libel. prec. p. 26, 27.  When the Arrians, by their interest in Constantius the Emperor had violently thrust out Maximus the Catholic 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 Bishopric 
(s) An. 359. : Which memorable Judgement, 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 show, that God himself had put this power into the Bishop's hands, and that no External Force could wrest it from them or hinder its due effects. To proceed, the Canons of divers Councils do declare, That those who were Excommunicate, were not worthy of the Privileges which other Christians enjoyed; and therefore as Jews and Pagan's Testimonies were not to be received against the Bishops and Clergy; so the second General Council at Constantinople forbidden those who were cast out of the Church or Excommunicated to be admitted to accuse a Bishop 
(t) An. 381. Concil. 2. Constantinop. Can. 6. . Where we may note the distinction between the greater and the lesser Excommunication, Those who are cast out, being such as were for ever cut off from the Church, and the Excommunicate such as are separated for a time 
(u) Zonara's in loc. ap. Bever. Tom. I. p. 95. de signif. verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , as Zonaras expounds the Phrases. But neither of these were admitted to bear witness against a Bishop, as being supposed unworthy of credit, and inclinable to be revenged on their Censurers; Which Law was revived in divers other succeeding Councils 
(w) Cod. Can. Eccl. African. Can. 128. Capit. Tom. I. l. 7. cap. 181. p. 1063. . And as they did take away their External Privileges, 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 expressly 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 Church's Prayers, went into any House or other Church to pray, whoever prays with them, especially if he be of the Clergy, shall be Excommunicated 
(x) An. 341. Concil. Antiochen. Can. 2. ; which Canon is renewed in the fourth Council of Carthage 
(y) An. 398. Concil. 4. Carthag. Can. 73. . And as it was grounded on former Canons, and a constant usage of the Church from the Apostles time, so it is repeated in almost every succeeding Council, so that the particulars need not to be cited. Now can any have so hard an opinion of these Holy Fathers, who lived so near the Apostles, to imagine they arbitrarily assumed this power of excluding Criminals from holy Offices, and retained it even after the Emperors were Christians, and had made secular Laws to punish them; or that they pretended Christ the Author of it, if he left them no such power? The first Council of Toledo Ordains, That if any Layman be Excommunicated, none of the Clergy or Religious shall converse with him, or come at his House; and a Clerk deprived, shall be avoided by the Clergy; and if any be found to discourse or to Eat with them, they shall be also Excommunicated, if they know them to be under the Censure 
(z) An. 400. Conc. 1. Tolet. Can. 15. . The same Council Decrees, That a professed Virgin offending, shall not be received into the Church till she have done ten years' Penance, and none may pray or eat with her till she be admitted into the Church 
(a) Ibid. Can. 16. . Not long after this we meet with the accustomed Form of Excommunication used in that Age, which shows 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 Judgement of the Holy Spirit, from the Bosom of our Holy Mother the Church, and from the Conversation of all Christians, until they repent and make satisfaction to the Church of God 
(b) An. 441. Concil. 1. Araus. apud Gratian. : Which Form shows, That they believed their Authority was from God, and their direction from the Spirit in laying on this Censure, and that the persons so, censured were cut off from all Civil and Religious Commerce with other Christians. And that this Opinion prevailed even in these remoter parts of the Christian World, may be seen by those Ancient Synods held in these Islands under S. Patrick, where it was declared, That none who was Excommunicated should come into the Church till he had received his Penance 
(c) An. 456. Synod. Patric. Can. 18. Spelm. Tom. I. p. 53. . And if a Clergyman were Excommunicate, he must Pray alone, and neither presume to offer or Consecrate 
(d) Ibid. Can. 28. . And again, Hear the Lord saying, If he hear thee not, let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican; do not Curse the Excommunicate, but repel him from the Communion, from the Table, from the Prayers and from the Blessing 
(e) Alter. Syn. ejus Can. 4. item ap. Spelm. : Where grounding the Censure upon our Saviour's words, they Charitably Condemn all dreadful Anathematising, 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 Christ's Blood was shed, by the inflicting of this dreadful punishment, is exposed naked, disabled, and without any defence to the Devils Assaults, so that he may take it at his pleasure 
(f) An. 450. Leon. Decret. Epist. 89. ad omnes Episc. Provenc. pag. 469. . Where we see he supposes the Excommunicate to be delivered into Satan's power, and in extreme danger of Eternal Damnation. And upon this account it was, that those holy Bishops were so loath 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 lose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven 
(g) An. 400. Const. Apostol. lib. 2. cap. 11. . Again, the Bishop is commanded when he knows any one to have Sinned, to order him to be turned out of the Church with Indignation: And when the Deacons have turned him out, they are to return and beg of the Bishop to admit him to Repentance 
(h) Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 19 . And a little after it is said, If they do not separate a Wicked Man from the Church, they make God's House a Den of Thiefs 
(i) Idem ibid. . In the next Chapter, The Bishop ought to remember his Dignity, because he hath received power both to bind and to lose 
(k) Idem lib. 2. cap. 20. . Afterwards the Bishop is directed to admonish him twice (according to Christ's precept) who hath offended: and if he be still obdurate, than he is to declare his Obstinacy to the Church, and after that to account him as a Heathen and a Publican, and not to admit him into the Church as a Christian, but to avoid him as a Heathen 
(l) Idem lib. 2. cap. 41. & cap. 42. . Finally, There is reckoned up the several sorts of Offenders who are to be Excommunicated, or to be utterly rejected 
(m) Idem lib. 8. cap. 38. : Adulterers, and all that minister to unlawful Lusts; such as make Idols, and live by the Stage; those that use Divination, and follow the Jewish or Gentile Superstitions; all these are to be Excommunicated till they forsake their evil ways: But upon their repentance to be received. Which evidently proves, That Excommunication was then believed to be the Bishop's 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 Emperor's Authority, there are Decrees for Excommunicating some Offenders, and for Anathematising others 
(n) An. 450. Concil. Chalced. Can. 2, 4, 7, 8, 15, 16, 20. & 27. . And this Canonical punishment is particularly ordered to be inflicted on any belonging to the Church, who forsake the Judgement of their own Bishop and fly to secular Tribunals 
(o) Ibid. Can. 9 : So that the Bishops did determine what Offences were thus to be punished; and the Emperors were so far from hindering them, that they confirmed all their Determinations; so that such as were obstinate durst not but submit to them, in regard the Civil Powers gave them the force of Laws, and by Temporal Penalties compelled Men to obey the Canons; which is one great end of Christian Magistrates, as Mr. Selden confesseth out of Isidore: The Magistrates would not be necessary in the Church, but only that what the Priest cannot effect by the Word and Doctrine, the Magistrate may cause to be done by the Terror of his Discipline 
(o) Isidor. Hispal. Sent. l. 3. cap. 53. . But to proceed; It was a manifest Sign that these Ages did believe Excommunication had its effect upon men's Souls, and not only excluded them out of the Society of Christians upon Earth, but also put them into extreme 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 die without being absolved and admitted to the Holy Communion; for their restoring to the Communion of the Visible Church could signify little to them, who were never like to walk abroad again, or to come to the Church any more; wherefore this was intended to prevent the sad effects which this Sentence unreversed might have upon them in another World, as being laid on by the Authority of Christ. The old Canons which take this care, may be seen together in Albaspinaeus: But the same Proviso was made in the Councils of this Age also, viz. That such as were Excommunicated, and fell into Mortal Sickness, should have the Sacrament before they died 
(p) An. 524. Concil. Ilerd. can. 2. Can. 5. Item An. 540. Concil. 3. Aurel. Can. 6. & Can. 16. Cum multis alijs. . And here also I must note, That about this time there was a Custom Annually to Excommunicate some kind of Notorious Offenders, which is mentioned in the third Council of Orleans 
(q) An. 540. Concil. 3. Aurel. Can. 13. & Can. 30. , though some would pretend it to be a Custom of later times only. As to the Condition of Persons Excommunicate, the Ancient Discipline was still observed, They were to put on the habit of Mourners 
(r) An. 506. Concil. Agathens. Can. 15. , none were to eat with them 
(s) An. 507. Concil. I. Aurel. Can. 13. ; For which the Apostles words are quoted 
(t) An. 524. Concil. Ilerd. Can. 4. . They were to be deprived of all Conversation and discourse with the Faithful 
(u) An. 531. Concil. 2. Tole. tan. Can. 3. : And finally, whosoever did either Pray with these, or Eat or Converse with them, were also to be Excommunicated 
(w) Concil. Bracar. l. Can. 33. An. 563. An. 590. Concil. Antissid. Can. 38, 39 . So that we may see the Ancient Discipline was still in force, until the year 600 after Christ, and that with little or no Variation, unless in the dealing more gently with Penitents, because the World could scarce bear those ancient severities so many years together. After this, we may observe out of Gregory the Great, that it was then the General Opinion, That Bishops held the place of the Apostles, and they who had obtained this degree for Government, had received the power of Binding and Losing:— Yea, that whether the Pastor laid on this Bond justly or no, it was to be dreaded by those of his Flock 
(x) An. 600. Greg. M. hom. 26. in Evang. Tom. II. pag. 129. . And in his Epistles, which passed for Law through divers Ages, there are many Instances of the exercise of this Power, which S. Gregory would not have any Bishop use rashly, nor to revenge his private wrongs, because it was designed for more Spiritual ends 
(y) Greg. M. Epist. lib. 2. ind. XI. ep. 45. Item ibid. ind. c. X. Ep. 34. . And it seems the Pope did not then pretend a General Commission to Absolve all that other Bishops Excommunicated; for he gives this reason why he Absolves one of Milan, because the Bishop who censured him, was dead, and no Successor chosen 
(z) Ibid. ind. XI. epist. 65. . And in the Instructions he gives to Augustine the Monk, for the right Governing the newly Converted English Saxons, he doth allow him in some Cases to Excommunicate 
(a) Greg. resp. ad interrog. August. Cap. 7. Spelm. p. 98. , though since it was a new planted Church, he adviseth him to proceed gently. However, it is certain, that the use of this Censure came into this Nation with their Christianity: And that Almighty God did show his Judgements upon those who despised this Sentence, which was pronounced in his Name, may be seen in that memorable Example related by Beda, who tells us, That S. Chad Bishop of the East-Saxons, Excommunicated one of King Sigebert's Earls for an unlawful Marriage, Warning all not to come into his House till he did repent: But the King would not forbear visiting this Earl; whereupon the Bishop foretold the King that if he persisted to converse with this Excommunicate Person, he would be slain in that very house, which accordingly came to pass; for that very Earl and his Complices slew Sigebert there 
(b) An. 638. vel An. 660. Bedae histor. lib. 3. cap. 22. : Which remarkable Judgement no doubt made the Sentence of our Venerable Bishops to be much dreaded in those days: And for that reason our old Canons decreed, That a Bishop should not rashly Excommunicate any Man, no, not though there were never so just a Cause 
(c) An. 750. Egber. Excerpta Can. 48. Spelm. pag. 263. ; because of the dreadful consequences then believed to follow upon this Censure. But to return to Foreign Countries: In this Age were made those Ancient Laws of the Almains, wherein, besides the Temporal Penalties for Sacrilege, it is declared, the person so offending shall incur the Judgement of God, and the Excommunication of holy Church 
(d) An. 630. Leges Alem. Cap. 1. Capital. Tom. I. pag. 57 : So that they did not think Secular Penalties made this useless in a Christian Commonwealth, but on the contrary, the Temporal Laws now began to decree severe punishments to be inflicted by the Civil Magistrate upon those who despised the Authority of Church Censures. A memorable proof of which we have in the Constitutions made by King Pepin (Father to Charles the Great) with the advice of his Bishops and Barons; Wherein they Ordain, That whoever wittingly Communicates with an Excommunicate person, he shall be Excommunicated also: And that all may know the Nature of this Excommunication, they declare, He who is thus under Censure must not come into the Church, nor eat or drink with any Christian; none may receive any gift from him, or give him a kiss, or join in prayer with him, nor salute him, till he be reconciled to his own Bishop. And if any think that he is Excommunicated unjustly, he may complain to the Metropolitan, and have his Cause tried by the Canons; but in the mean time, he must lie under his Sentence: And if any despise all this, so that the Bishop cannot amend him, than he shall be Condemned to Banishment by the King's Judgement 
(e) An. 753. Pipin. cap. 9 Capitul. Tom. I. pag. 172. : Which Law is repeated again by some of the Successors of this Pious Prince 
(f) Capitul. lib. 5. cap. 62. pag. 836. . And indeed, in those Capitulars of the Ancient Kings and Emperors of France, there are many excellent Canons of Old Councils revived and established by the Royal Authority, which Canons the Bishops first made and Decreed in their Synods; and then to make the People more strictly obey them, the King, with his Bishops and Barons, confirmed them, and put them among their Laws: Which was not any Exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, nor done with any intent to take the Government of the Church, and the power of Censures out of the Bishop's 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 Losing is by the Lord conferred on the Priest, and therefore they ought to obey their Admonitions, and humbly to submit to their Excommunications 
(g) Addit. 3. Lud. cap. 23. Capit. Tom. I. pag. 1161. . I cite this the rather, because Mr. Selden hath the confidence to quote this very place in his Margin, as a proof that the French Princes did take upon them, to Order the Matters of Excommunications and Penances 
(h) Seld. de Synedrijs Lib. 1. cap. 10. p. 192. ; whereas this, as well as his other proofs, do only show 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 Bishop's hands, but rather fix it there where God had placed it. Whence it was that they made these Laws, If any Layman, of higher or lower Degree, hath Sinned, and being called by his Bishop's Authority, refuseth to submit to Penitence and Amendment, he shall be so long Banished from the Church, and separated from the company of all good Christians, as he forbeareth to amend 
(i) Capitul. lib. 6. cap. 88 Tom. I. p. 936. . And again, He that is Excommunicated shall be excluded, not only from Eating and Discoursing with the Clergy, but also from Eating or Talking with any of the People 
(k) Capitul. l. 6. cap. 142. pag. 946. . Also it is Ordained, That the Christians shall not lightly esteem the Excommunications of their Clergy, for even this Contempt is a just Cause of Excommunication 
(l) Ibid. cap. 248. pag. 964. . And in another place, That no Excommunicate Person shall be a Godfather; for those who by God's Law, and the Authority of the Canons, are turned out of the Church, and out of the Camp, lest they bring a Curse on the People, these are much more to be kept off from these Sacred Duties 
(m) Capitul. Additam. II. cap. 1. p. 1135. . Where, besides the express and plain affirmation, That Excommunicate Persons are by God's Law to be excluded the Church; we see, That from the History of Achan's bringing a Curse on the Army of Israel, they would not suffer the Excommunicate to bear Arms in their Camp: Which is also intimated in those Laws which cite that place of Joshuah, There is an Anathema in the midst of thee, therefore thou canst not stand before thy Enemies 
(u) An. 869. Car. Calv cap. 20. Tom. II. pag. 213. . And it is most clear by these Capitulars, that the King's Authority did follow the Bishop's Act, and the Temporal Justice did punish him that was stubborn and refractory, and would not obey the Bishop's Sentence, nor be brought to Repentance by his Spiritual Censures. Thus Lhotharius ordains, That an obstinate Person who is Excommunicated shall be Imprisoned by the High-Sheriff or the Count 
(o) An. 824. Capit. Lhothar. cap. 15. Tom. II. pag. 323. : And he that infringes the Liberties of a Church, is to be Excommunicated by the Bishop, and notice to be given of it to other Bishops, and the High-Sheriff is to make him pay his Fine; and if he despise all this, being judged by Law, he is to be Beheaded, and his Goods Confiscated 
(p) An. 367. Capit. Lud. 2. cap. 8. ibid. pag. 363. : Yea those who were Excommunicate for Fornication, and did not submit, were to be Banished the Kingdom, and such as retained them were thought to offend against God and the sacred Authority, yea, and against the Common Interest of Christianity 
(q) An. 862. Capit. Car. Calv. cap. 4, 5. . So that still the Bishop exercised his Spiritual Jurisdiction by the Power he had received from God; and lest any should despise this, as being a Spiritual Penalty, the Secular Laws of these Pious Princes did inflict outward Punishments on such, Imprisonment, Banishment, Confiscation of their Goods, and Death itself: And now when by these Secular Penalties annexed, Excommunication was become so terrible and so grievous, not only to the Souls by Christ's Ordinance, but to men's outward Condition by the Laws of the Kingdom; it is no wonder that these Princes did revive those Old Canons which forbidden the Bishops rashly to Excommunicate. For it was so great a temporal damage to their Subjects, that they were now concerned to see that the Bishops did use their Power only in just and weighty Causes: and hence we find those Laws made, That Excommunications shall not be issued out rashly and without cause 
(r) An. 803. cap. 2. & Capit. lib. 1. cap. 136. . And that no Bishop or Priest should Excommunicate any, till the Cause were proved sufficient by the Canons, and till the Offender either confessed or were convicted, and according to the Gospel precept had been warned to repent and amend— But if after all this he despise the Church Censures, the Bishop shall then desire the Royal Power to compel him to submit, etc. 
(s) An. 858. Capit. Tom. II. pag. 115. & ibidem Anno 869. cap. 10. pag. 213. . And again, No Bishop shall Excommunicate any person without a certain and manifest cause; But the Anathema shall not be pronounced without the consent of his Archbishop and Fellow Bishops, after the Evangelical Admonition, and for some Cause allowed by the Canons; because the Anathema is a condemning to eternal Death, and ought not to be inflicted but for mortal Sin, and on incorrigible Offenders 
(t) An. 846. cap. Carol. Calv. cap. 46. Tom. II. pag. 36. . In which Laws those Princes do not take upon them arbitrarily to limit, restrain, or direct the power of Excommunication, as if their Bishops had that power from them, and not from Christ: Only they take care that they shall not use that power which Christ had trusted them with, otherwise than according to the directions which Scripture, and the old Canons, had given for the more orderly exercise thereof: and that they should not abuse their power now amplified by Temporal Accessions to the damage of private Subjects, or to the disturbance of the Public Peace. And this these Christian Princes were obliged to do by their office; and they did it without infringing the Bishop's Divine Right at all: For though a Parent by Divine Right have power over his Children, yet without taking away that Right the State may direct Parents how to manage that power. And besides it may be observed, That none of the Princes did ever pretend, either to grant the Bishops this power or wholly to forbid them to exercise it; only they direct them to manage it warily and wisely, and as they ought to have managed it, if no such Rules had been given them. And thus Mr. Seldens great Argument taken from these Laws, as if they proved the Power of Excommunication to be in the Civil magistrate, falls to the grounds.  
§. V Against this full and clear evidence I know none that have raised any considerable objections, but only the learned Selden, who hath turned over all his Authors and Records with great diligence to pick up something to oppose this ancient and almost Universal Opinion, whose Instances when I have examined and answered, I need not fear any great matter out of Antiquity, because he had a personal quarrel to the Position I maintain, and a vast stock of Learning to enable him to manage it to the best advantage: His objections are not put into any Method, but I shall collect them into the best order I can, and with all due respect to so great an Antiquary (unfortunate only in the cause he undertakes) I shall consider them: First he pretends that Constantine did absolve Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice, two Arrian Bishops whom the Council of Nice had Excommunicated, and this he would prove by the Phrase of an Arabic Historian who lived long after this time 
(u) Seld Syned. l. I. cap. 10. p. 187, 188. . But Sozomen a more Authentic Author gives us a Copy of their Petition or Recantation offered to the Bishops, in the end of which they desire upon their repentance That these Bishops will put the Emperor in mind of them, and let him know their intentions, and that they will please speedily to determine what they shall think expedient concerning them 
(w) Sozem. histor. lib. 2. Cap. 15. p. 242. . So that it was the Bishop's alone who could absolve them from the Excommunication, only since they were banished by the Emperor's 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 Constantine's time till Gratians, viz. for about 60 years, had the Title and office of Pontifices Maximi, and the supreme Power in matters relating to Religion; and consequently he supposes the Bishops must Excommunicate by delegation from the Emperors 
(x) Seld. ibid. p. 178. ad p. 188. . For the Title, I shall easily grant that they bore it; But his inference from it I must utterly deny, since there is not (in all Mr. Seldens reading) One line produced out of Antiquity to show 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 mere Chimaera. The Bishops did Excommunicate before Constantine's Government, and under it, and after it in the same manner, and (as hath been showed) 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, 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 Heretics, 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 public meetings, etc. 
(y) Seld. Synedr. L. I. cap. 10. p. 172.  which he would have to signify an Imperial Excommunication; but the intelligent Reader knows, that the Bishops in Council had first decreed this Excommunication, and that by virtue of an express divine Precept, Titus iii. 10. but the Arrians and other Heretics were then so numerous and so bold, as to hold their Churches, in despite of the Ecclesiastical censures. Whereupon the Orthodox Emperors strengthened the Bishop's Sentences with Secular Laws, and by temporal penalties enjoined 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 Heretics 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 Bishop's office and power from them? Yea, is not this the plainest evidence the Emperors could give, that they believed the Bishops had this Power from God, when they make themselves executioners of their Sentence upon the stubborn and refractory? Again, the eldest of these rescripts bears date An. 381. and Mr. Selden supposes that this power was delegated to the Bishops by the Emperors long before, and if so, how came they now first personally to exercise it? or when did they reassume this Power, or take it from the Bishops again? Did not the Bishops at Constantinople in the second general Council this very year, exercise this same power? Why then should this confirmation of their Sentence, this following their decision by a Temporal Law, be supposed a taking away their power? If we examine the date of that Council, it is plain that the Council was begun in May, and continued to November. An. 381, as the learned Dr. Beverege computes 
(z) Bever. Annot. Tom. 2. p. 89. . But this Law bears date the 4th. of the Ideses of January following, and under the same Consuls 
(a) Justin. Cod. l. 1. tit. I. L. 2. p. 1. . So that the Bishops had first Excommunicated every Heresy contrary to the Nicene Faith in the first Canon of that Council, and then some Months after, the Emperor order 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 Clergymen; and he supposes the Emperors permitting, enlarging and tempering or restraining this sort of jurisdiction arbitrarily, will prove, that they did the same as to Excommunication, which is the principal instrument serving to this Jurisdiction 
(b) Seld. Synedr. L. I. cap. 10. p. 187, 188, 189, 190. . To which I reply, that the Bishops had a power of Excommunication long before they had this Jurisdiction; and the one no way depends on the other; nor do these Edicts at all mention the power of Excommunication; Nor was that Power ever limited to be used only against the Clergy, as this Jurisdiction sometimes seems to have been: And again, if it were only a power to judge causes where both Parties were willing, as is clearly expressed in the Laws of Arcadius, Honorius and Theodosius, They who will try their causes, before them by consent 
(c) Justin. Co●. L. I. tit. 4. L. VII. , and they who have chosen the Priests to hear their cause 
(d) Ibid. L. 8. p. 25 & 26. , than Excommunication was not needful, nor could it be any instrument serving to this kind of Jurisdiction: Wherefore the Emperor's enlarging or restraining this Jurisdiction did no way enlarge or restrain their power of Excommunication which they exercised against Heretics, 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 Constantine's first Law giving them a general power of hearing all sorts of Civil causes, bears date An. 314 
(e) Selden Syned. L. I. cap. 10. p. 177. , and remained in force above Sixty years; and if it were narrowed An. 376 
(f) Ibid. p. 187  (of which if it were to our purpose some question might be made) yet it was soon after enlarged again, viz. An. 398 
(g) Ibid. p. 190. ; and the great Bishops at that time exercised all manner of Jurisdiction 
(h) Socrates hist. l. 7. cap. 7. . Now I refer it to any indifferent judge, whether it be likely that those Emperors who gave them more Power than Christ had appointed, should take from them an ancient piece of Authority, which these Bishops openly declared they derived from Christ, and which they and their Predecessors had always enjoyed? Fifthly, He alleges that Justinian doth very often in his own name pronounce anathemas against Heretics 
(i) Seld. ibid. p. 172. : But this is easily answered out of the places cited by Mr. Selden: For Justinian declares there That herein he followed the Apostles and the holy Bishops who succeeded them 
(k) Justin. Cod. L. l. tit. 1. L. V praef. ; And that he followed the holy Priests herein 
(l) Ibid. L. VI praefat. , and did Anathematise all them that had been Anathematised in the four General Councils 
(m) Ibid. L. VII. §. 3, 4 & 5. ; Yea, he saith that all the Bishops which were present had subscribed these anathemas 
(n) Ibid. L. VII. §. 3. p. 4. . Wherefore this is only a declaration of that Emperor's Faith, and an evidence that he held the true Catholic Religion; nor was his putting these anathemas into his Edict any exercise of the power of Excommunication: For besides that they are leveled at opinions, and not at any particular persons, This general Anathema was not properly a Censure, but an high act of detestation, declaring the Person using it abhorred those Opinions, and thought such as held them deserved to be accursed, that is, by those who had the Power to pronounce them so judicially. And Mr. Selden knew this very well; for in the next Page, (Page 173.) he observes, that some learned Men do distinguish concerning these anathemas 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 Heretics; 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 Anathematise that, and all Heresies in the Council of Ephesus 
(o) Seld. Synedr. l. I. cap. 10. p. 173. Item Binius Tom. I. par. 2. pag. 260. . Now it would be a very weak assertion, to say these Lay-Men did in this renouncing Heresy with Anathema's exercise the office of Bishops; and yet that is as true and reasonable as to think or affirm, that Justinian did take upon him by his own Imperial Authority to Excommunicate these Heretics by anathemas: For when the Anathema was a formal Sentence, it was always pronounced by a Bishop. Sixthly, his most specious Argument is that Novel Constitution of Justinians, which Mr. Selden saith, was a Law made by him as the supreme Arbiter of Excommunication 
(p) Seld. de Syned. p. 172. : And a little after he citys it at large, and speaks very great things of it 
(q) Ibid. p. 191. ; as if the Bishops by this Law might not Excommunicate otherwise than by the rules he prescribed. And lest we should seem to fear this terrible Law, we will transcribe it also; the words are these, We forbidden all Bishops and Priests to exclude any person from the holy Communion, before the cause be showed for which the Ecclesiastical Canons command it to be done. And if any do exclude any one from the holy Communion on other accounts, he that is unjustly Excommunicated shall be absolved and admitted to the Communion by a greater Priest; And he that presumed to Excommunicate him shall by his superior Priest be deprived of the Communion, so as his Superior sees fit; that what he hath done unjustly he may suffer 
(r) Justin. Authent. Collat. 9 tit. 6. Nou. 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 Bishop's 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 tied to any other rules than those of their own and their Predecessors making; By which rules Heretics, Schismatics, Murderers, 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 showed; This doth not mean it must be showed to the Emperor or any Secular Magistrate, only the Bishop must proceed regularly, and first warn the Criminal (as Christ himself directs, Matth. xviii) and then convict him of the offence. So that the Person Excommunicated may know what fault he is punished for; which is so just and reasonable a temperament, that he deserves not to be trusted with any power of judging by God or Man who will not observe this. Nor can Excommunication attain the end which Christ appointed it for (even the conversion of the Sinner) unless the Bishop do thus proceed; so that Christ as well as the Emperor requires this, which implies no more, than that this weighty Censure ought not to be rashly and unjustly laid on, contrary to the rules of Christ, who was the Author of it, and to the practice of the Ancient Church. And for the Emperor to make such a Law doth no more disprove the Clergies Divine Right to Excommunicate, than our English Laws (That the Clergy shall Pray at such times and in such Gestures and Habits, and by such a Form agreeable to God's Word; And that they shall Preach in such certain places or on such days, and not vent any Heresy 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 Supreme 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, than 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 God's Law, as Mr. Selden observes, and indeed argues very well against this false inference of his own 
(s) Seld: lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 277 & pag. 288. . Besides after all this flourish, Mr. Selden well knew, that this Law is no other than what the Canons of the Church had decreed before Justinians time; For the Famous Canons of Carthage do Ordain, That no Bishop shall rashly or lightly deprive any one of the Communion, nor for any fault only known to him by the private Confession of the parties 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Carthag. Can. 134. vid. Can. 133. Bever. Tom. I. p. 668. ; Which former Canon being the same with this Law, is repeated in following Canons and Councils of later times 
(u) An. 552. Concil. 5. Aurel. can. 2. An. 750. Excerp. Egbertican. 48. Spelm. pag. 263. Et in Capitular. . So that Justinian laid no restraint upon them, but what the Clergy had before agreed to lay upon themselves; and this Law is but a Confirmation of a Former Canon; Yea, if the making such a Decree demonstrate a Supreme Arbiter of Church Censures, than the Clergy were Supreme 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 shows, that the offending Bishop did not act by a Delegate Power, for if he had, the Emperor would have been the punisher; and if ever any Emperor should have Excommunicated, this had been a fit occasion when the Bishops abused the power they gave them; but Lo, here is none mentioned to execute this Sentence, but the offenders own Metropolitan, one of his own Order: And therefore this Novel Constitution plainly supposes, none but one of the Clergy could Excommunicate; and this added to what we noted before concerning the French Capitular, forbidding rash Excommunications, is a full reply to this seemingly formidable Objection. There are some other slight Objections relating to these times, which we will briefly here set down. First, he would prove the Christian Excommunication to be the same with the Jewish, from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cast out of the Synagogue, which some Christian Writers use for Excommunication 
(w) Seld. Synedr. lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 272 & 276. , but who knows not, that very many words which had been used by the Jews, were taken up by the Christians, and used in a different sense from that which they Originally signified? So the Father's use the Word Passover, not for the Jewish Feast upon their Paschal Lamb, but for the Christian Festival in Memory of Christ's Resurrection; So also they use the word Sacrifice, for the Commemoration of Christ's one Oblation in the Eucharist, not for a real Bloody Sacrifice. The like might be observed of many other Words, viz. Apostle, Baptism, Presbyter, etc. which were Jewish Phrases, but used by the Christians in a quite different sense. Wherefore supposing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signify only an excluding from Civil Rights among the Jews (which is not true as was showed before) it doth not follow that it must signify no more among the Christians. Again, He objects that a certain Monk did Excommunicate the younger Theodosius, who would not be satisfied till the same Monk had absolved him 
(x) Idem lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 171. è Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 36. ; And hence he infers, that others besides Bishops may Excommunicate without any formal process, as the Custom was among the latter Jews. I reply, this bold Fact being a single Instance, is no Argument that such a thing might lawfully be done; yea, the Patriarches Opinion was, that the Emperor needed no Absolution from so rash a Sentence. And it was in Compliance with the Emperor's 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 lose the Bond who had laid it on; However if the Monk's 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 xuj. 19 concerning the power of Binding and losing; 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 Losing make Men Guilty or Innocent, but by virtue of their Office discern and declare who are really so 
(y) Seld. Syn. lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 285. ex Hieron. Com. in Matth. 16. . And Mr. Selden thinks this argues that S. Hierom did not think Christ had given the Clergy such a Jurisdiction as they claim from these words. I Answer, that we do not pretend to any such Power, as to condemn the Innocent or clear the Guilty; but Grant that God doth not always follow the Judgement of the Church, which may be imposed on sometimes 
(z) Petr. Lomb. sent. lib. 4. . And that the power of Losing is not granted absolutely, but upon Condition of the party's Repentance 
(a) D. Basil. reg. brev. qu. 15. . But we do affirm that when the party is really Guilty, and the Priest deelares him to be so, he is not only to be excluded out of the Christian Assembly, but as S. Hierom (cited before) saith, He is in a sort judged before the day of Judgement. And we have proved above, that S. Hierom did hold the Clergy had this power from Christ, but it is no wonder, if the Servants who Act by Commission be obliged to those Conditions which their Master binds himself to: Neither Angel nor Archangel, nor the Lord himself will Pardon any (saith S. Ambrose) but the Penitent 
(b) Ambros. Ep. 28. ad Theodos. August. . We do not vindicate the abuse of this power, nor defend any that use it amiss; but only we affirm it is a very 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 Ambassador 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 ratify above, what the Servant hath done below. I am sure this great Truth firmly believed and well considered, would be a powerful means to bring Sinners to Repentance; whereas the teaching Men to despise this Sentence, not only deceives men, but hardens them to their destruction. I find no more Objections relating to Ancient times, and Mr. Selden proceeds from thence to affirm, That the French Emperors in the West did order, limit, permit or restrain Excommunication as those in the East had done; but we have fully answered all those quotations, by which he pretends to prove this, in our Account of the Capitulars before, where we have showed 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 Germane 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, than the Offender is to be Excommunicated for his Soul's health 
(c) Seld. Synedr. lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 192. . Which Law doth suppose the Bishop's 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 tried 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 Bishop's hands. The second particular is that place cited by Ivo Catnotensis out of the Capitulars, That if the King receive any of the Offenders to his Favour, or admit them to his Table, The Priests and Christian Assemblies ought to receive these into Ecclesiastical Communion; that he who is reconciled to the Prince, may not be kept at a distance from the Priests of God 
(d) Seld. ut sup. cap. 10. pag. 193, 194. . Where Mr. Selden wonders that Kings should have such a power of Absolving in an Age, when the Bishop of Rome dared to Excommunicate them: And it were a greater wonder, if this Custom should prove that Bishops had not the power of Binding and Losing 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 Guntrams receiving a Bishop to his Favour, that had been. Excommunicated for suspicion of Treason; upon which he was (without any Judgement of a Synod) restored to his Bishopric 
(e) Circa An. 580. Greg. Turon. lib. 5. cap. 19 & lib. 7. cap. 16. ; soon after those Kings had forsaken Paganism. So that it is probable enough, those Princes after their Conversion might retain this Barbarous Custom, and that whether the Bishops would or no; in which case there can no good Argument be drawn from a Heathen Custom, obstinately retained by a People lately Barbarous, to invalidate the Law of Christ: But we need not fly to that refuge; For these (Culpati) Offenders, here mentioned, are not all Excommunicate Persons, but only such as were Excommunicated for Treason: To prove which we must observe, that in the fourth Council of Toledo the Bishops began to pronounce most dreadful anathemas against such as broke their Oath of Allegiance, and Rebelled against their King 
(f) An. 633. Concil. 4. Tolet. Can. 75. Bin. Tom. II. par. 2. pag. 357. ; Which kind of Anathema or Sentence of Greater Excommunication was also used afterwards in the Eastern Empire 
(g) An. 1026. vid. Seld. pag. 212.  against Rebels and Seditious, these therefore were the (Culpati) Offenders, whom the Bishops were to absolve, if the King forgave them, who was the party principally offended: And to prove this we need go no further than the third Canon of the Twelfth Council of Toledo (out of which this Law of the Capitulars is verbatim transcribed, and of which it is an Abbreviation) the words of which are; We see with grief some of the offenders (Ex numero Culpatorum) received into the Prince's favour, but remaining Banished by the College of Priests, which evil is caused by the liberty Princes take to oblige others to what themselves will not observe, so that they will eat and converse with those which they have caused to be separated from the Church; But because the remission of those things they do against the King and Country is by the former Canons 
(h) An. 636. Concil. 5. Tolet. Can. 8. Bin. Tom. II. par. 2. pag. 336.  reserved to the Prince alone, against whom they have offended; therefore hereafter in this Case no Priest shall forbear Communion with them, but those whom the King receives to his favour or admits to his Table, etc. just in the words of the Capitular cited above 
(i) An. 681. Concil. XII. Tolet. Can. 3. Bin. Tom. III. par. 1. pag. 272. . Whence we may observe that these offenders were only Rebels, and if the King would pardon these, there was no reason the Church should keep them Excommunicated, when they had satisfied the party offended; this being no more than what is granted to a private Person, whose complaint causes any Man to be Censured by the Church; to whom if the offender make satisfaction, the Church will withdraw the Sentence. And one thing more is plain by this Canon, that the Bishops by a Canon of a former Council had granted the Kings this privilege 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 Privilege, they must consider, that every Excommunicate Person ought to be absolved when he gives good Evidence of his Repentance; and because a Rebel can give no greater Testimony of his Repentance, than so to carry himself as to get the Kings Pardon, therefore on this Evidence the Offender was to be absolved, yet so as (by this Canon it appears) the Bishop's 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 expressly 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 proceed. Thirdly, that in so doing they did not oppose Christ's Institution, but only the gross abuse of it to ends for which our Lord never did design it; So that they did not meddle with that part of Excommunication, which purely aimed at the Conversion of Criminals, and the Reformation of Manners; they did not oppose or check the Bishops in the Spiritual part of their Office, in doing as the Primitive Pastors did; but only when they used their power for Secular ends; And commonly all the difference between the Empire and the Priesthood was concerning some outward Appendices to Excommunication annexed by the favour of devout Princes, which being abused by the ecclesiastics, Princes would have taken away again, or limited so as they might not be a grievance to them and their Subjects: But the power itself as Christ gave it, no King ever attempted to take away; and therefore these instances will not much concern my Opinion who am pleading only for the Primitive sort of Excommunication, attended with those modern circumstances as it is exercised in the reformed Church of England, where it never did disturb the Government, but is rather very useful to it. De Marca hath well observed, there is a deep silence among the Ancients, about the Churches invading the jurisdiction of the Prince, for the ancient Bishops only minded to keep up the Canonical discipline 
(k) De Marca de concordia. Tom. I. l. 4. cap. 11. §. 1. : And so do our Reformed Bishops. Wherefore I am not concerned how the Papal encroachments were tolerated or restrained, because Excommunication was rightly managed before they were in being, and is now after they are cast out: And now a brief review of these objections will suffice●y wherefore we will here represent them all together. He alleges many particulars to this purpose, viz. That Eadmerus saith concerning William the Conqueror, That he would not suffer any of his Barons or Ministers to be prosecuted or Excommunicated for Incest, Adultery, or any other Capital Crime 
(l) Seld. de Synedr. lib. I. Cap. 10. pag. 197. : Which seems to be an odious representation of a Monk, who was concerned in the controversy between Anselm and the Crown; for Eadmerus Author of this Charge, was one of Anselms Monks: The truth therefore (I suppose) was, that King William expected to have notice before any of his Court were Excommunicated, for that is one of the Customs of their Fathers, which the English Nobility got to be enacted for a Law in the Statutes of Clarendon 
(m) Statut. Clarend. Matth. Paris. An. 1164. p. 100 : But it is not credible that any Christian King should presume to forbid Discipline to be exercised in such Cases, wherein the Law of God and the example of the Apostles required it should be used; and if King William had forbid any such thing, his prohibition had been impious and unjust, as being against the express Law of God. But for that custom of the Bishops acquainting the King first, before any such Sentence were issued out against his chief Officers, there seems to be some reason for it: First, Because the King is supposed to be able to bring these to amendment, without any severity. Secondly, in that age many things were annexed to Excommunication by Prince's 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 damage of his Government. Thirdly, The Prince himself might thus unwarily become liable 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 Threatening of this Sentence in general, and a declaration that they all believe the Person so offending deserves to be Accursed and Excommunicated by the Bishops: and since so many Bishops were present in Parliament, the Sentence was theirs properly, and the rest only expressed their agreement to it: And withal, Excommunication was by the consequents attend it, even as to a Man's outward condition, become one of the most grievous Penalties of all others in this Age; and so it is no wonder if Princes, who had annexed these Consequences to it, did oblige the Clergy to pronounce it with general assent on solemn occasions, to make their Laws the better to be observed: Though I am apt to question, whether it were well done to use it to such Secular purposes. We have indeed one Statute since the Reformation (objected also by Mr. Selden) 
(n) Stat. 5 & 6 Edvard. 6. Cap. 4. Vide Seld. ut supr. pag. 173.  which decrees Excommunication for striking in the Church or Church-yard; but this is not only a Law made by the Bishop's 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, expressly saith, The Ordinary shall issue out the Sentence. Again, Mr. Selden saith, The Kings of France, Spain and England, etc. do allow Appeals from the Bishop's Consistory in many cases. I reply, That many cases are tried in that Court by the pious favour of Christian Princes, who truly believed Bishop's fittest to judge in causes concerning Testaments, Legacies, Guardianship, Divorce, etc. Now in these matters, which are judged by Bishops, not by any express Law of God, but by favour of the Prince, he may see that Bishops judge rightly, and therefore the King did of old grant Prohibitions on great occasions, and call some of these matters into his Temporal Courts, where anciently he sat himself; which Custom being confirmed by time, is practised to this day; but this no way concerns the Bishop's Authority which Christ gave him; and if the Sentence be for Heresy, 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 lies. So that our opinion of the Divine Right of Excommunication is not disproved by these proceed. But he argues further, That the Kings of England have some times sent out their Writs to command Bishops to revoke their Excommunications, of which he gives some instances 
(o) Seld. Synedr. lib. I. cap. 10. pag. 201. etc. . 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 hindering the King Precepts from being executed, and to the oppression of his Loyal Subjects. Now since the King is, and aught 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 itself 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 Public Peace, or oppose the good Government of the World: And if Princes had not power to hinder such unjust Sentences, they could not govern their Kingdoms, nor do their duty. And when the Pope and his Clergy strove with Kings for the Supremacy, it was high time for them to check these dangerous attempts, or else they would not have sitten any longer in their Thrones than the Pope pleased: But all this is now out of doors, and therefore the objection signifies nothing as to our Protestant Bishops exercising this Authority, because they yield the King the Supremacy in all Causes, as the Primitive Bishops did. And even in Popish times, though the Kings did prohibit the abuse of this power, yet at the same time they owned the Right to be solely in the Bishops: For Edward the third, (whom Mr. Selden instances in) did by his Letters request John Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the Bishops of his Kingdom, to Excommunicate all notorious Malefactors and Disturbers of the Peace of Church and State; which request they granted in a Council at London 
(p) An. 1342. ap. Spelm. Concil. Tom. II. p. 581. . And whatever other objections Mr. Selden hath raised relating to the times before the Reformation, they cannot imply what he intends, because it was the General Opinion, That the Clergy (who he confesses consented to many of these limitations) had a Right from God to Excommunicate and absolve. Hence in the Charter of William the Conqueror, He that is prosecuted for an Offence according to the Bishop's Laws, shall come and give satisfaction according to the Canons to God and his Bishop 
(q) An. 1085. ap. Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 14. . And Matth. Paris affirms, Robert de Marmiun, who died Excommunicate, to be in the State of Damnation 
(r) An. 1143. Matth. Paris pag. 80. . And the forms of Excommunication used about this time, were generally prefaced thus; We in the Name, and by the Authority of Almighty God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and by the Authorty of St. Peter and St. Paul, etc.— do Excommunicate 
(s) An. 1215. Matth. Paris p. 270 An. 1217. Constit. Ric. Sarum. Spelm. Tom. II. p. 158. ; Of which there are very many Forms, 
(t) An. 1222. Concil. Oxon. Spelm. Tom. II. p. 181. Item Anno 1276. Constit. Dunelm. Spelm. ib. p. 319. Et An. 1308. ibid. p. 456.  which do manifestly prove that the Bishops did openly claim this as a Divine Right; which appears also from their public Declaration: One of which shall suffice here; The Prelates of the Church, who carry Saint Peter's Keys, must consider how great the power of Binding and Losing is which Christ hath committed to them; as S. Chrysostom saith, Man Binds, but the power was given by Christ; the Lord gave Men this Honour: And since Excommunication is a Condemning to eternal Death, it ought not to be inflicted but for Mortal Crimes, etc. 
(u) An. 1287. Syn. Exon. cap. 43. Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 383. . Which with very many evidences of like kind, doth show. 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 King's Prohibition in that Case hath no place: And whereas some had gotten the King's Letters to require the Ordinary to absolve such as he had Excommunicated by a certain day, or else to appear, and show 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 King's 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 King's Writ to Arrest them after 40 days, was sometimes denied: The King declares, such a Writ never was denied; nor never should be denied hereafter 
(w) An. 1316. ap. Spelm. Tom. II. pag. 484. . All which are printed in our Statute Books for Law 
(x) An. 9 Edvard. 2. An. 1315. pag. 98. . And before that time it was enacted in Parliament, That Excommunicate persons imprisoned at the Bishop's request, should not be repleviseable by the Common Writ, nor without Writ 
(y) An. 3 Edu. 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 mere Spiritual, viz. of Penance enjoined by Prelates for deadly Sin, as Fornication, Adultery, and such like. And in divers cases there related, the King declares his Prohibition shall not lie 
(z) An. 13 Ed. prim. An. 1285. pag. 70. . These I think are manifest proofs of the Clergies having a Divine Right to Excommunicate for Impieties and Immoralities; and all that Mr. Selden hath heaped up to intimate the contrary for these times, is sufficiently answered hereby. And as to all his Objections relating to the times since our Reformation, without going out of my own profession, or meddling 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 citys the places of Matth. xuj. about the Power of the Keys, and John xx. of the remission of Sins, and declares the Minister's Authority to admit or to exclude out of the Church is grounded thereon 
(a) Confess. poster. Helu. Art. 18. . The Bohemian Confession is very large in professing their Belief, That Christ hath given his Minister's 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 Satan 
(b) Confess. Bohem. cap. 14. . The Belgic Confession also doth affirm, that they retain Excommunication and other Appendices of Ecclesiastical Discipline, as necessary by the Precept of God's Word 
(c) Confess. Belg. Art. 32. ; and when they Corrected this Article, as Mr. Selden pretends 
(d) Seld. de Syned. lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 233. , they still say, that Excommunication is especially requisite to be retained according to the Word of God. He grants also, that the Gallican Confession declares the same thing, and that Beza and Calvin both, have written for the Divine Right of Excommunication 
(e) Idem ibid. pag. 176. . And for the Church of England; the Form of Excommunicating since the Reformation, agreed upon in a Synod under Queen Elizabeth, An. 1571. doth fully declare the same Opinion, for the Bishop is appointed in the Name and by the Authority of Almighty God to Excommunicate such an one from all fellowship with God's Church; and as a dead limb to cut him off from the Body of Christ 
(f) Canon's Anni. 1571. ap. Spar. Collec. p. . And that admirable Apology of Bishop  (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 losing, 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 publicly 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 Lose and make valid in Heaven 
(g) Juelli Apol. Eccles. Angl. §. 5. p. 30, etc. . 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 Reform 
(h) Can. An. 1603. Can. 109. . I could give many other clear proofs, that this is, and always was the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England; but this is enough to satisfy all impartial Persons, that the Opinion we maintain, hath been owned for truth in all Ages, as well in Ancient as later times; And we may now conclude, That the Bishops have a Right to Excommunicate, by Arguments drawn from the Light of Nature, and the practice of the Jews, by the Express Institution of Christ, and by the practice of the Holy Apostles recorded in Scripture: Which power they have claimed as belonging to them of Divine Right in all Ages, and upon that Principle have used it, in Censuring notorious Offenders, by excluding them from Civil and Sacred Commerce, to bring them to shame, and so to Repentance and Amendment of Life: And their Sentence, when pronounced according to the Rules of the Gospel on the Sinful and Contumacious, hath been feared by all orderly Christians as a Sentence which God will ratify, 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 departed from all Iniquity 
(i) 2 Tim. two. 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 two. 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 publicly, that clears her from all suspicion of Gild, and from all just ground of Calumny, and preserves not only her purity, but her Reputation. It was the great Honour of Sparta, as a Senator there said, That none could be Wicked in that City and be unpunished: And this Discipline kept up the Credit of the Ancient Church for many Ages, so that its very Enemies did admire it, and Millions of Proselytes came over to it; But when this Primitive Discipline did abate, the Church evidently decayed in its esteem as well as its Manners. And this is but too plainly verified in our days, for since these Censures have been brought into Contempt, we are almost overwhelmed with a Flood of those Wickednesses which the Secular Laws seldom Punish; Adultery, Fornication and Incest, Drunkenness, Blasphemy and Swearing, Sacrilege, Faction and Malice 
(k) Canon. 109. Can. 4, 6, 7. Rubric. before the Commun. , which are properly of Ecclesiastical Cognizance, are grown so common and so daring, that they have brought an infinite disgrace and a deplorable Scandal on our most holy Religion: This drives some from the Church, hardens other in their Sinful Separation, and opens the Mouths of all our Adversaries, as if they justly left that Church where such Wickedness goes unpunished. '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 vicious, 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. two. 7, 8. And besides it is not the Church's fault that these Crimes are not amended, and therefore it ought to be as free of the blame as it is of the Gild 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 lie at the Church's door. I know these Officers excuse their negligence and Perjury by pretending, that sometimes the Criminals get off by Money or Friends, and then they are exposed to their revenge for being Instrumental to their Conviction. But our Bishops do inquire after, and punish this Maladministration whensoever they discover it; and I know it is their desire and endeavour that no Scandalous offender shall get lose 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 
(l) Vid. exempl. in vitâ Henric. Chicheley pag. 21. , hath made it unhappily necessary to accept Commutations in many Cases, and the charge makes many forsake the Sin: But I dare affirm this course is taken, not because of the easiness of the Clergy, but because of the stubbornness of the Laity, who will not submit to a Penance, which only declares what they really are, and what they are known to be; who hate not to be Wicked, but only to be thought so; and who refuse to take a little Temporal shame, though it would rescue them from Eternal shame: And I fear if our zealous Bishops should attempt a vigorous Reformation, there would be some employed to study Evasions, and to encourage the Offenders to despise the Methods of their cure; Others who reckon it their highest Privilege to be wicked without control, would exclaim against this as a Violation of their Liberties: As the Vicious Monks and Laymen of Old, when that Pious and Zealous Bishop of Lincoln Robert Grosthead conscientiously set upon visiting and reforming his Diocese, Openly reviled him for making so strict an enquiry by his Archdeacon's and Rural Deans through his Bishopric, into the Chastity and manners of both Noble and Ignoble; they called it Tyrannising over his People, and bringing a grievous Scandal upon many, to the Detriment of their good Name, which ought not to be done 
(m) An. 1246. Matth. Paris, pag. 716. . And at last they procured a Prohibition to hinder that good Bishop in his proceed, on pretence it tended to the disgrace of many; As if the Plaster, 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 increase of notorious Sins: But she will never regain her Primitive Honour till this Divine Rite be restored to its ancient vigour, for our Lord did institute it for the Credit and Reputation of his pure and holy Religion, and if it were duly used, it would certainly have that blessed effect.  
The second end of Excommunication is the Reformation of the Offender here, and his Eternal Salvation hereafter, as S. Paul in many places doth declare 
(n) 1 Tim. i 20. 2 Cor. xiii. 10. 1 Cor. v. 5. 2. Thessaly. 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 vicious, vile and base, foolish and wretched persons, and so long as Men have any sense of Honour loft, the apprehension of this disgrace will make deep impressions on them 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aul. Gel. lib. 19 cap. 6. , and make them careful to redeem their credit by acting more wisely and virtuously for the future. Now while evil Men can hope they are concealed, they are apt to go on in their Wickedness: But when this holy Censure pulls by the Veil, and publishes their Sin and Shame to all the Congregation, their impudence can no longer protect them; when all others do condemn them, they then begin to condemn themselves: For none but those of desperate obstinacy, and hopeless impenitence 
(p) Ego quidem illum 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 Virtue 
(q) Tacit. Annal. lib. 4. p. 478 . But few have arrived at this height of Impiety, wherefore this Method will work upon all that have any spark of goodness left. For doubtless it is a most shameful thing for a Christian so to behave himself, as by Christ's 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 aught to be put to shame before the whole Congregation, 2 Cor. two. 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 Judgement 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 Satan, 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 Christ's Name and by his Authority, he whose Sentence on Earth is confirmed by his great Master in Heaven, shall pronounce us worthy of Everlasting Burn, and deliver us over to them, unless we repent immediately. This prospect doth often terrify 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 woeful 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. Paul's 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. two. 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 
(r) 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 ourselves to the danger of being corrupted by the Conversation of these 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 
(s) 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 ruin 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 public 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 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 vilify 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 die 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 
(t) 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.   
FINIS.