sacrifices were slain, a crier made proclamation with a loud voice, "Away, far away, ye profane; shut the doors upon the profane." From all which it most evidently appears, that all sects of men whatever have enjoyed this power, viz., of excluding from the sacrifices the profane, the impure, the unholy, and of ejecting them out of their society. Such instances do by no means prove, what this vile factor of the Atheists would prove from them, that the Christian Church borrowed this tyrannical custom, as he calls it, from the heathen: but they manifestly prove that excommunication is so necessary to all sorts of religion, that the heathen themselves did, by the light of nature, both find out and exercise that power. Indeed it appears to me very hard and unjust to deny the Christian religion, which was constituted by Christ himself, that very power which the wiser heathens most freely allowed, even to the foolishest religions in the world.

Supposing, therefore, that the Christian religion is a true society, no man, that has not finally bid adieu to all modesty, can deny that the right of excommunication belongs to it by divine right.

And here poradventure those various instances, mentioned in Sacred Writ, might not be improperly alleged, by which it appears that the apostles themselves exercised this power for which we contend. 'I will content myself with only one of them, that of the moestuous Corinthian. St. Paul reproves the Corintheans that they had not mourned for that wicked person, who was not going to be removed from the Church: for the holy apostle had resolved to take sway this most grievous sinner from along them to cast him out of the Church, and to deliver him puo Sarap Rut for what purpose was this? To what end do the apoio do To wh, that the incestuous person, hong skin and witted by the severe discipline, might return 10 4 boner bậy, that the Chinch might sufer no damage; that the sounder part ng na de sfected with this corrupt exampl www.Mega 28 2018t that which is sound, and bad pxangode sa mundiely marker such as stigger and are Telehátko 45° ghigh @ ZA V Mar to the best A ittle leaven Let us now

i want De Mar y de poste censure. My bay Sər əks N 2 Pie gestie's command, thrown out hesas cicated ;

same in the Christian Church; therefore this power municating will be always necessary in this Church.

of excom

I cannot here pass by in silence a famous objection, first made by Erastus himself, and since stolen from him by all that have pleaded the same cause. The objection is this, that none ought to be excluded from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, because no such command occurs in the holy Scriptures; nay, if they, good men, are not miserably mistaken, we find commands there which are directly contrary. "Let a man examine himself (says the apostle), and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." None must approach unworthily to the holy table; but it is in the power of each particular Christian to judge whether he be unworthy or no. The Church has no

authority in this matter, say they-the bishops have none. This objection, as much as it may at first sight appear to favour the Erastians, has nothing solid in it, and is very easily confuted; for I will take this for granted, which I have most fully proved, that the right of excommunication belongs to the Church. If, therefore, the Christian Church can exclude out of her society persons that are wicked and profligate, she can also reject them from the holy eucharist. The participation of this blessed sacrament is the greatest privilege of the Christian Church; but he that is, for a just cause, deprived of the holy society of the Church, is also deservedly deprived of the participation of this sacrament. Our adversaries, therefore, who make this objection, do nothing but miserably trifle; for they must either prove that the Church of Christ cannot cut off her rotten members with the spiritual sword, or remain eternally silent, and, at least, with their silence, confess themselves overcome.

II. My second argument I take from baptism: "Go ye therefore (says our blessed Saviour to his apostles), and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' From these words it is plain that Jesus Christ gave his apostles and their successors command, by this sacrament of baptism, to admit all persons whatsoever into the Church, with this condition and proviso, that they should promise most religiously to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded; for which reason the apostles had, and their successors have, not only power of administering baptism, but also power of judging who are worthy to be admitted into the spiritual society, and who are incapable and unworthy. Those whom they judge worthy, they do, by baptism, most willingly make partakers of the heavenly rewards; but such as they find to be unworthy, they either wholly reject,

or subject them to farther discipline. And that the primitive Church always exercised this power is abundantly manifest, from that severe and most wholesome discipline which was observed with regard to the catechumens-that is, such as were candidates for baptism. They were admitted into the Church very late: first exercised during a space of many years; macerated with continual fasting; instructed and confirmed by frequent exhortations—after all which, they obtained the freedom of the Christian city. Now from this power I argue, that the Church has right of excommunication; for it is one and the same power, but administered after a various manner, and by a different method. They who have power of denying admission by baptism to such as they shall judge to be unfit or incapable, have not they also power of expelling them that are admitted if they prove contumacious-if they violate and trample under their feet the fundamental conditions of the society? If we allow them one of these powers, the other will follow of course, and cannot be denied them. Since, therefore, it is agreed on all sides that Jesus Christ committed power to the clergy to admit all such persons into his Church as they should find to be fit and worthy, it cannot be doubted but he also gave them power to cut off from it such as should prove wicked and contumacious.

III. My third argument is borrowed from the holy Scripture: "And I will give unto thee (says our blessed Saviour to Saint Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."

I assert that, in these words, Jesus Christ committed to his Church a full power of excommunicating.

It is, if I am not mistaken, sufficiently agreed among Protestants, that the power which is comprehended in these words, whatsoever that power be, was not delivered to St. Peter alone, as the Papists maintain; but did likewise belong to all the rest of the apostles, without exception.

It will also be granted me, that this power did not expire with the apostles, but is to continue to the end of the world. Having premised this, I shall now apply myself to explain the words themselves: but, for the more clear understanding of our Saviour's meaning, we must remember that these words, which he made use of in this place, were taken from Isaiah's prophecy, where there is this passage: "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder: so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." The prophet speaks of Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, who the Lord foretold should come to the kingdom of Israel. Isaiah describes to us the king

dom, or the right of governing by the key of the house of David, and the power of opening and shutting. It is very manifest that these expressions denote the highest exercise of royal authority; and, therefore, what man in his senses can doubt, but these very words used by our blessed Saviour, since they are so apparently taken from this passage of Isaiah, do signify a certain royal authority in that spiritual kingdom, the foundation of which he was going to lay in his own blood?

What, I beseech you, can be understood by the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and by the power of opening and shutting, but the highest exercise of government? If the passage be taken in this sense, there is nothing in it but what is clear and perspicuous; but if the words are wrested to any other meaning, they will appear harsh, foolish, and ridiculous.

But the followers of Erastus object, that the expressions of loosing and binding do signify nothing else but the explication of what is lawful or not lawful; and this is explained by preaching the Gospel of Christ. Such expressions occur very frequently in the Mishnah and Talmud, and in the rabbinical writers, as Dr. Lightfoot, an author of very great knowledge in that kind of learning, has, by a long induction of examples, shown upon this very text. I own that this is the common subterfuge to which all our adversaries have recourse. This objection is made by Erastus and Selden, and all the other writers against the Christian priesthood. But, as plausible as it may appear, I make no doubt of utterly overthrowing it.

I acknowledge that the expressions of binding and loosing are used by the Talmudists in this sense: but I positively deny that these words, as they are used by our Saviour, are to be interpreted the same way: for

1st. It is to no purpose to produce so many examples of this kind out of the rabbins, as Dr. Lightfoot has done, even till one is sick of them, though otherwise a man of great learning, yet too much addicted to the dreams of the Gemara: "for (as the learned Mr. Dodwell observes) ever since the use of the sacerdotal power has been lost among the Jews, they have also lost the very knowledge of that power." Therefore it is of little importance in this controversy what these expressions signify in the Talmudists. Who does not know that the rabbins have, ever since the destruction of the temple, been groping in more than Egyptian darkness, and have invented I know not what monstrous fictions, with which their writings do everywhere abound?

Such declarations as these are derived from the six hundred and thirty precepts, and from that power which the Jewish

VOL. III.N

priests had of explaining and determining all things, which the law of Moses had not determined; as may be seen in Deuteronomy. But since these six hundred and thirty precepts are abolished by the Gospel of Christ, and that power which was exercised by the Jewish priests does nowhere appear, it is not any way possible that we should thus interpret this passage. Nay, it is necessary that we find out another interpretation of it, and that altogether different from this.

2ndly. Besides, it ought to be observed (for it is certainly most observable) that this power of binding or loosing is the power of the keys. As often as the priest either binds or looses a sinner, he uses the keys of the kingdom of heaven-he shuts and opens. I desire, therefore, that we may be allowed to explain the expressions of binding and loosing, which may seem obscure, by that of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which is most clear and perspicuous. And then nothing can be more evident, than that by the keys of the kingdom of heaven is meant the government and power of the Christian Church: for which reason I must insist upon it, that the expressions of binding and loosing be so understood as to agree with this power of the keys. This is farther confirmed by that passage of St. John, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." To bind, therefore, and to loose, is the same as to remit sins and to retain them. And, indeed, in all the New Testament, to remit or forgive sins, signifies nothing else but to wipe out sins, to abolish both the punishment and guilt of them, and that authoritatively. "Son, be of good cheer (says our blessed Saviour to the man sick of the palsy), thy sins be forgiven thee.”

3rdly. I am thoroughly persuaded that the explication which I have given of this place is true, because it is confirmed both by the opinion and by the practice of the primitive Church. The Catholic Church has always claimed this authority, from the times of the apostles down to ours; and, as often as occasion required, has exercised it.

The primitive Church always laid claim to this power of excommunication, and claimed it as committed to the Church by Jesus Christ in this very passage: and, which is yet more, did not always exercise this power, but accused all those of heresy who attempted either to take it away or to weaken it. This is most evidently attested, both by the Montanists and by the Novatians.

That the primitive Church claimed this authority will appear, first, from the most express testimonies of the Fathers; secondly, from the penitential canons, which almost all councils,