Ductor dubitantium, or, The rule of conscience in all her generall measures serving as a great instrument for the determination of cases of conscience : in four books / by Jeremy Taylor ...

RULE VII. It is not lawful for the Ecclesiastical power to excom∣municate Christian Princes, or the supreme Civil power.

IN the sentence &* 1.1 penalty of the lesser excommunication as it is us'd in the Church there are three portions of evil. In one the Bishop is the au∣thor or minister, in the other the people, and in the third the Prince. The first is a denying to minister the holy mysteries. The other is a withdrawing from the communion and conversation of such a person: which although it be done most of all in the greater excommunication, yet it is done also in some proportion in the lesse, for emendation of the erring brother; not for extermination, as appeares in the Apostolical precept given to the Church of Thessalonica, 2 Thessal. 3. v. 6, and v. 14, 15. And the last is, the super∣vening temporal punishments by which Princes use to verify the just sen∣tences of the Church against refractary Criminals.

Concerning the last,* 1.2 it is certain it wholly is owing to the power and favour of the Prince; who by that favour is not suppos'd to lay violent hands upon himself, who if he did, could quickly take them off again: however the Church inflicts not them by her own authority, but by that of the Prince, who will not, like the tree in the Fable, lend a stick to the

hatchet, to be hewen down or hurt by it afterwards.

But then concerning that part which is inflicted by the people,* 1.3 which is abstinence from the society of the offender till he repent and make a∣mends and get his pardon, it is infinitely certain the Church cannot inflict that on Kings; because it is destructive of the duty which the people owe to their Prince, and of the rights which the Prince hath from God inde∣p••ondently from the religion.

Besides this,* 1.4 nothing ought to be done to the dishonour of the supreme power, to whose happy government fame is almost as necessary as power: and the imposing upon them disgracefull penalties is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a note of dishonour and blasphemy; for they are to esteem their King as a heathen and a publican, from whose society they are to estrange themselves as from a pestilence. Invisum semel principem seu bene seu malè facta premunt, saith Tacitus. If he once fall into such a calamity and dishonour, whether he doe well or ill afterwards, it shall be evil to him.

And yet further,* 1.5 the power of assemblies and publick meetings is wholly by the laws and permission of Kings; and nothing is more unrea∣sonable then that any man should interdict Kings from publick meetings by whom himself hath leave to meet publickly. And therefore we find Imperial laws making provisions in this very particular, and so far from being subject to any thing of this nature, that the Emperors gave orders and strict measures to the Bishops when they should, and whom they should or should not separate from Churches and Communions; as is to be seen l. 30. Cod. de Episc. & Clericis and in the 123. Novel of Justinian. For even in those actions of Bishops in which themselves have liberty & Divine authority, yet the supreme Civil power hath external jurisdiction. Thus Mauritius the Emperor commanded Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, to communicate with John of Constantinople; and anciently in France the Princes were wont to compell the Clergy to officiate; and when the Pope had interdicted the kingdome of England, the King compelled the Priests and Bishops to open their Churches: so it is in Holland, and so in Venice, and so in all places where Kings know their power and their interest and their duty.

For if excommunication be onely an act of caution and prudence,* 1.6 it is very great prudence not to involve Kings in it, lest they be provok'd by the evil usages of the Church; and if it be nothing else, certainly it cannot be necessary to be done at all. But if it be an act of external juris∣diction, it derives from Kings, and therefore they are not under it but over it: for no coercion in the hands of man ought to touch those who are re∣serv'd onely for the judgement of God. Apud serenissimum Regem opus est exhortatione potius quam increpatione, consilio quam praeceptis, doctrina quam virga, said Hildebertus the Bishop. The King is to be exhorted, not reproved; counselled, not commanded; and to him not a rod, but doctrine is to be us'd: and Ivo Bishop of Chartres* 1.7 said the same thing. Kings if they abuse their power are not to be provok'd; but in case they refuse the ad∣monition of Bishops, they are to be left to the Divine judgement; where they will be punish'd the more severely, by how much they were the lesse obnoxious to humane monitions. So Gregorius Turonensis, Si tu excesseris,

quis te corripiet? Si autem nolueris, quis te damnabit, nisi is qui se pronun∣ciat esse Justitiam? He spake to King Chilperic. If thou beest exorbitant, who shall correct thee? If thou refusest, who shall condemn thee, but he onely who is the Everlasting Righteousnesse? For if S. Paul gave in charge to Ti∣mothy that each person should receive an impression and emanation from the Pastoral charge according to his quality, and commanded that he should not rebuke an Elder, but intreat him as a Father;* 1.8 much lesse would he have permitted any to have punish'd the Father of the Country and his own su∣perior, and him who is lesse then none but God, and by whom himself can rule others in external actions, and who in these very administrations is su∣perior, and can give laws, and inflict penalties, and is judge and the remedy of all abuses.

And if concerning this inquiry we consult the doctrine and practices of the Fathers in the Primitive and Ancient Churches,* 1.9 we shall find that they never durst think of excommunicating Kings. They had no power, no right to doe it.* 1.10 Nam Sacerdotis tantum est arguere, & liberam prae∣stare admonitionem, saith S. Chrysostom, Priests can onely reprove and argue, and give a free admonition: and therefore the first supreme Prince that ever was excommunicated by a Bishop, was Henry the Emperor by Pope Hildebrand.

But against this that I say now the Doctors of the Church of Rome make a mighty out-cry,* 1.11 saying that Philip the first Christian Emperor was excommunicate and thrust amongst the penitents;* 1.12 that Babylas the Bishop of Antioch thrust the Emperor Decius with his hands against his breast from the doors of the Church;* 1.13 that Athanasius excommunicated the Pre∣fect of Libya,* 1.14 and S. Basil commanded in his Diocese that he should be a∣voided;* 1.15 that S. Ambrose did excommunicate the Emperor Theodosius;* 1.16 that S. Chrysostom forbad Eudoxia the Emperesse to enter into the Church doors;* 1.17 that Innocentius excommunicated Arcadius;* 1.18 so did Synesius to An∣dronicus the Prefect, S. Austin to Bonifacius, Pope Symmachus to Anastasius the Emperor, Pope Vigilius to Theodora the Empresse, Gregory the second to the Exarch, Gregory the third to Leo Isaurus. Instances enough, if they be right and true, to shew that the Fathers were of another mind then the Rule pretends.

But in this heap I must separate what is true and certain from what is false and uncertain,* 1.19 and give an answer to them, and the rest will not trou∣ble us. * The story of the Emperor Philip is vehemently suspected: but if it were true, yet it was no excommunication, but his own submission to the discipline of penitents; to which, saith Eusebius, he was persuaded by the Bishop. * And the same was the case of S. Ambrose to Theodosius: the Prince was persuaded to it,* 1.20 but it was onely to doe his repentance after the manner of the penitents in those days; the Bishop onely refus'd to cele∣brate in the presence of the Emperor if he would not give testimony of his repentance towards God. This the Emperor did, because he was a good man, and things were then in such a conjunction, that there was nothing amisse: but that S. Ambrose could not have verified his power, if the Em∣peror had been unwilling, and the Emperor did doe more then was necessa∣ry. But S. Ambrose said that he had his warrant to use the Emperor so,

from a vision. His warrant was extraordinary: for he had no ordinary power or commission. * The excommunications of the Prefects by S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Austin, Synesius and Gregory the second doe not come home to the inquiry, because the Prefects were but subjects and had not the privilege of supreme Princes. * The fact of Babylas to Decius was not excommunication: for Decius was a Heathen, and the Church hath no∣thing to doe with them that are without; but Babylas was zealous and fierce, and acted with the spirit of a Martyr, to which he hastned by his fervor. * S. Chrysostom indeed did that to Eudoxia which did not become him, and which he had leisure and cause enough afterwards to repent: he did in anger what himself in the sober hours of his life professed to be more then he could justify. That of Innocentius to Arcadius is of no credit, and so is that of Symmachus to Anastasius, as being onely seen in the Epistles of the Popes of Rome; concerning which there is nothing certain, but that very many of them are certainly spurious. The pretended excommunication of Theodora by Vigilius hath no testimony. Contra Theodoram & Acepha∣los Vigilius pronunciavit damnationis sententiam,* 1.21 said Gregory. But this was nothing but a condemnation or rejection of the heresy of the Acephali with which she was partaker. And the like was the case of Leo Isaurus; it was sententia damnatoria, a condemnation of his opinion, called by Zonaras 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But these things are onely pretended to make noises. Pope Hildebrand was the first that ever did any thing of this nature; as is expressely affirmed by Authors of great credit, by Otho Frisingensis, by Godefridus Viterbiensis, and by Onuphrius, who counted all the other pre∣tences either fabulous or to no purpose.

But yet there is a third portion of excommunication,* 1.22 which is a deny∣ing to administer the holy Communion to Princes of a scandalous and evil life; and concerning this there is no question but the Bishop not onely may, but in some cases must doe it. Nolite dare sanctum canibus, said Christ, Give not that which is holy to dogs; and cast not pearls before swine. But this is not an act of jurisdiction, punishment or coercion, but of charity to the Prince and duty in the Bishop. It is just as if a Physician should refuse to give drink to an hydropic patient; he may have it if he will be willing to die, but if the other refuses his ministery in the reaching it, he is charitable and kind, not imperious and usurping. For whatsoever is in the Ecclesia∣stical hand by Divine right, is as applicable to him that sits upon the Throne as to him that sits upon the Dunghil. But then the refusing it must be onely by admonition and caution, by fears and denunciations Evangelical, by telling him his unfitnesse to communicate, and his danger if he doe: but if after this separation by way of sentence and proper ministery the Prince will be communicated, the Bishop hath nothing else to doe but to pray, and weep, and unwillingly to minister. S. Gregory's case with Mauritius the Emperor was like this. The Prince commanded him to be the mi∣nister to hand an unlawfull Edict to the Churches: the Bishop told the Prince it was a sinne which the Prince went about, prayed, admonish'd, declam'd, did all that he could to hinder it, and then obeyed; that is, he did all he could to God, by using all his authority, the word of his proper ministery, and then all that he owed to the Prince, by submitting his ex∣ternal ministery to his command. The unlawfull proclamations and Edicts of a true Prince may be published by the Clergy in their several charges; but yet they must not conceal from the people any thing of their duty, nor

yet from their Prince when they can declare it. It was also the case of Saul and Samuel.* 1.23 The King desir'd Samuel to joyn and communicate with him in the service of the Lord. He with the liberty of a Prophet refus'd at first, and declar'd the heinousnesse of Sauls sinne; but at last, when the King's will was pressing and importunate, Samuel did obey his voice and did joyn with him. Ivo Bishop of Chartres tells that in such cases where Princes will not comply with the customes and disciplines of the Church, the Bishops must doe their duty by saying, Nolo te fallere; introitum hujus visibilis Ecclesiae periculo tuo te habere permitto. Januam regni coelestis tali reconciliatione tibi aperire non valeo. S^r, I will not deceive you; at your pe∣ril be it if you will come into the holy place to partake of holy mysteries. I declare to you, that this ministery [of the communion] is not any reconciling of you to God. I cannot doe that, unlesse you repent. But the reason of this is wholly upon this account, because the Ecclesiastical state hath no proper coercion by Divine right, but is a Minister of the Divine coercion, of spiritual promises and threatnings; their power is spiritual and internal, it hath it's effort upon the spirit, and not upon the outer man, and there∣fore is to proceed by methods fitted to the spirit, that is, by reason and ar∣gument, by the fear of God, and the terror of his threatnings, by the love of God and the invitation of his promises. But all the ministeries and compulsions about the external is the gift and leave of Princes; and there∣fore it descends, but ascends not, unlesse they please; [of which by and by.] Admoneri quidem possunt, increpari, argui à discretis viris: quia quos Chri∣stus in terris Rex Regum vice suâ constituit, damnandos & salvandos suo judicio reliquit, said the Church of Liege in their Epistle to Paschalis: Kings may be admonished and reprov'd and argued by discreet persons; but they whom Christ the King of Kings hath appointed to be his vicars on earth, are intirely to be left to his judgement.

Upon the likenesse of matter it is to be inquir'd

Whether the guides of souls have a proper and spiritual power to enjoyn penances or Ecclesiastical satisfactions to a Prince that hath sinn'd publickly.* 1.24

The answer to this depends upon the premisses.* 1.25 For the Church when she enjoyn'd publick satisfactions, did separate from the Communion those whom they thrust into the place of publick penitents. Now if the Bishops may not separate the Prince from the Communion, then neither impose those penances to which that separation did minister: But this is one of the Censures of the Church, and part of that coercitive power which she hath by the permission of Princes and the voluntary submission and consent of good people: And therefore it cannot be done, unlesse the Prince please. In the Primitive Church, when this discipline was in godly use, none could be compelled to it, but by conviction in publick, or private confession, and in both cases their own consent was either expresse or im∣plied; and therefore much lesse can this be done to the supreme power whether he will or no.* 1.26 Imperatoriâ unctione poenitentiam tolli, said Balsamo, From the suffering penances Kings are quitted by their anointing: and upon those words of David, [Against thee onely have I sinned] S. Ambrose hath this note, He was a King, he was held by no laws, because Kings are free from the bands of delinquents; Neque enim ullis ad poenam vocantur legi∣bus tuti Imperii potestate, Neither are they by any laws call'd to penance, being

safe by the power of their Empire. And since the Primitive Church was in∣finitely restrain'd in imposing publick penances on Bishops, for the honour of their order and dignity of their persons, we shall the lesse need to doubt of their opinion or practises concerning Kings.

But yet we find that some excellent good Princes did submit to such imposition of penances,* 1.27 and did abstain from the publick communions till they had given testimony of their repentance toward God. So the Em∣peror Philip, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he of his own willing mind plac'd him∣self amongst the penitents. So did Theodosius under the discipline and con∣duct of S. Ambrose. But these things are but cautelously to be drawn into example, and as they give no power to the Bishop, so every seldome doe they advantages to Kings. Henry the Emperor was a sad example of it, for his affaires went into diminution, and his person into contempt, and his power into pupillage as soon as ever he had done penance at Canusium bare-footed, in a cold winter, for three dayes together, and had endur'd the insolency and scorn of Hildebrand. And when Kings made themselves lesse, the Bishops became greater without any good to the Church, but not without much detriment to religion.

But neither may Princes be reprov'd publickly.* 1.28 For if he will not be obedient to the will of God in the voice of his ministers publickly tea∣ching, or privately admonishing, and prudently reproving; he that goes about to reprove him publickly, intends by that meanes by some indirect coercion to compel him, either by shame or by fear; neither of which ought to be impos'd by a subject on the Prince. For it is to be observed that reproof is a part of Empire and superiority, and differs not from tea∣ching, save onely that it is manus linguae, it is the hand of the tongue, not the voice onely. He that reproves teaches onely minors: and though Kings are so in respect of the conduct of their souls, yet it must not be done to them but very sparingly, because it can very hardly be done without dimi∣nution of their dignity; and teaching or declaring their duty will doe their work for them if they please, and if they doe not please, he that re∣proves will doe the Prince no good, but he shall hurt himself, and shall not be a Martyr when he is smitten. Let no man therefore pretend zeal for God in excuse of any boldnesse more then Priestly towards Kings. For the work of God is oftentimes better done by a gentle hand, then by a strong.

—peragit tranquilla potestas Quod violenta nequit:* 1.29 mandatáque fortiùs urget Imperiosa quies—

And if we esteem reproof unseasonable where it is likely we may doe hurt, & where it is not likely we shall doe good, much more is not this course pru∣dent to be us'd to Kings, who may be provok'd by your ungentle Sermon, or may be hardened by your fire. For every Prince hath not the gentlenesse of Antigonus, patiently to hear himself revil'd: but if he had, yet it was but reason that Antigonus sapek when he bade the Souldiers if they would revile him, to goe further off. And such men should doe well to consider how ill themselves would take it if they were publickly in the Pulpit call'd schismatics or incendiaries. * But how and if the people be as zealous as the Priest, and think it lawfull to call their King by all the names of re∣proach which they hear in the sermons of the Ministers? And if the Bishop

calls a spade a spade, it is very possible the people may doe so too, for they are soon taught to despise their rulers; and then it is to be remembred what Aristole sayes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If they once come to despise their Prince, they will soon unclasp his royal Mantle.

It is true that the Ministers of religion are stewards of the mysteries of God and Embassadors for Christ:* 1.30 and though I cannot say that they who upon this account think they have power publickly to reprove vitious Kings, and in plain language give names to their vices and publish their shame, doe overvalue their dignity, for that cannot easily be done; yet I say they use it incompetently and imprudently; for the effect of this pow∣er and dignity is not to upbraid, or to disgrace, but to edify and doe good to all men according to their capacity: and therefore S. Paul, when he had declar'd his office and commission to be Christ's Embassador, he addes, as the full, expresse and proper issue of that power, we pray you in Christs stead to be reconciled to God.

The old Prophets took liberty,* 1.31 and were bold in their reproofs, and troubled Kings;* 1.32 and the people sometimes were stirred too much upon such accounts: but when the Prophets were charged with sedition, they onely gave in answer the expresse Commandement of God. And therefore it was that Amos being very bold was bidden not to prophesy and more at Be∣thel,* 1.33 because it was the Kings Chappel and the Kings Court: and he was forc'd to plead a special mission; which the Priests had not, and therefore we doe not find that ever they us'd any such licence and freedome of re∣proof, except in such cases in which they also became prophets; as it hap∣pened to Jehoiada, 2 Chron. 24. 20. and that's the very case of the Ministers of, the Gospel, who unlesse they had a special commission, must teach accor∣ding to the duty and obedience, the gentlenesse and prudence of the religion; lest it be said to them as was said by King Amaziah to a bold man that spake openly to him,* 1.34 Have they made thee the Kings Counsellor? cease thou, why should they smite thee?

Now in this there can be the lesse doubt,* 1.35 for they mistake it that sup∣pose this to be a question of duty; it is onely an inquiry after the manner of doing the duty: and therefore although for the former reasons this man∣ner of doing their duty is not fit, yet it is necessary that the duty should be done. For miser est Imperator cui vera reticentur. No misery is greater then that Kings shall not be taught their duty. They must be taught it all: and in this no liberty, if it be prudently conducted, can become licen∣tious. To which purpose, the Bishops and Ministers of religion must thus comport themselves to Kings.

1. Let the publick doctrines be instructive,* 1.36 but not apt to raise suspi∣cion of the Prince. 2. Let it be in things certain and of evident and ap∣parent duty. 3. Let no doctrines be fitted to private interests and partia∣lities in the State. 4. let no reproof of Kings be in Pulpits, for it is un∣civil toward any ut quis crimen audiat eo loco quo refellendi copia non sit, as the Roman said, that a man should be reprov'd in that place where for re∣verence and religion sake the man may not answer for himself.* 1.37 And there∣fore Clement the third caus'd a Clergy-man to be punish'd because multis

coram astantibus verba quadam in depressionem officii & beneficii nostri pro∣tulit, he spoke words in a publick audience tending to his disparagement: and the Emperors Theodosius,* 1.38 Arcadius and Honorius made a law, Si quis mo∣destiae nescius, & pudoris ignarus, improbo petulantique maledicto nomina nostra crediderit lacessenda, &c. That if any man, forgetting shame and mo∣desty, thought fit to dishonour the Emperors, he should not presently be punish'd: for if the man were a fool or a light person, the thing was to be despis'd; if he were a mad man, he was to be pitied; if injurious or angry, he might be for∣given: but, ad nostram scientiam referatur, ut ex personis hominum dicta pensemus, & utrum praetermitti an exquiri debeant censeamus: the Princes would have it referr'd to their cognisance and judgment whether such per∣sons should be punish'd or no. 5. Let there be no doubtful speeches in pub∣lick sermons scatter'd amongst the people concerning Princes, for they are publick seditions, not sermons. 6. When it is necessary or when it is pru∣dent that private addresses to Princes be with a sacerdotal freedome, let it be in cases of great crimes, and evidently prov'd and evidently vitious, neither deriv'd from uncertain rumors of the people, nor from trifling sus∣picions, nor yet be in matters of secret concernment and undiscerned rea∣son. A Prince may be reprov'd for notorious adultery, or evident murder against the forms of law; but not so freely in the questions of warres or judicature: for the Bishops private opinion may be warrant enough for him to speak it when he is requir'd, but not to reprove a Prince upon pre∣tence of duty, and by a spiritual authority, when the matter of fact or the question of right is uncertain.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1.
• * 1.2

  2.
• * 1.3

  3.
• * 1.4

  4.
• * 1.5

  5.
• * 1.6

  6.
• * 1.7

  Epist. 171.
• * 1.8

  1 Timoth. 5. 1.
• * 1.9

  7.
• * 1.10

  Homil. 4. de verbis Isai. Vidi Dominum.
• * 1.11

  8.
• * 1.12

  Euseb. lib. 6. c. 27.
• * 1.13

  Chrysost. adv. Gentes.
• * 1.14

  Basil. Ep. 47.
• * 1.15

  Paulin. apud Baron. A. D. 387.
• * 1.16

  Theod. lib. 5. c. 17.
• * 1.17

  Leo Aug. orat. de vita Johan. Chrysostom. Niceph. lib. 13. c. 34.
• * 1.18

  Aug. Epist. 6. in append. Greg. lib. 2. Ep. 36. Anastas. Biblioth in Greg. 2.
• * 1.19

  9.
• * 1.20

  ultrò à com∣munione absti∣nuisse Theodo∣sium aiunt Ruf∣finus lib. 2. c. 18▪ & Ware∣mund. ab Ere••b. c. 2. 〈…〉〈…〉 reg. n. 35. et seqq.
• * 1.21

  lib. 2. Ep. 36.
• * 1.22

  10.
• * 1.23

  1 Sam. 15. 25.
• * 1.24

  11.
• * 1.25

  12.
• * 1.26

  ad Can. 12. Synodi Ancy∣ranae
• * 1.27

  13.
• * 1.28

  14.
• * 1.29

  Claud. in Paneg. Mallii.
• * 1.30

  15.
• * 1.31

  16.
• * 1.32

  Amos. 7. 10.
• * 1.33

  Amos 7. 13.
• * 1.34

  2 Chron. 25. 16.
• * 1.35

  17.
• * 1.36

  18.
• * 1.37

  de Maledic. c. 1.
• * 1.38

  tit. C. Si quis Imper maled.