IT is visible to all understandings that there are two states of Gods Church . For , there must needs be a great difference between the Church , as it was first established , by the ordinances of the Apostles , before the exercise of Christianity was allowed and priviledged by the Laws of the Romane Empire ; and as it now standeth , protected by the Laws of Christian Kingdomes and Commonwealths . And my purpose is here to debate , what power the Church ought to have in this later state , and what Right accrues to Secular powers in Church matters , when they professe Christianity , and the maintenance of it : Which one dispute , will necessarily conclude the chiefe matters now in compromise , concerning the state of the Church in this Kingdome . To understand this aright we must suppose , that the Church is not endowed with any manner of the secular power of this world , and the civill Societies of it , which constraineth men to obedience by force . For it will be easie for ordinary understandings , after the miserable disputes which this civill Warre hath advanced , to perceive , that though there be many points of that Right , wherein Soveraign Power consisteth , yet all of them are resolved into the Power of the Sword : Seeing that there is no manner of publick Act , either of Soveraign Power , or any derived from it , that could be effectuall , as the use of civill Society requires , did not all mens senses tell them , that there is force ready , to reduce the refractary to obedience . Now , that our Saviour did , and was to disclaim all Title to the Sword , is manifest by the Gospell , and the profession of it . For , being suspected in his life time by his enemies , and lastly accused to Pilate , as one that sought to usurp it , his renouncing it so publickly , because it clears him , therefore convinces the injustice of the sentence against him . And truly , what entertainment shall we imagine his Gospel would have found in the world , had it pretended to establish itself by force ? For , this profession , must needs have produced that effect , which Mahumetisme did afterwards , to wit , the subversion of all States , which it might prove able to justle with and to prevaile . But , Christianity being first initiated by the Crosse of Christ , and professing nothing , but to follow him in bearing his Crosse , it is manifest , that those which saw not reason to beleeve it , must be convinced , that they ought not to persecute it . For , if it preserve the power of the Sword , in those hands , wherein it is found , when the Gospel is preached , and received any where , then , of necessity , all Rights , all goods of this world , in the possession whereof , the Power of the Sword professes to maintain all Subjects , are , by the Gospel , maintained in those hands , that have them by just title of Humane Right . And so , that which I here suppose , is no more then the received Position of Divines , That temporall dominion is not founded in Grace : For , mens Rights , Powers , and Priviledges , in civill Societies , are no lesse their own , and concern their estate no lesse , then their Goods and Possessions . Therefore , though much more evidence might be brought to prove this , from the Apostles , commanding Christians to obey secular Powers , children their Parents , slaves their Masters , wives their Husbands , and the like , according to the Laws , but above the Laws , for conscience to God , obliging thereby all States , to maintain Christianity ; yet , this being a point , which no party professes to stick at , I will hereupon presume to take it for granted .

But , though the Church is not endowed with any coactive power , by Divine Right , yet , by Divine Right , and by Patent from God , it is endowed with a Power of holding Assemblies , for the Common Service of God , before any grant of the Powers of the world , and against any Interdict of them , if so it fall out . For , the Communion which the Gospel establisheth among Christians , is not onely invisible , in the heart , beleeving the same Faith , and disposed to live according to it , but also outwardly visible , not only in the Profession of the same Faith , which may be common to those that communicate in nothing else , but also in the Common Service of God ; For , seeing God hath given his Church the Ordinances of his worship , wherewith he requireth to be served in common by his Church , some of them common both to the Church and the Synagogue , that is , to Jews and Christians , others , delivered by the Gospel onely to the Church , it is manifest , that the Church is priviledged by God , because commanded , to join in serving him according to those Ordinances . And therefore , we are not to ask an expresse warrant in Scripture , for this , whether duty , or priviledge , because it was always in force among the people of God , though not always free from the bondage of strangers . The Apostle truly , writing to the Hebrews , not to fall away from Christianity to Judaisme , for the persecutions , which the Jews their natives brought upon them , ( which , he that will diligently observe , shall finde to be the full scope of that Epistle ) inferreth , as a consequence , Heb. X. 25. not to forsake the assembling of themselves : Shewing , that Christianity cannot be professed without so doing , though it bring persecution with it : As , we know , the Primitive Christians frequented the Service of God , when they were in danger of the Laws , because , that which the Laws forbade , was their Assemblies . Wherefore , as within severall Commonwealths , there are particular Societies , Colleges , and Corporations , subsisting by grant of their Soveraigns . And as , by the Law of Nations , there is a kinde of Society , and Commonwealth , among those that are bound in the same vessell , upon the same voyage , which Aristotle cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as there is also among them that travell together in the Caravans of the East , because they submit to some Rule , in regard of some common interess : So must we understand the Church , to be a humane , though not a civill Society , Corporation , or Commonwealth : Not as these last named , which consist of Subjects to severall States , warranted and protected by the Law of Nations , nor as the former , by Charter from some Soveraign , but by that Law of God , whereby all Nations are called to serve him , by those Ordinances which he hath established in the Church . Therefore the main point of that Charter , which makes the Church such a Society or Commonwealth , is the right of Assembling , and holding such Assemblies , without warrant , against all Law of the world that forbids it : The particulars of it are those rights , which God hath given his Church , to preserve unity , and communion in the celebration of those Ordinances , for which it assembleth . For , since the principles of Christianity professe one Church , and that the unity thereof extendeth to this visible communion , it is manifest hereby , that the will of God is , that all Christians communicate with all Christians , in all Ordinances of his service , when occasion requires ; a thing which the practice of all sides confesses . For , though this communion be interrupted with so many Schismes , yet , since all parties labour to shew , that the cause of separation is not on their side , they acknowledge all separation , to be against Gods Ordinance , when they labour to clear themselves of the blame of it .

In the next place we are to inquire , upon what Title of Right , the Church is ingraffed into civill Societies and Soveraignties , by vertue whereof , secular Powers exercise that right to which they pretend , in Church matters . For , I perceive , those of the Congregations oftentimes demand , what ground we have in Scripture for Nationall Churches . Now , the term of Nationall Churches , it seems , is something unproper , because , as one and the same Nation may be divided into severall Soveraignties , and the Churches thereof , by consequence , subject to severall Soveraigns , so may the same Soveraignty contain severall Nations , and the Churches of them , which , in these cases , are not properly Nationall Churches , and yet are properly that which is signified by the term of Nationall Churches . But , setting aside this exception , I conceive , those of the Congregations have reason to make the demand , and that the answer to it , if once well made , will be of consequence , to settle many things in debate . For , that the same right , in matters of Religion , is due to Christian Princes and States , which the Kings of Iudah practised under the Law , of it self no way appears , because of the generall difference between the Law and the Gospel . To which may be added , to tie the knot faster , that there is this clear difference between them , in the particular in hand , that the Law was confined to one People , as being the condition of that Covenant , whereby God undertook to give them the Land of promise , and to maintain them in the free and happy possession of it ; they undertaking on their part , to serve him , and rule themselves by it : But the Gospell is the New Covenant , by which God undertakes to give life everlasting , to those that take up Christs Crosse , to perform it . The persons therefore of whom the Church consists , being of all Nations , all of them of equall interesse , in that wherein they communicate , and therefore in the Rules , by which : It is manifest , that no Soveraign can have more interesse then another , in creating that right , by vertue whereof , the Subjects of severall Soveraignties communicate . Otherwise , the Unity of the Church must needs suffer , one Soveraign prescribing that , as necessary to the communion of the Church in his Dominions , which the Soveraigns over other parts of the Church , perhaps , allow not . But though , as a Divine , I admit this debate , yet as a Christian and a Divine both , I condemne the separation which they have made , before it be decided . The Church of England giveth to the King , that power in Church matters , which the Kings of Gods ancient people , and Christian Emperours after them always practised . This possession was enough to have kept Unity , though the reason appeared not , why Christian Princes should have the same right in the Church , as the Kings of Judah had in the Synagogue . For , if they observe it well , this right is no where established upon the Kings of Gods ancient people , by way of precept , in the Law . For , seeing the Law commanded them not to have a King , but gave them leave to have a King when they would , upon such terms as it requireth , Deut. XVII . 14. it cannot be said , that any Right in matters of Religion is setled upon the King , by that Law , which never provided that there should be a King . The question is then , not , whether the Kings of Judah had power in matters of Religion , which is express in Scripture , but upon what Title they had it , which is not to be had but by Interpretation of the Law . And this we shall finde , if we consider , that the Law was given to that people , when they were freed from bondage , and invested in the Soveraign power of themselves , as to a Body Politick , such as they became , by submitting to it . So that , though many precepts thereof concern the conscience of particular persons , yet there are also many , that take hold of the community of the people , for which , particular persons cannot be answerable , further then the Rate of that power by which they act in it : As , the destroying of Malefactors , Idolaters in particular . These Precepts then , being given to the community of the People , and the common Power of the People falling to the King , constituted according to the Law aforesaid , it followeth , that being invested with the Power , he stands thereby countable , for the Laws to be inforced by it . And then , the question that remains will be no more but this , Whether civill Societies , and the Soveraign Powers of them , are called to be Christian , as such , and not onely as particular persons . A thing which Tertullian seems to have doubted of , when he made an if of it , Apologet. cap. XXI . Si possent esse & Caesares Christiani ; If Emperours could be Christians : And Origen , when he expounds the words of Moses , I will provoke them to jealousie , by a people which are not a people , ( so he reads it ) of the Christians , whereof there were some in all Nations , and no whole Nation professed Christianity ; in X ad Rom. lib. VIII . & in Psal . XXXVI . Hom. I. seems to count this estate and condition , essentiall to the Church . But , since Anabaptists are no more Anabaptists , in denying the power of the Sword to be consistent with Christianity , it seems there is no question left about this , as indeed there ought to be none . For , the Prophesies , which went before , of the calling of the Gentiles to Christianity , were not fulfilled , till the Romane Empire professed to maintain it . And , thereby , the will of God being fulfilled , it is manifest that the will of God is , that civill Societies , & the Powers of them , should maintain Christianity by their Sword , and the Acts to which it enableth . But always , with that difference from the Synagogue , which hath been expressed . For , if the Church subsist in severall Soveraignties , the power which each of them can have in Church matters , must needs be concluded , by that power which God hath ordained in his Church , for the determining of such things , the determining whereof shall become necessary to preserve the Unity of it .

Thus much premised , the first point we are to debate is , Whether Excommunication be a secular punishment amounting to an Outlawry , or Banishment , as Erastus would have it , or the chiefe act of Ecclesiasticall Power , the Power of the Spirituall Sword of the Church , cutting from the visible communion thereof , such as are lawfully presumed to be cut off from the invisible , by sin . For , if there be a visible Society of the Church , founded by God , without dependence from man , there must be in it a visible power , to determine , who shall be or not be members of it : which , by consequence , is the Soveraign Power in the Society of the Church , as the Power of the Sword is in civill Societies . But Excommunication in the Synagogue , was a temporall punishment , such as I said , and therefore it is argued , that our Lord meant not of that , when he said , Dic Ecclesiae , that terme , in the Old Testament , being used for the Congregation of Gods people , in the quality of a civill Society . And therefore when he addeth , Let him he unto thee as a Heathen or a publican , they say it is manifest , that neither Ethnicks nor Publicans were excommunicate out of the Synagogue , nor the Excommunicate excluded from the Service of God in the Temple or Synagogue : And when our Lord addeth , Whatsoever ye binde and loose on earth — it is manifest , say they , in the language of the Jews , used among the Talmud Doctors , that bound and loose is nothing else , but that which is declared to be bound or loose , that is , prohibited & permitted , and therefore the effect of the Keyes of the Church , which is binding and loosing , reaches no further , then declaring what was lawfull , and what unlawfull ( as to the Jews , by the Law of Moses , ) in point of conscience .

The first argument that I make against this opinion , is drawn from the Power of Baptizing , thereby understanding , not the Office of ministring , but the Right of granting that Sacrament : Which we , in this state of the Church , doe not distinguish , because all are born within the pale of the Church , and by order thereof , baptized infants : But may see a necessary ground so to distinguish , by S. Paul , when he denies , that he was sent to baptize , but to preach the Gospel , 1 Cor. I. 17. whereas the words of our Lord in the Gospel are manifest , where he chargeth his Apostles to Preach and Teach all Nations , Baptizing them in the Name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . For the Baptizing of all that should turn Christians , could not be personally commanded the Apostles , but to preach to all Nations , and to make Disciples out of all Nations , this they might doe to those that might be Baptized , by such as they should appoint . We must note , that it is in the Originall , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , make Disciples , as the Syriack truly translates it : Commanding first , to bring men to be Disciples , then to Baptize . Now , Disciples are those that were after called Christians , such as we professe our selves , Acts XI . 26. those of whom our Lord saith in the Gospel , that those that will doe his Fathers will are his Disciples . Wherefore they are commanded to Baptize such as should submit to the Gospel : And so , to judge , whether each man did so or not , which , they that were trusted with the Gospel , were , by consequence , trusted to judge . The effect of this trust is seen in the many Orders and Canons of the Primitive Church , by which , those that desired to be admitted into the Church by Baptisme , are limited to the triall of severall years , to examine their profession , whether sincere or not . And , such as gained their living by such Trades , as Christianity allowed not , rejected , untill they renounced them . Not that my intent is to say that these Canons were limited by the Apostles : But because it is an argument , that always , to judge who shall be admitted to Baptisme , and who not , is another manner of power then to baptize , being the power of them that were able to settle such Canons . Though it is plain by the Scriptures , that those Rules had their beginning from the Apostles themselves . For , when S. Peter saith , 1 Pet. III. 21. that the Baptisme which saveth us , is not the laying down the filth of the flesh , but the examination of a good conscience to God ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : he sheweth , that the Interrogatories which the ancient Church used to propound to them that were to be baptized , were then in use ; and established by the Apostles , as the condition of a contract between the Church and them , obliging themselves to live according to the Gospel , as Disciples . And the Apostle , Heb. VI. 2. speaking of the foundation of repentance from dead works , the doctrine of Baptisms and imposition of Hands : manifestly shews the succeeding custome of the Church , that they which sued for Baptisme , should be catechized in the Doctrine of the Gospel , and contract with the Church to forsake such courses of the world as stood not with it , to be brought in by the Apostles . This is it which is here called the doctrine of Baptisms in the plurall number , not for that frantick reason which the distemper of this time hath brought forth , because there are two Baptismes , one of John by water , another of Christ by the Spirit ; but , because it was severally taught severall persons before they were admitted to their several Baptisms . And therefore called also the Doctrine of Imposition of Hands , because we understand by Clemens Alexandrinus , Paedag. III. 11. and by the Apostolicall Constitutions VII . 40. that , when they came to the Church to be catechized , and were catechized , they were then dismissed by him that catechized them , with Imposition of Hands , that is , with prayer for them , that they might , in due time , become good Christians . All , visible marks of the power of the Church , in judging whether a man were fit for Baptisme or not . To which I will adde onely that of Eusebius , De vitâ Constant . IV. where speaking of the Baptisme of Constantine he saith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that confessing his sinnes , hee was admitted to prayer with Imposition of hands . If it be said , that there were added to the Church three thousand in a day , Acts II. 41. which could not be thus catechized and tried ; my answer is , that two cases were always excepted from the Rule : The first was in danger of death : The second , when , by the eagernesse of those that desired Baptism , the hand of God appeared extraordinary in the work of their conversion to Christianity . Besides , it is not said that they were baptized that day ; but that they were added to the Church that day : Which is true , though they onely professed themselves Disciples for the present , passing neverthelesse their examination , and instruction , as the case required . If therefore there be a power , setled in the Church by God , to judge , who is fit to be admitted into it , then is the same power inabled to refuse him that shall appear unfit , then , by the same reason , to exclude him , that proves himself unfit , after he is admitted .

This is the next argument , which I will ground upon the Discipline of Penance , as it was anciently practised in the Church : Which is opened by the observation advanced in the 127 p. of this little Discourse , that those , who , contrary to this contract with the Church , fell into sins destructive to Christianity , were fain to sue to be admitted to Penance : Which supposeth , that , till they had given satisfaction of their sincerity in Christianity , they remained strangers to the Communion of the Church . For , it appeareth , by the most ancient of Church Writers , that , for divers ages , the greatest Sinners , as Apostates , Murtherers , & Adulterers , were wholly excluded from Penance . For though Tertullian was a Montanist , when he cried out upon Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome , for admitting Adulterers to Penance , in his Book De Pudicitiâ , yet it is manifest by his case , that it had formerly been refused in the Church , because the granting of it makes him a Montanist . And S. Cyprian Epist. ad Antonianum , testifieth , that divers African Bishops afore him , had refused it , maintaining communion neverthelesse with those that granted it . Irenaeus also I. 9. saith , of a certain woman , that had been seduced and defiled by Marcus the Heretick , that , after she was brought to the sight of her sin , by some Christians , she spent all her days in bewalling it : Therefore without recovering the communion of the Church again . And he that shall but look upon the Canons of the Eliberitane Councell , shall easily see many kindes of sins censured , some of them , not to be admitted to communion till the point , others not at the point of death . In this case , and in this estate , these onely , who were excluded from being admitted to Penance were properly excommunicate ; neither could those that were admitted to Penance be absolutely counted so , because in danger of death , they were to receive the Communion , though , in case they recovered , they stood bound to compleat their Penance . And from hence afterwards also , those that had once been admitted to Penance , if they fell into the like sins again , were not to be admitted to Penance the second time . Concil. Tolet. X. Can. XI . Eliber . Can. III. & VII . Ambros . de Poenit. II. 10 , 11. Innoc. I. Ep. I. August . Epist . L. & LIV. It is an easie thing to say , that this Rigor , was an infirmity in the Church of those times , not understanding aright free Justification by Faith : But as it is manifest , that this rigor of discipline abated more and more , age by age , till that now it is come to nothing : So , if we goe upwards , and compare the writings of the Apostles , with the Originall practice of the Church , it will appear , that the rigor of it was brought in by them , because it abated by degrees from age to age , till at length it is almost quite lost ; that the Reformation of the Church consists in retaining it , that we shall doe so much prejudice to Christianity , as we shall , by undue interpretation , make Justification by Faith inconsistent with it . And , in fine , it will appear , that all Penance presupposeth Excommunication , being onely some abatement of it . There is a sin unto death , saith the Apostle , 1 John V. 16. I say not that ye pray for it . This is commonly understood , of denying Gods truth , against that light which convinceth the conscience . Which , if it were true , the Apostles precept could never come into practice , seeing no man can know , unlesse by Revelation , against what light his Neighbour sinneth . But the Novatians , at the Councell of Nice , as Socrates and Sozomenus both report , Eccles. Hist . I. 7. I. 23. answering Constantine , that they refused Penance , onely to those that sinned the sin unto death , doe give us to understand , that S. John was understood by the Church , not to command , that Apostates be admitted to Penance . And so also Tertullian in many places of his Book de Pudicit . as cap. XIV . argueth from this place , that Penance was not to be granted to Adulterers . Which sheweth , that the Church understood the place in the same sense , though it admitted not his consequence . So also Origen in Mat. XVIII . 18. Tract . VII . I was long doubtful of the truth of this Interpretation , because the Apostle premising , If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death , let him ask of God , seems to speak of private Prayers of particular persons . But the words of S. James , V. 16. have cleared me of this doubt , Confesse your sins one to another , saith he , and pray for one another , that ye may be healed : In which words , I make no doubt but he speaketh of publique Penance . For having premised , that the Presbyters be sent for to the sick , that they confesse their sins to the Presbyters , that they pray for them , anointing them with oil , that their sins may be forgiven them , to shew neverthelesse , that , according to the custome aforesaid , in case they recovered , they were to stand bound to Penance , he addeth , Confesse your sins to one another — to signifie , that this Confession and Penance remained due before the Church , as we understand by the XII Canon of Nice , that the practice was so long afterwards . And this is proved , by the precept of both Apostles , to pray for one another . For it is manifest , that there were two means to obtain remission of sins , in this case ; the Humiliation which the Church prescribed , and the Penitent performed , and the Prayers of the Church . Which S. John prescribeth not to be granted to Apostates .

The very same is the meaning of the Apostle to the Hebrews , VI. 6. when he pronounceth it unpossible , that those that fall away , be renued again to Repentance . For , as they that stood for Baptisme , when they were catechized in Christianity , were properly said , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be instructed or dedicated to Repentance , because of the Repentance from dead works , which they professed ; so they that forfeited their Christianity , by violating the contract of Baptisme , are no lesse properly said , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be renewed , instructed , and dedicated again to Repentance : And the Apostles reason agrees ; For , because the earth that receives rain , and renders no fruit , is near the curse , therefore the Church will not easily beleeve , that such a one shall lightly obtain of God , the grace to become a sincere Christian . And therefore , the Apostle says not , that it is unpossible , that such a one should repent , but that he should be instructed again to repentance , to wit , by the Church . As the Novatians answered Constantine , that they remitted such persons to God , not prejudicing their salvation , but not admitting them to the means of Reconciliation by the Church . And herewith agreeth the example of Esau , used by the Apostle again XII . 17. saying that he found not place of Repentance , alluding to that roome in the Church , where Penitents were placed apart by themselves . And again , X. 26. the allusion which he maketh to the custome under the Law , understood by the Hebrews to whom he writeth , consisteth in this , that , as there was no sacrifice to be made for Apostates , though for Ethnicks , ( for this was the use of the Law , as we understand by Moses Maimoni in the Title of Dressing Oblations cap. III. num. 3 , 5. ) So , the Christian Sacrifice , of the Prayers of the Church , was not to be offered , for those that had renounced Christianity . If it be thus , you will ask , What was the fault of the Novatians , seeing they understood this Text right ? And my answer is , that neverthelesse they are Hereticks , extending the name of Hereticks , to those whom now we call Schismaticks , as I have shewed you , in the little Discourse , pag. 197. that it is often used . For S. John , as he commands not , so he forbids not , that they be admitted to Penance , the other Apostle tels them , it is impossible , to let them know , that they must not expect it : But neither says , that the Church could not give it . When therefore the Church , to preserve Unity , was necessitated to grant it , as we see by S. Cyprian , the Novatians were no lesse Schismaticks , in making separation upon the quarrell , ( though perhaps the reason be not urged by their adversaries ) then if they had understood the Text amisse : The Unity of the Church , being of more moment , then much understanding in the Scriptures . And so , perhaps , S. Pauls words will belong to this purpose , 1 Tim. 5. 19. as , not onely the Socinians of late , but Pacianus among the Ancients , Paraen . ad Poenitentiam , and Matthaeus Galenus among modern Writers , do expound them : To wit , that when he saith , Lay hands suddenly on no men , nor partake of other mens sins : he leaves it to Timothies judgement , whom to admit , whom not to admit to Penance : Because this Blessing with Imposition of hands , was not the mark of Absolution , but of admission to Penance , as well as the ceremony of Ordinations . And though this Text of the Apostle , be understood in particular of Ordinations , yet , by the same reason which he allegeth , it is to be extended to all Acts of the Church , that are blessed , by the Prayers of the Church , with Imposition of Hands . For if Timothy , by Imposing hands upon those whom he Ordains , become accessary to their sins , if they be unfit to be Ordained ; by the same reason , if he Impose Hands , that is , grant Penance unto them that are not fit for it , he becomes accessory to the sins which they commit by being admitted to it . Imposition of Hands being nothing else , but a ceremony of that Benediction , which signifieth , that those Acts to which it is granted , are allowed and authorized by the publique Power of the Church . So Imposition of Hands in Confirmation , is the admission of him that is confirmed to the communion of the Visible Church ; In Penance , the restoring of him : In Ordination , to the exercise of this or that function in the Church : Prayer , over the sick , which the Apostle commands , James V. 14. and our Lord in the Gospel made with Imposition of Hands , signified the admitting of the sick to Penance : And it is said , that in some Eastern Churches , to this day , mariages are blessed with Imposition of Hands , in signification , that the Church alloweth of them , which , as it was alwayes the right of the Church to doe , as I shall observe in another place , so it appeareth so to be , in that mariage was never celebrated among Christians , without the Prayers of the Church . And this observation I insist upon the more chearfully , because it much strengtheneth the argument , which the Church maketh , for the Baptism of Infants , from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel , when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands . For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the publique Power of the Church , allowing that which is done with it , then can this Imposition of Hands signifie no lesse , then , that those to whom our Lord granteth it , belong to his Kingdome of the Visible Church . One little objection there lies against this , from the incestuous person at Corinth , whom S. Paul , in his second Epistle , seems to readmit to communion , his crime being as deep as Adultery , which , we say , the rigor of Apostolicall Discipline admitted not to Penance . To which I have divers things to answer . That this cannot be objected , but by him that acknowledges , that he was excommunicate by the former Epistle . That Tertullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ , disputes at large , that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles . That the crime here specified , perhaps , is not of the number of those , which from the beginning were excluded from Penance . But , waving all this , as I excepted two cases , in which men were baptized without regular triall , so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case , it is no inconvenience to grant , that S. Paul might wave the rigor of Discipline , so setled , as supposing there might be cause to wave it . If this opinion seem new , my purpose requires but these two Points , that the Penance practised by the ancient Church , supposed Excommunication , which it only abateth : and , that it was instituted by the Apostles ; and , for that , there is enough said , I suppose , even to them that beleeve not , that the Apostles excluded any kinde of crimes from Penance . Besides that of S. Paul , blaming the Corinthians , that they were puffed up , and had not rather lamented , that he that had done the evil , might be put from among them , 1 Cor. V. 2. And again , fearing , that when he returned , he should be forced to lament many , 2 Cor. XII . 21. Which , if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication , which by the constitutions of the Apostles , II. 16. and other ways , we understand , was , to put the person out of the Church doors with mourning , it will appear , that Epiphanius is in the right , in expounding this later Text to this purpose , Haer. LIX . num. 5. The power of Excommunication then , by all this , is no more , then the necessary consequence , of the Power of admitting to Communion , by Baptism : Which , if it imply a contract with the Church , to live according to the rule of Christianity , then it is forfeit to him , that evidently does that , which cannot stand with that rule , and the Church not tied to restore it , but as the person can give satisfaction , to observe it for the future .