A reply to an answer made of M. Doctor Whitgifte Against the admonition to…A replye to an ansvvere made of M. Doctor VVhitgifte Against the admonition to…

Now / whereas M. Doctor upon those words of S. Paul / that he being absent in body / and present in spirit / had determined. &c. concludeth that the right of excommunication was in S. Paul / and not in the rest / it is as much as if he should say / S. Paul as much as lay in him excommunicated / therefore s. Paul excommunicated: or S. Paul excommunicated / therefore the church did not. For what if S. Paul did excommunicate him so much as lay in him / should he therefore have been excommunicated / if the church of Corinth / and the minister there would have admitted him to the supper / and not abstain from familiar companying with him? You will say he should have been bound in heaven and before God / although the church of Corinth had not put him forth. It is true that the apostles denunciation of Gods vengeance upon the impenitent sinner / is ratified in heaven / and so should he also have been if S. Paul had said nothing / and yet S. Paul did not excommunicate the incestuous person / but so much as lay in him / and as far as his right stretched: not being therefore yet excommunicated by S. Paul / it followeth that the church had a stroke in the excommunication. Again / to prove that the church hath nothing to do with excommunication / it is not enough to say that S. Paul had the right of excommunication: But you should have showed that he only had it / and then you are manifestly convicted by S. Pauls own words / which joineth the church with him in that excommunication / saying that he had decreed that the doer of that fact (by his spirit / and them gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ / and by his power) should be given to satan. And if the right of excommunication were only in S. Paul / how is it that you said before / that it is in the minister of the church? had the minister of the church of Corinth nothing to do? And if it were in S. Paul alone / why doth he chide with the church / that they had not already excommunicated him before he wrote unto them to signify his ⟨p. 185⟩will to excommunicate? or if it were in the minister of the church only / why w•• S. Paul chide and sharply rebuke the church / for that the incestuous man was not cast forth? Why doth he charge the Corinthians with that which was the only fault of the minister?

Now / wheras M. Doctor vpon those wordes of S. Paule / that he being absent in body / and present in spirite / had determined. &c. concludeth yt the ryght of excommunication was in S. Paule / and not in the rest / it is as much as if he should say / S. Paule as much as lay in hym excommunicated / therfore s. Paule excommunicated: or S. Paule excommunicated / therefore the churche dyd not. For what if S. Paule dyd excommunicate hym so muche as lay in hym / shoulde he therfore haue bene excommunicated / if the church of Corinthe / and the minyster there would haue admitted hym to the supper / and not abstaine from familiare companying wyth hym? You will say he should haue bene bounde in heauen and before God / although the church of Corinthe had not put hym forthe. It is true that the apostles denunciation of Gods vengeance vpon the impenitent sinner / is ratifyed in heauen / and so shoulde he also haue bene if S. Paule had sayd nothyng / and yet S. Paule dyd not excommunicate the incestuous persone / but so much as lay in hym / and as farre as hys ryght stretched: not being therfore yet excommunicated by S. Paule / it foloweth that the church had a stroke in the excommunication. Againe / to proue that the church hath nothyng to doe wyth excommunication / it is not enoughe to say that S. Paule had the ryght of excommunication: But you shoulde haue shewed that he only had it / and then you are manifestly conuicted by S. Paules own words / whych ioyneth the church with hym in that excommunication / saying that he had decreed that the doer of that fact (by hys spirite / and them gathered together in the name of Iesus Christe / and by hys power) should be geuen to sathan. And if the right of excommunication were only in S. Paule / how is it that you sayd before / that it is in the minister of the churche? had the minister of the churche of Corinthe nothing to doe? And if it were in S. Paule alone / why doth he chide wyth the church / that they had not already excommunicated hym before he wrote vnto them to signifye hys