the Corinthian, as in that of Hymenæus and Alexander, all was open and public, with a view to the Church's sympathy and prayer, and to the individual's restoration to Christian fellowship and love.1

Certain questions, however, on Public Penance were discussed. Cartwright again crossed swords with his old Master, Whitgift. The former contended that the Corinthian Church both excommunicated and absolved the offender. Whitgift as strenuously held that St. Paul exercised this authority, while the Church attested the justice of the sentence. Cartwright, as we know, appealed to the discipline of the Jewish synagogue, "translated unto [Christ's] Church"; and held "that the presbytery or eldership had the chief stroke in this excommunication." But Whitgift would have none of these Jewish leanings, and said, "St. Paul did publicly excommunicate in the presence of the whole Church, and used them as witnesses of his just dealing: but . . . the right and power of excommunication remained in himself." 99 2

It is impossible not to feel that the future

1 "That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." "That they may learn (va πaidevoŵσi) not to blaspheme." 1 Cor. v. 5, 1 Tim. i. 20. The disciplinary purpose is very marked in the original Greek of 1 Tim.

2 Whitgift, iii, 226, 230.

Archbishop argues here with less acuteness and more narrowness of view, than marked his great contemporaries Jewel and Hooker. Granting that his words are capable of right interpretation, yet as a reply to Cartwright's statement they ignore part of the truth. It is true that the right of discipline lay with the Apostle. It is equally true that it was vested permanently by Christ in His Body, the Church. When the Apostles passed away, the Church delegated her authority to those who were rightly (rite) called and sent to execute the discipline of Christ.1

man

"He

1 This divergence of view appears in their respective treatment of 1 Cor. v. 7-13. Cartwright says, biddeth the Church of Corinth twice. . . once by a metaphor, another time in plain words, that they should excommunicate the incestuous person. By metaphor, saying, 'purge out your own leaven' : in plain and flat words ... 'take away that wicked And in the second epistle . . . that they would receive him again, shewing that he was content to release the bond. . . of his excommunication, so that they would do the same." To this Whitgift replies, "When St. Paul saith . . . 'Purge out . . . he speaketh not of the incestuous Corinthian, but exhorteth them unto purity of life . . . When he saith, 'Put away that wicked man,' he doth not will them to excommunicate him, but to shun and avoid his company ... because he was excommunicate. . . . So in that place of 2 Cor. ii., after his . . . receiving again into the Church, he exhorteth them to embrace him and to love him" (Whitgift, iii. 229 f.). One cannot but feel that Whitgift's argument halts from a lack of breadth of view, and savours of special pleading.

Each was pressing one side of the truth out of proportion to the whole. Whitgift's and Cartwright's views were really complementary, not in their essence antagonistic.

An entirely different question is raised by Harding, in his dispute with Jewel. He affirms that the Pope, as Peter's successor, has power to loose "not only the mortal sin by the sacrament of penance, but also the band of temporal pain, which remaineth yet due to the sin." He goes on to explain that this is done not merely at the will of the Pope, ("who is put in authority

66

to dispense, and not to lavish,") but by a reasonable change of recompense," i.e. by some equivalent works of satisfaction—such as fighting against the infidel and to recover the Holy Sepulchre, or the building of churches and abbeys. In such cases the penitent may obtain remission also of that temporal satisfaction which was left in penance unremitted." We must not anticipate the question of culpa and poena, which lies at the root of this extravagant refinement. But the matter is relevant, inasmuch as it brings out Harding's most arbitrary appeal to Scripture which follows: which follows: "This kind of

1 Harding was Canon of Sarum; he was therefore in conflict with his Diocesan.

66

2 We shall see that the Reformers were very emphatic in their condemnation of this idea of recompense or equivalent works of satisfaction."

(See p. 197 ff.).

pardon St. Paul gave to that notorious sinner, who at Corinth . . . was separated from the Church of God to be afflicted temporally in His flesh"! Such is the Romish Canon's unreasoned and unreasonable comment on St. Paul's words "to whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ." He further appeals for proof to the case of Nathan and David.

...

ye

Jewel calls it "poor and simple stuff." "A fonder tale than this is. have sent us none." But he also takes a stronger line. "O, M. Harding, God is not to be mocked . . . abuse not his name or word in vain. Full well you know that neither David, nor Nathan, nor Christ, nor Paul were pardonmongers."

The words in 2 Cor. ii. 10, ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ, had been translated "in the sight of Christ " since 1539.2 Fulke defends this translation in 1563, against the criticism of his opponent Martin. The latter says

1 Jewel, iv. p. 849 ff.

2 Fulke, i. 485 f. The several versions reflect the difficulty which was felt as to the best rendering. In persona Christi, Vulg. "In the room of Christ," Tind. 1534. "In the sight of Christ," Cranmer's Great Bible, 1539, Geneva, 1557, Bishops', 1568. But the Rhemish New Test. (1582) restores the Vulgate, "In the person of Christ," and is followed by the A.V.

1611.

"So St. Paul saith . . . that when he pardoned or released the penance of the incestuous Corinthian, he did it, 'In the person of Christ': that is, (as St. Ambrose expoundeth it,) in the name of Christ, in His stead, as His vicar and deputy.' But they translate it, In the sight of Christ.' Where it is evident they cannot pretend the Greek and if there be ambiguity in the Greek, the Apostle himself taketh it away, interpreting himself. . . that he doth it, in the name and with the virtue of our Lord Jesus Christ . . .' so expounding."

Fulke replies

"That the Bishops, Elders, or Priests, of God's Church do bind and loose as in the person and power of Christ,' in his name, and by his authority, is acknowledged by us. But when we translate . . 'in the sight of Christ,' we respect what the Greek phrase doth more properly require: yea, what the Hebrew phrase ? doth signify, whereunto it is like that the Apostle doth allude. Otherwise Beza . . . doth not mislike the sense and interpretation of Ambrose . . . but preferreth the other, as more simple and agreeable to the meaning of the Apostle in that place, and to the nature of the Greek and Hebrew phrase."

It will be seen that the discussion was one of words not of doctrines, and the A.V. in 1611 returned to the older rendering.

The Reformers made their strongest appeal to Scripture. If is important therefore to learn what meaning they gave to ȧpínue in John xx. 23, where our Lord commissions the Church åpiévaι åμaptías. They hold, almost unanimously,

New Testament

use of

ἀφίημι