who sinned before, not before Paul's second visit, but those who heretofore have sinned, i. e. those who already stand in the category of known sinners, and to all other^ i. e. to those who were not thus known, who had not as yet oifended. If I come again (cts to ndkcv), I will not spare, Paul had for- borne long enough, and he was now determined to try the , effect of discipline on those whom his arguments and exhorta--^ tions failed to render obedient. From this, as well as from other passages of Paul's epistles, two things are abundantly manifest. First, the right of excommunication in the church. It is only in established churches controlled by the state, or thoroughly imbued with Erastian principles, that this right is seriously questioned, or its exercise precluded. In his former epistle, chap. 5, the apostle had enjoined on the Corinthians the duty of casting out of their communion those who openly violated the law of Christ. The second thing here rendered manifest, is, that the apostle as an individual possessed the right of excommunication. The apostolic churches were not independent democratic communities, vested with supreme authority over their own members. Paul could cast out of their communion whom he would. He was indeed clothed with supernatural power which enabled him to deliver offend- ers " unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh," 1 Cor. 5, 5, but this was not all. This presupposed the power of excom- munication. It was the abihty miraculously to pimish with corporeal evils those whom he cut off from the church. This right to discipline, as it is not to be merged into the super- natural gift just referred to, so it is not to be referred to the inspiration and consequent infallibility of the apostles. The apostles were infallible as teachers, but not as men or as dis- ciplinarians. They received unrenewed men into the church, as in the case of Simon Magus. They did not pretend to read the heart, much less to be omniscient. Paul proposed to ar- rive at the knowledge of offences by judicial examination. He avowed his purpose to condemn no one on his own judg- ment or knowledge, but only on the testimony of two or three witnesses. This right to exercise discipline which Paul claimed was not founded on his miraculous gifts, but on his ministerial office.
3. Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, Avliicli to you-ward is not weak, but is mightv in you.