Chapter XIII.—Of St. Paul, and the Person Whom He Urges the Corinthians to Forgive.

We know plainly at this point, too, the suspicions which they raise.  For, in fact, they suspect the Apostle Paul of having, in the second (Epistle) to the Corinthians, granted pardon to the self-same fornicator whom in the first he has publicly sentenced to be “surrendered to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh,”124    See 1 Cor. v. 5.—impious heir as he was to his father’s wedlock; as if he subsequently erased his own words, writing:  “But if any hath wholly saddened, he hath not wholly saddened me, but in part, lest I burden you all.  Sufficient is such a chiding which is given by many; so that, on the contrary, ye should prefer to forgive and console, lest, perhaps, by more abundant sadness, such an one be devoured.  For which reason, I pray you, confirm toward him affection.  For to this end withal have I written, that I may learn a proof of you, that in all (things) ye are obedient to me.  But if ye shall have forgiven any, so (do) I; for I, too, if I have forgiven ought, have forgiven in the person of Christ, lest we be overreached by Satan, since we are not ignorant of his injections.”125    See 2 Cor. ii. 5–11.  What (reference) is understood here to the fornicator? what to the contaminator of his father’s bed?126    Comp. Gen. xlix. 4. what to the Christian who had overstepped the shamelessness of heathens?—since, of course, he would have absolved by a special pardon one whom he had condemned by a special anger.  He is more obscure in his pity than in his indignation.  He is more open in his austerity than in his lenity.  And yet, (generally), anger is more readily indirect than indulgence.  Things of a sadder are more wont to hesitate than things of a more joyous cast.  Of course the question in hand concerned some moderate indulgence; which (moderation in the indulgence) was now, if ever, to be divined, when it is usual for all the greatest indulgences not to be granted without public proclamation, so far (are they from being granted) without particularization.  Why, do you yourself, when introducing into the church, for the purpose of melting the brotherhood by his prayers, the repentant adulterer, lead into the midst and prostrate him, all in haircloth and ashes, a compound of disgrace and horror, before the widows, before the elders, suing for the tears of all, licking the footprints of all, clasping the knees of all?  And do you, good shepherd and blessed father that you are, to bring about the (desired) end of the man, grace your harangue with all the allurements of mercy in your power, and under the parable of the “ewe” go in quest of your goats?127    Comp. Matt. xxv. 32, 33. do you, for fear lest your “ewe” again take a leap out from the flock—as if that were no more lawful for the future which was not even once lawful—fill all the rest likewise full of apprehension at the very moment of granting indulgence?  And would the apostle so carelessly have granted indulgence to the atrocious licentiousness of fornication burdened with incest, as not at least to have exacted from the criminal even this legally established garb of repentance which you ought to have learned from him? as to have uttered no commination on the past? no allocution touching the future?  Nay, more; he goes further, and beseeches that they “would confirm toward him affection,” as if he were making satisfaction to him, not as if he were granting an indulgence!  And yet I hear (him speak of) “affection,” not “communion;” as (he writes) withal to the Thessalonians:  “But if any obey not our word through the epistle, him mark; and associate not with him, that he may feel awed; not regarding (him) as an enemy, but rebuking as a brother.”128    2 Thess. iii. 14, 15.  Accordingly, he could have said that to a fornicator, too, “affection” only was conceded, not “communion” as well; to an incestuous man, however, not even “affection;” whom he would, to be sure, have bidden to be banished from their midst129    Comp. 1 Cor. v. 2.—much more, of course, from their mind.  “But he was apprehensive lest they should be ‘overreached by Satan’ with regard to the loss of that person whom himself had cast forth to Satan; or else lest, ‘by abundance of mourning, he should be devoured’ whom he had sentenced to ‘destruction of the flesh.’”  Here they go so far as to interpret “destruction of the flesh” of the office of repentance; in that by fasts, and squalor, and every species of neglect and studious ill-treatment devoted to the extermination of the flesh, it seems to make satisfaction to God; so that they argue that that fornicator—that incestuous person rather—having been delivered by the apostle to Satan, not with a view to “perdition,” but with a view to “emendation,” on the hypothesis that subsequently he would, on account of the “destruction” (that is, the general affliction) “of the flesh,” attain pardon, therefore did actually attain it.  Plainly, the selfsame apostle delivered to Satan Hymenæus and Alexander, “that they might be emended into not blaspheming,”130    1 Tim. i. 20. as he writes to his Timotheus.  “But withal himself says that ‘a stake131    2 Cor. xii. 7–10. was given him, an angel of Satan,’ by which he was to be buffeted, lest he should exalt himself.”  If they touch upon this (instance) withal, in order to lead us to understand that such as were “delivered to Satan” by him (were so delivered) with a view to emendation, not to perdition; what similarity is there between blasphemy and incest, and a soul entirely free from these,—nay, rather elated from no other source than the highest sanctity and all innocence; which (elation of soul) was being restrained in the apostle by “buffets,” if you will, by means (as they say) of pain in the ear or head?  Incest, however, and blasphemy, deserved to have delivered the entire persons of men to Satan himself for a possession, not to “an angel” of his.  And (there is yet another point):  for about this it makes a difference, nay, rather withal in regard to this it is of the utmost consequence, that we find those men delivered by the apostle to Satan, but to the apostle himself an angel of Satan given.  Lastly, when Paul is praying the Lord for its removal, what does he hear?  “Hold my grace sufficient; for virtue is perfected in infirmity.”132    2 Cor. xii. 9, not very exactly rendered.  This they who are surrendered to Satan cannot hear.  Moreover, if the crime of Hymenæus and Alexander—blasphemy, to wit—is irremissible in this and in the future age,133    Ævo.  Comp. Matt. xii. 32. of course the apostle would not, in opposition to the determinate decision of the Lord, have given to Satan, under a hope of pardon, men already sunken from the faith into blasphemy; whence, too, he pronounced them “shipwrecked with regard to faith,”134    1 Tim. i. 19. having no longer the solace of the ship, the Church.  For to those who, after believing, have struck upon (the rock of) blasphemy, pardon is denied; on the other hand, heathens and heretics are daily emerging out of blasphemy.  But even if he did say, “I delivered them to Satan, that they might receive the discipline of not blaspheming,” he said it of the rest, who, by their deliverance to Satan—that is, their projection outside the Church—had to be trained in the knowledge that there must be no blaspheming.  So, therefore, the incestuous fornicator, too, he delivered, not with a view to emendation, but with a view to perdition, to Satan, to whom he had already, by sinning above an heathen, gone over; that they might learn there must be no fornicating.  Finally, he says, “for the destruction of the flesh,” not its “torture”—condemning the actual substance through which he had fallen out (of the faith), which substance had already perished immediately on the loss of baptism—“in order that the spirit,” he says, “may be saved in the day of the Lord.”  And (here, again, is a difficulty):  for let this point be inquired into, whether the man’s own spirit will be saved.  In that case, a spirit polluted with so great a wickedness will be saved; the object of the perdition of the flesh being, that the spirit may be saved in penalty.  In that case, the interpretation which is contrary to ours will recognise a penalty without the flesh, if we lose the resurrection of the flesh.  It remains, therefore, that his meaning was, that that spirit which is accounted to exist in the Church must be presented “saved,” that is, untainted by the contagion of impurities in the day of the Lord, by the ejection of the incestuous fornicator; if, that is, he subjoins:  “Know ye not, that a little leaven spoileth the savour of the whole lump?”135    1 Cor. v. 6, where Tertullian appears to have used δολοῖ, not ζυμοῖ.  And yet incestuous fornication was not a little, but a large, leaven.

CAPUT XIII.

1003A

Novimus plane et hic suspiciones eorum. Revera enim suspicantur apostolum Paulum, in secunda ad Corinthios (II Cor. II, 5 11), eidem fornicatori veniam dedisse, quem in prima dedendum Satanae in interitum carnis pronuntiarit (I Cor. V, 3, et seqq.), impium patris de matrimonio haeredem; quasique ipsum postea stylum verterit scribens: Si quis autem contristavit, non me contristavit, sed ex parte, ne vos onerem omnes. Satis est talis increpatio quae a multis fit. Uti e contrario magis vos donare et advocare, ne forte abundantiore tristitia devoretur ejusmodi. Propter quod oro vos, constituatis in eum dilectionem. In hoc enim et scripsi, uti cognoscam probationem vestram quod in omnibus obauditis mihi. Si cui autem donaveritis, et 1003B ego. Nam et ego si quid donavi, donavi in persona Christi, ne fraudemur a Satana: quoniam non ignoramus injectiones ejus (II Cor. II, 5, 11). Quid hic de fornicatore, quid de paterni thori contaminatore, quid de christiano ethnicorum impudentiam supergresso intelligitur? cum proinde utique speciali venia absolvisset, quem speciali ira damnasset. Obscurius miseretur, quam indignatur; apertior est in austeritate, quam in lenitate: atquin facilius ira quam indulgentia obliqua est; magis tristiora cunctantur, quam laetiora. De modica scilicet indulgentia agebatur; quae si forte nunc aestimaretur, quando maxima quaeque non soleant etiam sine praedicatione donari, tanto abest sine significatione. Et tu quidem poenitentiam moechi ad exorandam fraternitatem in ecclesiam inducens, 1003C conciliciatum et concineratum cum dedecore et horrore compositum prosternis in medium ante viduas, ante presbyteros, omnium lacinias invadentem, omniunt vestigia lambentem, omnium genua detinentem, inque cum hominis exitum quantis potes misericordiae inlecebris, bonus pastor et benedictus Papa concionaris, et in parabola ovis, capras tuas quaeris, tua ovis ne rursus de grege exiliat, quasi non exinde jam liceat quod nec semel licuit, caeteras etiam metu comples, cum maxime indulgens. Apostolus vero sceleratam libidinem fornicationis incesto onustam tam projecte ignovisset, ut nec hunc saltem habitum 1004A legatum poenitentiae quem ab ipso didicisse deberes, ab eo exegerit, nihil de postero sit comminatus, nihil de caetero allocutus? Quin imo, et ultro obsecrat, constituerent in cum dilectionem, quasi satisfaciens, non quasi ignoscens: et tamen dilectionem audio, non communicationem. Quod et ad Thessalonicenses: Si quis autem non obaudit sermoni nostro per epistolam, hunc notate, nec commisceamini illi, ut revereatur, non quasi inimicum deputantes, sed quasi fratrem objurgantes (II Thess. III, 14). Adeo potuisset dicere et fornicatori dilectionem solummodo concessam, non et communicationem. Incesto vero nec dilectionem, quem scilicet auferri jussisset de medio ipsorum, multo magis utique de animo. Sed verebatur ne fraudarentur a Satana circa ejus personae 1004B amissionem, quem Satanae ipse projecerat; aut ne abundantia moeroris devoraretur, quem in interitum carnis addixerat. Hic jam carnis interitum in officium poenitentiae interpretantur, quod videatur jejuniis et sordibus et incuria omni et dedita opera malae tractationis carnem exterminando satis Deo facere; ut ex hoc argumententur fornicatorem, imo incestum illum, non in perditionem Satanae ab Apostolo traditum, sed in emendationem, quasi postea veniam ob interitum, id est conflictationem carnis, consecuturum, igitur et consecutum. Plane idem apostolus Hymenaeum et Alexandrum Satanae tradidit, ut emendarentur non blasphemare, sicut Timotheo suo scribit (I Tim., I, 20). Sed et ipse datum sibi ait sudem, angelum Satanae, a quo colaphizaretur ne se extolleret. (II Cor., 1004C XII, 7). Si et hoc tangunt ut traditos Satanae ab illo, in emendationem, non in perditionem intelligamus, quid simile blasphemia et incestum et anima ab his integra, imo non aliunde quam ex summa sanctitate et ex omni innocentia elata, quae in apostolo colaphis si forte cohibebatur, per dolorem, ut aiunt, auriculae vel capitis. Incestum vero atque blasphemia totos homines in possessionem ipsi Satanae, non angelo ejus tradidisse meruerunt. Et de hoc enim interest, imo et ad hoc plurimum refert, quod illos traditos ab Apostolo legimus Satanae; Apostolo vero angelum datum Satanae. Postremo, cum deprecatur Dominum Paulus, 1005A quid audit? Satis habe gratiam meam; virtus enim in infirmitate perficitur (II Cor., XII, 9). Hoc, qui Satanae deduntur, audire non possunt. Hymenaei autem et Alexandri crimen si et in isto et in futuro aevo irremissibile est, blasphemia scilicet; utique Apostolus non adversus terminum Domini sub spe veniae dedisset Satanae, jam a fidei in blasphemiam mersos. Unde et naufragos eos juxta fidem pronuntiavit, non habentes jam solatium navis Ecclesiae: illis enim venia negatur, qui de fide in blasphemiam impegerunt. Caeterum, ethnici et haeretici quotidie ex blasphemia emergunt. Sed etsi dixit: Tradidi eos Satanae, uti disciplinam acciperent non blasphemandi; de caeteris dixit qui, illis traditis Satanae, id est extra Ecclesiam projectis, crudiri haberent blasphemandum non esse. Sic igitur 1005B et incestum fornicatorem non in emendationem, sed in perditionem tradidit Satanae, ad quem jam super ethnicos delinquendo transierat, ut discerent fornicandum non esse. Denique in interitum, inquit, carnis, non, in cruciatum; ipsam substantiam damnans per quam exciderat, quae exinde jam perierat, baptismate amisso; ut spiritus, inquit, salvus sit in die Domini (I Cor., V, 5). Et de hoc enim quaeratur si spiritus hominis ipsius salvus erit. Ergo salvus erit spiritus tanto scelere pollutus, propter hoc perdita carne, ut salvus sit in poena. Ergo poenam sine carne censebit contraria interpretatio, si resurrectionem carnis amittimus. Superest igitur ut eum spiritum dixerit, qui in Ecclesia censetur, salvum, id est integrum, praestandum in die Domini ab immunditiarum 1005C contagione, ejecto incesto fornicatore; siquidem subjungit: Non scitis quod modicum fermentum totam desipiat conspersionem (Ibid. 6)? Et tamen fornicatio incesta non erat modicum, sed grande fermentum.