Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On Modesty

Tertullian

Chapter 13

About this work

Author: Tertullian

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

‹ Chapter 12 Chapter 14 ›

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

,

”

—

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

.

”

What

(

reference

)

is

understood

here

to

the

fornicator

?

what

to

the

contaminator

of

his

father’s

bed

?

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

?

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

.

”

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

midst

—

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

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

,

”

as

he

writes

to

his

Timotheus

.

“

But

withal

himself

says

that

‘

a

stake

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

.

”

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

,

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

,

”

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

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

?

”

And

yet

incestuous

fornication

was

not

a

little

,

but

a

large

,

leaven

.

Notes

1
See 1 Cor. v. 5.
2
See 2 Cor. ii. 5–11.
3
Comp. Gen. xlix. 4.
4
Comp. Matt. xxv. 32, 33.
5
2 Thess. iii. 14, 15.
6
Comp. 1 Cor. v. 2.
7
1 Tim. i. 20.
8
2 Cor. xii. 7–10.
9
2 Cor. xii. 9, not very exactly rendered.
10
Ævo. Comp. Matt. xii. 32.
11
1 Tim. i. 19.
12
1 Cor. v. 6, where Tertullian appears to have used δολοῖ, not ζυμοῖ.