 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Modesty, the flower of manners, thehonour of our bodies, thegrace of the sexes, the integrity of the blood, the guarantee of our race, the basis ofsanctity, the pre-indication of every good disposition; rare though it is, and not easily perfected, and scarce ever retained in perpetuity, will yet up to a certain point linger in the world, if nature shall have laid the preliminary groundwork of it, discipline persuaded to it, censorial rigour curbed its excesses — on the hypothesis, that is, that every mental good quality is the result either of birth, or else of training, or else of external compulsion.
But as the conquering power of thingsevil is on the increase — which is the characteristic of the last times — things good are now not allowed either to be born, so corrupted are the seminal principles; or to be trained, so deserted are studies; nor to be enforced, so disarmed are thelaws. In fact, (the modesty) of which we are now beginning (to treat) is by this time grown so obsolete, that it is not the abjuration but the moderation of the appetites which modesty isbelieved to be; and he is held to be chasteenough who has not beentoo chaste. But let the world's modesty see to itself, together with the world itself: together with its inherent nature, if it was wont to originate in birth; its study, if in training; its servitude, if in compulsion: except that it had been even more unhappy if it had remained only to prove fruitless, in that it had not been in God's household that its activities had been exercised. I should prefer no good to a vain good: what profits it that that should exist whoseexistence profits not? It isour owngood things whose position is now sinking; it is the system ofChristian modesty which is being shaken to its foundation — (Christian modesty), which derives its all from heaven; its nature,through the laver of regeneration;
its discipline, through the instrumentality of preaching; its censorial rigour, through the judgments which each Testament exhibits; and is subject to a more constant external compulsion, arising from the apprehension or the desire of theeternal fire or kingdom.
In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. ThePontifex Maximus — that is, thebishop ofbishops — issues an edict:I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, thesins both ofadultery and of fornication.
O edict, on which cannot be inscribed,Good deed!
And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. There is the place for promulgating such repentance, where the delinquency itself shall haunt. There is the place to read the pardon, where entrance shall be made under the hope thereof. But it is in the church that this (edict) is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and (the church) is avirgin! Far, far from Christ'sbetrothed be such a proclamation! She, thetrue, the modest, the saintly, shall be free from stain even of her ears. She has none to whom to make such a promise; and if she have had, she does not make it; since even the earthly temple of God can sooner have been called by the Lord aden ofrobbers,
than of adulterers and fornicators.
This too, therefore, shall be a count in my indictment against the Psychics; against the fellowship of sentiment also which I myself formerly maintained with them; in order that they may the more cast this in my teeth for a mark of fickleness. Repudiation of fellowship is never a pre-indication ofsin. As if it were not easier toerr with the majority, when it is in the company of the few thattruth is loved! But, however, a profitable fickleness shall no more be a disgrace to me, than I should wish a hurtful one to be an ornament. I blush not at anerror which I have ceased to hold, because I am delighted at having ceased to hold it, because I recognise myself to be better and more modest. No one blushes at his own improvement. Even inChrist,knowledge had its stages of growth; through which stages the apostle, too, passed.When I was a child,
he says,as a child I spoke, as a child I understood; but when I became aman, those (things) which had been the child's I abandoned:
sotruly did he turn away from his early opinions: nor did hesin by becoming an emulator not of ancestral but ofChristian traditions, wishing even the precision of them who advised the retention ofcircumcision. And would that the samefate might befall those, too, who obtruncate the pure andtrue integrity of the flesh; amputating not the extremest superficies, but the inmost image of modesty itself, while they promise pardon to adulterers and fornicators, in the teeth of the primary discipline of theChristian Name; a discipline to which heathendom itself bears such emphaticwitness, that it strives to punish that discipline in thepersons of ourfemales rather by defilements of the flesh than tortures; wishing to wrest from them that which they hold dearer than life! But now thisglory is being extinguished, and that by means of those who ought with all the more constancy to refuse concession of any pardon to defilements of this kind, that they make thefear of succumbing toadultery and fornication their reason for marrying as often as they please — sincebetter it is to marry than to burn.
Nodoubt it is for continence sake that incontinence is necessary — theburning
will be extinguished byfires!
Why, then, do they withal grant indulgence, under the name of repentance, to crimes for which they furnish remedies by their law of multinuptialism? For remedies will be idle while crimes are indulged, and crimes will remain if remedies are idle. And so, either way, they trifle with solicitude and negligence; by taking emptiest precaution against (crimes) to which they grant quarter, and granting absurdest quarter to (crimes) against which they take precaution: whereas either precaution is not to be taken where quarter is given, or quarter not given where precaution is taken; for they take precaution, as if they were unwilling that something should be committed; but grant indulgence, as if they were willing it should be committed: whereas, if they be unwilling it should be committed, they ought not to grant indulgence; if they be willing to grant indulgence, they ought not to take precaution. For, again,adultery and fornication will not be ranked at the same time among the moderate and among the greatestsins, so that each course may be equally open with regard to them — the solicitude which takes precaution, and the security which grants indulgence. But since they are such as to hold the culminating place among crimes, there is no room at once for their indulgence as if they were moderate, and for their precaution as if they were greatest. But byus precaution is thus also taken against the greatest, or, (if you will),highest (crimes, viz.,) in that it is not permitted, after believing, toknow even a second marriage, differentiated though it be, to be sure, from the work ofadultery and fornication by the nuptial and dotal tablets: and accordingly, with the utmost strictness, we excommunicate digamists, as bringinginfamy upon the Paraclete by the irregularity of their discipline. The self-same liminal limit we fix for adulterers also and fornicators; dooming them to pour forth tears barren of peace, and to regain from theChurch no ampler return than the publication of their disgrace.
But,
say they,God is 'good,' and 'most good,' and 'pitiful-hearted,' and 'a pitier,' and 'abundant in pitiful-heartedness,' which He holds 'dearer than allsacrifice,' 'not thinking the sinner's death of so much worth as his repentance', 'a Saviour of allmen, most of all ofbelievers.' And so it will be becoming for 'the sons of God?' too to be 'pitiful-hearted' and 'peacemakers;' 'giving in their turn just as Christ withal has given to us;' 'not judging, that we be not judged.' For 'to his own lord a man stands or falls; who are you, to judge another's servant?' 'Remit, and remission shall be made to you.'
Such and so great futilities of theirs wherewith they flatter God and pander to themselves, effeminating rather than invigorating discipline, with how cogent and contrary (arguments) are we for our part able to rebut — (arguments) which set before us warningly theseverity
ofGod, and provoke our own constancy? Because, albeit God is by nature good, still He isjust
too. For, from thenature of the case, just as Heknows how toheal,
so does He withalknow how tosmite;
making peace,
but withalcreatingevils;
preferring repentance, but withal commanding Jeremiah not topray for the aversion of ills on behalf of thesinful People —since, if they shall have fasted,
says He,I will not listen to their entreaty.
And again:Andpray not unto (me) on behalf of the People, and request not on their behalf inprayer and supplication, since I will not listen to (them) in the time wherein they shall have invoked me, in the time of their affliction.
And further, above, the same preferrer of mercy abovesacrifice (says):Andpray not unto (me) on behalf of this People, and request not that they may obtain mercy, and approach not on their behalf unto me, since I will not listen to (them)
— of course when they sue for mercy, when out of repentance they weep and fast, and when they offer their self-affliction toGod. For God isjealous,
and is One who is not contemptuously derided — derided, namely, by such as flatter His goodness — and who, albeitpatient,
yet threatens, through Isaiah, an end of (His) patience.I have held my peace; shall I withal always hold my peace and endure? I have been quiet as (awoman) in birth-throes; I will arise, and will make (them) to grow arid.
Fora fire shall proceed before His face, and shall utterly burn His enemies;
striking down not the body only, but thesouls too, intohell. Besides, the Lord Himself demonstrates the manner in which He threatens such as judge:For with what judgment you judge, judgment shall be given on you.
Thus He has not prohibited judging, but taught (how to do it). Whence the apostle withal judges, and that in a case of fornication, thatsuch a man must be surrendered toSatan for the destruction of the flesh;
chiding them likewise becausebrethren
were notjudged at the bar of thesaints:
for he goes on and says,To what (purpose is it) for me to judge those who are without?
But you remit, in order that remission may be granted you byGod.
Thesins which are (thus) cleansed are such as a man may have committed against his brother, not against God. We profess, in short, in ourprayer, that we will grant remission to our debtors; but it is not becoming to distend further, on the ground of the authority of such Scriptures, the cable of contention with alternate pull into diverse directions; so that one (Scripture) may seem to draw tight, another to relax, the reins of discipline — in uncertainty, as it were — and the latter to debase the remedial aid of repentance through lenity, the former to refuse it through austerity. Further: the authority of Scripture will stand within its own limits, without reciprocal opposition. The remedial aid of repentance is determined by its own conditions, without unlimited concession; and the causes of it themselves are anteriorly distinguished without confusion in the proposition. We agree that the causes of repentance aresins. These we divide into two issues: some will be remissible, some irremissible: in accordance wherewith it will be doubtful to no one that some deserve chastisement, some condemnation. Everysin is dischargeable either by pardon or else by penalty: by pardon as the result of chastisement, by penalty as the result of condemnation. Touching this difference, we have not only already premised certain antithetical passages of theScriptures, on one hand retaining, on the other remitting,sins; but John, too, will teach us:If anyknows his brother to be sinning asin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;
because he is notsinning unto death,
this will be remissible.(There) is asin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request
— this will be irremissible. So, where there is the efficacious power ofmaking request,
there likewise is that of remission: where there is no (efficacious power) ofmaking request,
there equally is none of remission either. According to this difference ofsins, the condition of repentance also is discriminated. There will be a condition which may possibly obtain pardon — in the case, namely, of a remissiblesin: there will be a condition which can by no means obtain it — in the case, namely, of an irremissiblesin. And it remains to examine specially, with regard to the position ofadultery and fornication, to which class ofsins they ought to be assigned.
But before doing this, I will make short work with an answer which meets us from the opposite side, in reference to that species of repentance which we are just defining as being without pardon.Why, if,
say they,there is a repentance which lacks pardon, it immediately follows that such repentance must withal be wholly unpractised by you. For nothing is to be done in vain. Now repentance will be practised in vain, if it is without pardon. Butall repentanceis to be practised. Therefore let (us allow that)all obtains pardon, that it may not be practised in vain; because it will not be to be practised, if it be practised in vain. Now, in vain it is practised, if it shall lack pardon.
Justly, then, do they allege (this argument) against us; since they have usurpingly kept in their own power the fruit of this as of other repentance — that is, pardon; for, so far asthey are concerned, at whose hands (repentance) obtainsman's peace, (it is in vain). As regardsus, however, who remember that the Lord alone concedes (the pardon of)sins, (and of course ofmortal ones,) it willnot be practised in vain. For (the repentance) being referred back to the Lord, and thenceforward lying prostrate before Him, will by this very fact the rather avail to win pardon, that it gains it by entreatyfrom God alone, that it believes not thatman's peace is adequate to its guilt, that as far as regards theChurch it prefers the blush of shame to the privilege of communion. For before her doors it stands, and by the example of its own stigma admonishes all others, and calls at the same time to its own aid the brethren's tears, and returns with an even richer merchandise — their compassion, namely — than their communion. And if it reaps not the harvest of peace here, yet it sows the seed of it with the Lord; nor does it lose, but prepares, its fruit. It will not fail of emolument if it do not fail in duty. Thus, neither is such repentance vain, nor such discipline harsh. Bothhonour God. The former, by laying no flattering unction to itself, will more readily win success; the latter, by assuming nothing to itself, will more fully aid.
Having defined the distinction (between the kinds) of repentance, we are by this time, then, able to return to the assessment of thesins— whether they be such as can obtain pardon at the hand of men. In the first place, (as for the fact) that we calladultery likewise fornication, usage requires (us so to do).Faith,
withal, has a familiar acquaintance with sundry appellations. So, in every one of our little works, we carefully guard usage. Besides, if I shall sayadulterium,
and ifstuprum,
the indictment of contamination of the flesh will be one and the same. For it makes no difference whether a man assault another's bride orwidow, provided it be not his ownfemale;
just as there is no difference made by places — whether it be in chambers or in towers that modesty is massacred. Every homicide, even outside a wood, is banditry. So, too, whoever enjoys any other than nuptial intercourse, in whatever place, and in the person of whateverwoman, makes himself guilty ofadultery and fornication. Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well — connections, that is, not first professed in presence of theChurch— run risk of being judged akin toadultery and fornication; nor must we let them, if thereafter woven together by the covering of marriage, elude the charge. But all the other frenzies ofpassions— impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes — beyond thelaws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of theChurch, because they are notsins, but monstrosities.
Of how deep guilt, then,adultery— which is likewise a matter of fornication, in accordance with its criminal function — is to be accounted, the Law of God first comes to hand to show us; if it istrue, (as it is), that after interdicting the superstitious service of alien gods, and the making ofidols themselves, after commending (to religious observance) the veneration of theSabbath, after commanding a religious regard towardparents second (only to that) towardGod, (that Law) laid, as the next substratum in strengthening and fortifying such counts, no other precept thanYou shall not commitadultery.
For after spiritualchastity andsanctity followed corporeal integrity. And this (the Law) accordingly fortified, by immediately prohibiting its foe,adultery. Understand, consequently, what kind ofsin (that must be), the repression of which (the Law) ordained next to (that of)idolatry. Nothing that is a second is remote from the first; nothing is so close to the first as the second. That which results from the first is (in a sense) another first. And soadultery is bordering onidolatry. Foridolatry withal, often cast as a reproach upon the People under the name ofadultery and fornication, will be alike conjoined therewith infate as in following — will be alike co-heir therewith in condemnation as in co-ordination. Yet further: premisingYou shall not commitadultery,
(the Law) adjoins,You shall not kill.
It honouredadultery, of course, to which it gives the precedence overmurder, in the very fore-front of the mostholy law, among the primary counts of the celestial edict, marking it with the inscription of the very principalsins. From its place you may discern the measure, from its rank the station, from its neighbourhood the merit, of each thing. Evenevil has a dignity, consisting in being stationed at the summit, or else in the centre, of the superlatively bad. I behold a certain pomp and circumstance ofadultery: on the one side, Idolatry goes before and leads the way; on the other, Murder follows in company. Worthily, withoutdoubt, has she taken her seat between the two most conspicuous eminences of misdeeds, and has completely filled the vacant space, as it were, in their midst, with an equal majesty of crime. Enclosed by such flanks, encircled and supported by such ribs, who shall dislocate her from the corporate mass of coherencies, from the bond of neighbour crimes, from the embrace of kindred wickednesses, so as to set apart her alone for the enjoyment of repentance? Will not on one side Idolatry, on the other Murder, detain her, and (if they have any voice) reclaim:This is our wedge, this our compacting power? By (the standard of) Idolatry we are measured; by her disjunctive intervention we are conjoined; to her, outjutting from our midst, we are united; the Divine Scripture has made us concorporate; the very letters are our glue; herself can no longer exist without us. 'Many and many a time do I, Idolatry, subminister occasion to Adultery;witness my groves and my mounts, and the living waters, and the very temples in cities, what mighty agents we are for overthrowing modesty.' 'I also, Murder, sometimes exert myself on behalf of Adultery. To omit tragedies,witness nowadays the poisoners,witness the magicians, how many seductions I avenge, how many rivalries I revenge; how many guards, how many informers, how many accomplices, I make away with. Witness the midwives likewise, how many adulterous conceptions are slaughtered.' Even amongChristians there is noadultery without us. Wherever the business of the unclean spirit is, there are idolatries; wherever aman, by being polluted, is slain, there too ismurder. Therefore the remedial aids of repentance will not be suitable tothem, or else they will likewise be tous. We either detain Adultery, or else follow her.
These words thesins themselves do speak. If thesins are deficient in speech, hard by (the door of the church) stands an idolater, hard by stands a murderer; in their midst stands, too, an adulterer. Alike, as the duty of repentance bids, they sit in sackcloth and bristle in ashes; with the self-same weeping they groan; with the selfsameprayers they make their circuits; with the self-same knees they supplicate; the self-same mother they invoke. What are you doing, gentlest and humanest Discipline? Either toall these will it be your duty so to be, forblessed are the peacemakers;
or else, if not toall, it will be your duty to range yourself on our side. Do you once for all condemn the idolater and the murderer, but take the adulterer out from their midst?— (the adulterer), the successor of the idolater, the predecessor of the murderer, the colleague of each? It isan accepting of person:
the more pitiable repentances you have left (unpitied) behind!
Plainly, if you show by what patronages of heavenly precedents and precepts it is that you open toadultery alone — and therein to fornication also — the gate of repentance, at this very line our hostile encounter will immediately cross swords. Yet I must necessarily prescribe you a law, not to stretch out your hand after the old things, not to look backwards: forthe old things are passed away,
according to Isaiah; anda renewing has been renewed,
according to Jeremiah; andforgetful of former things, we are reaching forward,
according to the apostle; andthe law and theprophets (were) until John,
according to theLord. For even if we are just now beginning with the Law in demonstrating (thenature of)adultery, it isjustly with that phase of the law which Christ hasnot dissolved, but fulfilled.
For it is theburdens
of the law which wereuntil John,
not the remedialvirtues. It is theyokes
ofworks
that have been rejected, not those of disciplines.Liberty in Christ
has done no injury to innocence. The law ofpiety,sanctity, humanity,truth,chastity,justice, mercy, benevolence, modesty, remains in its entirety; in which lawblessed (is) the man who shall meditate by day and by night.
About that (law) the same David (says) again:The law of the Lord (is) unblameable, convertingsouls; the statutes of the Lord (are) direct, delighting hearts; the precept of the Lord far-shining, enlightening eyes.
Thus, too, the apostle:And so the law indeed isholy, and the preceptholy and most good
—You shall not commitadultery,
of course. But he had withal said above:Are we, then, making void the law throughfaith? Far be it; but we are establishing the law
— forsooth in those (points) which, being even now interdicted by theNew Testament, are prohibited by an even more emphatic precept: instead of,You shall not commitadultery,
Whoever shall have seen with a view to concupiscence, has already committedadultery in his own heart;
and instead of,You shall not kill,
Whoever shall have said to his brother, Racha, shall be in danger ofhell.
Ask (yourself) whether the law of not committingadultery be still in force, to which has been added that of not indulging concupiscence. Besides, if any precedents (taken from the Old Dispensation) shall favour you in (the secrecy of) your bosom, they shall not be set in opposition to this discipline which we are maintaining. For it is in vain that an additional law has been reared, condemning theorigin even ofsins— that is, concupiscences and wills — no less than the actualdeeds; if the fact that pardon was of old in some cases conceded toadultery is to be a reason why it shall be conceded at the present day.What will be the reward attaching to the restrictions imposed upon the more fully developed discipline of the present day, except that the elder (discipline) may be made the agent for granting indulgence to your prostitution?
In that case, you will grant pardon to the idolater too, and to everyapostate, because we find the People itself, so often guilty of these crimes, as often reinstated in their former privileges. You will maintain communion, too, with the murderer: because Ahab, by deprecation, washed away (the guilt of) Naboth's blood; and David, by confession, purged Uriah's slaughter, together with itscause—adultery. That done, you will condone incests, too, forLot's sake; and fornications combined with incest, for Judah's sake; and base marriages with prostitutes, for Hosea's sake; and not only the frequent repetition of marriage, but its simultaneous plurality, for our fathers' sakes: for, of course, it is meet that there should also be a perfect equality ofgrace in regard ofalldeeds to which indulgence was in days bygone granted, if on the ground of some pristine precedent pardon is claimed foradultery. We, too, indeed have precedents in the self-same antiquity on the side of our opinion —(precedents) of judgment not merely not waived, but even summarily executed upon fornication. And of course it is a sufficient one, that so vast a number — (the number) of 24,000— of the People, when they committed fornication with the daughters of Madian, fell in one plague. But, with an eye to theglory ofChrist, I prefer to derive (my) discipline from Christ. Grant that the pristine days may have had — if the Psychics please — even aright of (indulging) every immodesty; grant that, before Christ, the flesh may have disported itself, nay, may haveperished before its Lord went to seek and bring it back: not yet was it worthy of the gift ofsalvation; not yet apt for the office ofsanctity. It was still, up to that time, accounted as beingin Adam, with its own vicious nature, easily indulging concupiscence after whatever it had seen to beattractive to the sight,
and looking back at the lower things, and checking its itching with fig-leaves. Universally inherent was the virus oflust— the dregs which are formed out of milk contain it — (dregs) fitted (for so doing), in that even the waters themselves had not yet been bathed. But when theWord of God descended into flesh —(flesh) not unsealed even by marriage, — andtheWord wasmade flesh,
— (flesh) never to be unsealed by marriage, — which was to find its way to the tree not of incontinence, but of endurance; which was to taste from that tree not anything sweet, but something bitter; which was to pertain not to the infernal regions, but to heaven; which was to be precinct not with the leaves of lasciviousness, but the flowers ofholiness; which was to impart to the waters its own purities — thenceforth, whatever flesh (is)in Christ
has lost its pristine soils, is now a thing different, emerges in a new state, no longer (generated) of the slime of natural seed, nor of the grime of concupiscence, but ofpure water
and aclean Spirit.
And, accordingly, why excuse it on the ground of pristine precedent? It did not bear the names ofbody ofChrist,
ofmembers ofChrist,
oftemple ofGod,
at the time when it used to obtain pardon foradultery. And thus if, from the moment when it changed its condition, andhaving beenbaptized into Christ put on Christ,
and wasredeemed with a great price
—the blood,
to wit,of the Lord and Lamb
— you take hold of any one precedent (be it precept, or law, or sentence,) of indulgence granted, or to be granted, toadultery and fornication — you have likewise at our hands a definition of the time from which the age of the question dates.
You shall have leave to begin with theparables, where you have the lost ewe re-sought by the Lord, and carried back on His shoulders. Let the very paintings upon your cups come forward to show whether even in them the figurative meaning of that sheep will shine through (the outward semblance, to teach) whether aChristian orheathen sinner be the object it aims at in the matter of restoration. For we put in a demurrer arising out of the teaching of nature, out of the law of ear and tongue, out of the soundness of the mental faculty, to the effect that such answers are always given as are called forth (by the question — answers), that is, to the (questions) which call them forth. That which was calling forth (an answer in the present case) was, I take it, the fact that thePharisees were muttering in indignation at the Lord's admitting to His societyheathenpublicans and sinners, and communicating with them in food. When, in reply to this, the Lord had figured the restoration of the lost ewe, to whom else is it credible that he configured it but to the lostheathen, about whom the question was then in hand — not about aChristian, who up to that time had noexistence? Else, what kind of (hypothesis) is it that the Lord, like a quibbler in answering, omitting the present subject-matter which it was His duty to refute, should spend His labour about one yet future?But a 'sheep' properly means aChristian, and the Lord's 'flock' is the people of theChurch, and the 'good shepherd' is Christ; and hence in the 'sheep' we must understand aChristian who has erred from the Church's 'flock.'
In that case, you make the Lord to have given no answer to thePharisees' muttering, but to your presumption. And yet you will be bound so to defend that presumption, as to deny that the (points) which you think applicable toChristians are referable to aheathen. Tell me, is not allmankind one flock of God? Is not the same God both Lord and Shepherd of the universal nations? Who moreperishes
from God than theheathen, so long as heerrs?
Who is morere-sought
byGod than theheathen, when he is recalled by Christ? In fact, it is amongheathens that this order finds antecedent place; if, that is,Christians are not otherwise made out ofheathens than by being firstlost,
andre-sought
byGod, andcarried back
by Christ. So likewise ought this order to be kept, that we may interpret any such (figure) with reference to those in whom it finds prior place. But you, I take it, would wish this: that He should represent the ewe as lost not from a flock, but from an ark or a chest! In like manner, albeit He calls the remaining number of theheathensrighteous,
it does not follow that He shows them to beChristians; dealing as He is withJews, and at that very moment refuting them, because they were indignant at the hope of theheathens. But in order to express, in opposition to thePharisees'envy, His owngrace and goodwill even in regard of oneheathen, He preferred thesalvation of one sinner by repentance to theirs by righteousness; or else,pray, were theJewsnotrighteous,
and such ashad no need of repentance,
having, as they had, as pilotages of discipline and instruments offear,the Law and the Prophets?
He set them therefore in theparable— and if not such as they were, yet such as they ought to have been — that they might blush the more when they heard that repentance was necessary to others, and not to themselves.
Similarly, theparable of the drachma, as being called forth out of the same subject-matter, we equally interpret with reference to aheathen; albeit it had beenlost
in a house, as it were in the church; albeitfound
by aid of alamp,
as it were by aid of God's word. Nay, but this whole world is the one house of all; in which world it is more theheathen, who is found in darkness, whom thegrace of God enlightens, than theChristian, who is already in God's light. Finally, it isonestraying
which is ascribed to the ewe and the drachma: (and this is an evidence in my favour); for if theparables had been composed with a view to aChristian sinner, after the loss of hisfaith, asecond loss and restoration of them would have been noted.
I will now withdraw for a short time from this position; in order that I may, even by withdrawing, the more recommend it, when I shall have succeeded even thus also in confuting the presumption of the opposite side. I admit that the sinner portrayed in eachparable is one who is already aChristian; yet not that on this account must he be affirmed to be such an one as can be restored, through repentance, from the crime ofadultery and fornication. For although he be said tohave perished,
there will be thekind of perdition to treat of; inasmuch as theewe
perished
not by dying, but by straying; and thedrachma
not by being destroyed, but by being hidden. In this sense, a thing which is safe may be said tohave perished.
Therefore the believer, too,perishes,
by lapsing out of (the right path) into a public exhibition of charioteering frenzy, or gladiatorial gore, or scenic foulness, or athletic vanity; or else if he has lent the aid of any specialarts of curiosity
to sports, to the convivialities ofheathensolemnity, to official exigence, to the ministry of another'sidolatry; if he has impaled himself upon some word of ambiguous denial, or else ofblasphemy. For some suchcause he has been driven outside the flock; or even himself, perhaps, byanger, bypride, by jealousy, (or)— as, in fact, often happens — by disdaining to submit to chastisement, has broken away (from it). He ought to be re-sought and recalled. That which can be recovered does notperish,
unless it persist in remaining outside. You will well interpret theparable by recalling the sinnerwhile he is still living. But, for the adulterer and fornicator, who is there who has not pronounced him to bedead immediately upon commission of the crime? With what face will you restore to the flock one who is dead, on the authority of thatparable which recalls a sheepnot dead?
Finally, if you are mindful of theprophets, when they are chiding the shepherds, there is a word — I think it is Ezekiel's:Shepherds, behold, you devour the milk, and clothe you with the fleeces: what is strong you have slain; what is weak you have not tended; what is shattered you have not bound; what has been driven out you have not brought back; what has perished you have not re-sought.
Pray, does he withal upbraid them at all concerning that which isdead, that they have taken no care to restore that too to the flock? Plainly, he makes it an additional reproach that they have caused the sheep to perish, and to be eaten up by the beasts of the field; nor can they eitherperish mortally,
or beeaten up,
if they are left remaining.Is it not possible — (granting) that ewes which have been mortally lost, and eaten up, are recovered — that (in accordance also with the example of the drachma (lost and found again) even within the house ofGod, theChurch) there may be somesins of a moderate character, proportionable to the small size and the weight of a drachma, which, lurking in the same Church, and by and by in the same discovered, immediately are brought to an end in the same with thejoy of amendment?
But ofadultery and fornication it is not a drachma, but a talent, (which is the measure); and for searching them out there is need not of the javelin-light of a lamp, but of the spear-like ray of the entire sun. No sooner has (such a) man made his appearance than he is expelled from theChurch; nor does he remain there; nor does hecausejoy to theChurch which discovers him, but grief; nor does he invite the congratulation of her neighbours, but the fellowship in sadness of the surrounding fraternities.
By comparison, even in this way, of this our interpretation with theirs, the arguments of both the ewe and the drachma will all the more refer to theheathen, that they cannot possibly apply to theChristian guilty of thesin for the sake of which they are wrested into a forced application to theChristian on the opposite side.
But, however, the majority of interpreters of theparables are deceived by the self-same result as is of very frequent occurrence in the case of embroidering garments with purple. When you think that you have judiciously harmonized the proportions of the hues, andbelieve yourself to have succeeded in skilfully giving vividness to their mutual combination; presently, when each body (of color) and (the various) lights are fully developed, the convicted diversity will expose all theerror. In the self-same darkness, accordingly, with regard to theparable of the two sons also, they are led by some figures (occurring in it), which harmonize in hue with the present (state of things), to wander out of the path of thetrue light of that comparison which the subject-matter of theparable presents. For they set down, as represented in the two sons, two peoples — the elder the Jewish, the younger theChristian: for they cannot in the sequel arrange for theChristian sinner, in the person of the younger son, to obtain pardon, unless in the person of the elder they first portray the Jewish. Now, if I shall succeed in showing that the Jewish fails to suit the comparison of the elder son, the consequence of course will be, that theChristian will not be admissible (as represented) by the joint figure of the younger son. For although the Jew withal be calleda son,
and anelder one,
inasmuch as he had priority in adoption; although, too, heenvy theChristian the reconciliation ofGod theFather — a point which the opposite side most eagerly catches at — still it will be no speech of a Jew to the Father:Behold, in how many years do I serve You, and Your precept have I never transgressed.
For when has the Jewnot been a transgressor of the law; hearing with the ear, and not hearing; holding inhatred him who reproves in the gates, and in scornholy speech? So, too, it will be no speech of the Father to the Jew:You are always with Me, and all Mine are yours.
For theJews are pronouncedapostate sons, begotten indeed and raised on high, but who have not understood the Lord, and who have quite forsaken the Lord, and have provoked untoanger the Holy One ofIsrael.
That all things, plainly, wereconceded to the Jew, we shall admit; but he has likewise had every more savoury morsel torn from his throat, not to say the very land of paternal promise. And accordingly the Jew at the present day, no less than the younger son, having squandered God's substance, is a beggar in alien territory, serving even until now its princes, that is, the princes of this world. Seek, therefore, theChristians some other as their brother; for the Jew theparable does not admit. Much more aptly would they have matched theChristian with the elder, and the Jew with the younger son,according to the analogy offaith,
if the order of each people as intimated from Rebecca's womb permitted the inversion: only that (in that case) the concluding paragraph would oppose them; for it will be fitting for theChristian torejoice, and not to grieve, at the restoration ofIsrael, if it betrue, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimately united with the remaining expectation ofIsrael. Thus, even if some (features in theparable) are favourable, yet by others of a contrary significance the thorough carrying out of this comparison is destroyed; although (albeit all points be capable of corresponding with mirror-like accuracy) there be one cardinal danger in interpretations — the danger lest the felicity of our comparisons be tempered with a different aim from that which the subject-matter of each particularparable has bidden us (temper it). For we remember (to have seen) actors withal, while accommodating allegorical gestures to their ditties, giving expression to such as are far different from the immediate plot, and scene, and character, andyet with the utmost congruity. But away with extraordinary ingenuity, for it has nothing to do with our subject. Thusheretics, too, apply the self-sameparables where they list, and exclude them (in other cases)— not where theyought— with the utmost aptitude. Why the utmost aptitude? Because from the very beginning they have moulded together the very subject-matters of their doctrines in accordance with the opportune incidences of theparables. Loosed as they are from the constraints of the rule oftruth, they have had leisure, of course, to search into and put together those things of which theparables seem (to besymbolic).
We, however, who do not make theparables the sources whence we devise our subject-matters, but the subject-matters the sources whence we interpret theparables, do not labour hard, either, to twist all things (into shape) in the exposition, while we take care to avoid all contradictions. Whyan hundred sheep?
and why, to be sure,ten drachmas?
And what is thatbesom?
Necessary it was that He who was desiring to express the extreme pleasure which thesalvation ofone sinner gives toGod, should name some specialquantity of a numerical whole from which to describe thatone
had perished. Necessary it was that the style of one engaged in searching for adrachma
in ahouse,
should be aptly fitted with the helpful accompaniment of abesom
as well as of alamp.
For curious niceties of this kind not only render some things suspected, but, by the subtlety of forced explanations, generally lead away from thetruth. There are, moreover, some points which are just simply introduced with a view to the structure and disposition and texture of theparable, in order that they may be worked up throughout to the end for which the typical example is being provided. Now, of course the (parable of) the two sons will point to the same end as (those of) the drachma and the ewe: for it has the self-samecause (to call it forth) as those to which it coheres, and the selfsamemuttering,
of course, of thePharisees at the intercourse between the Lord andheathens. Or else, if any doubts that in the land ofJudea, subjugated as it had been long since by the hand of Pompey and of Lucullus, thepublicans wereheathens, let him read Deuteronomy:There shall be no tribute-weigher of the sons ofIsrael.
Nor would the name ofpublicans have been so execrable in the eyes of the Lord, unless as being astrange
name — a (name) of such as put up the pathways of the very sky, and earth, and sea, for sale. Moreover, when (the writer) adjoinssinners
topublicans,
it does not follow that he shows them to have beenJews, albeit some may possibly have been so; but by placing on a par the onegenus ofheathens— some sinners by office, that is,publicans; some by nature, that is, notpublicans— he has drawn a distinction between them. Besides, the Lord would not have been censured for partaking of food withJews, but withheathens, from whose board the Jewish discipline excludes (itsdisciples).
Now we must proceed, in the case of the prodigal son, to consider first that which is more useful; for no adjustment of examples, albeit in the most nicely-poised balance, shall be admitted if it shall prove to be most hurtful tosalvation. But the whole system ofsalvation, as it is comprised in the maintenance of discipline, we see is being subverted by that interpretation which is affected by the opposite side. For if it is aChristian who, after wandering far from his Father, squanders, by living heathenishly, thesubstance
received from God his Father — (the substance), of course, ofbaptism— (the substance), of course, of theHoly Spirit, and (in consequence) ofeternal hope; if, stripped of his mentalgoods,
he has even handed his service over to the prince of the world — who else but thedevil?— and by him being appointed over the business offeeding swine
— of tending unclean spirits, to wit — has recovered his senses so as to return to his Father — the result will be, that, not adulterers and fornicators, but idolaters, andblasphemers, and renegades, and every class ofapostates, will by thisparable make satisfaction to the Father; and in this way (it may) rather (be said that) the wholesubstance
of the sacrament is mosttruly wasted away. For who willfear to squander what he has the power of afterwards recovering? Who will be careful to preserve to perpetuity what he will be able to losenot to perpetuity? Security insin is likewise an appetite for it. Therefore theapostate withal will recover his formergarment,
the robe of theHoly Spirit; and a renewal of thering,
the sign and seal ofbaptism; and Christ will again beslaughtered;
and he will recline on that couch from which such as areunworthily clad are wont to be lifted by the torturers, and cast away into darkness, — much more such as have beenstripped. It is therefore a further step if it is notexpedient, (any more thanreasonable), that the story of the prodigal son should apply to aChristian. Wherefore, if the image of ason
is not entirely suitable to a Jew either, our interpretation shall be simply governed with an eye to the object the Lord had in view. The Lord had come, of course, to save that whichhad perished;
a Physician
necessary tothe sick
more than to the whole.
This fact He was in the habit both of typifying inparables and preaching in direct statements. Who amongmenperishes,
who falls from health, but he whoknows not the Lord? Who issafe and sound,
but he whoknows the Lord? These two classes —brothers
by birth — thisparable also will signify. See whether theheathen have inGod the Father thesubstance
of origin, and wisdom, and natural power of Godward recognition; by means of which power the apostle withal notes thatin the wisdom ofGod, the world through wisdomknew notGod,
— (wisdom) which, of course, it had received originally fromGod. This (substance
), accordingly, hesquandered;
having been cast by his moral habits far from the Lord, amid theerrors and allurements and appetites of the world, where, compelled by hunger aftertruth, he handed himself over to the prince of this age. He set him overswine,
to feed that flock familiar todemons, where he would not be master of a supply of vital food, and at the same time would see others (engaged) in a divine work, having abundance of heavenly bread. He remembers his Father,God; he returns to Him when he has been satisfied; he receives again the pristinegarment,
— the condition, to wit, whichAdam by transgression had lost. Thering
also he is then wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement offaith, and thus thenceforward feeds upon thefatness
of the Lord's body — theEucharist, to wit. This will be the prodigal son, who never in days bygone was thrifty; who was from the first prodigal, becausenot from the first aChristian. Him withal, returning from the world to the Father's embraces, thePharisees mourned over, in thepersons of thepublicans and sinners.
And accordingly to this point alone the elder brother'senvy is adapted: not because theJews were innocent, andobedient toGod, but because they envied the nationsalvation; being plainly they whoought to have beenever with
the Father. And of course it is immediately over thefirst calling of theChristian that the Jew groans, not over hissecond restoration: for the former reflects its rays even upon theheathen; but the latter, which takes place in thechurches, is notknown even to theJews. I think that I have advanced interpretations more consonant with the subject-matter of theparables, and the congruity of things, and the preservation of disciplines. But if the view with which the opposite party is eager to mould the ewe, and the drachma, and the voluptuousness of the son to the shape of theChristian sinner, is that they may endowadultery and fornication with (the gift of) repentance; it will be fitting either that all other crimes equally capital should be conceded remissible, or else that their peers,adultery and fornication, should be retained inconcessible.
But it is more (to the point) that it is not lawful to draw conclusions about anything else than the subject which was immediately in hand. In short, if it were lawful to transfer theparables to other ends (than they were originally intended for), it would be rather tomartyrdom that we would direct the hope drawn from those now in question; for that is the only thing which, after all his substance has been squandered, will be able to restore the son; and will joyfully proclaim that the drachma has been found, albeit among all (rubbish) on a dungheap; and will carry back into the flock on the shoulders of the Lord Himself the ewe, fugitive though she have been over all that is rough and rugged. But we prefer, if it must be so, to beless wisein theScriptures, than to be wiseagainst them. We are as much bound to keep thesense of the Lord as Hisprecept. Transgression in interpretation is not lighter than in conversation.
When, therefore, the yoke which forbade the discussion of theseparables with a view to theheathens has been shaken off, and the necessity once for all discerned or admitted of not interpreting otherwise than is (suitable to) the subject-matter of the proposition; they contend in the next place, that the official proclamation of repentance is not even applicable toheathens, since theirsins are not amenable to it, imputable as they are toignorance, which nature alone renders culpable before God. Hence the remedies are unintelligible to such to whom the perils themselves are unintelligible: whereas the principle of repentance finds there its corresponding place wheresin is committed withconscience and will, where both the fault and the favour are intelligible; that he who mourns, he who prostrates himself, is he whoknows both what he has lost and what he will recover if he makes to God the offering of his repentance — toGod who, of course, offers that repentance rather to sons than to strangers.
Was that, then, the reason why Jonah thought not repentance necessary to theheathen Ninevites, when he tergiversated in the duty of preaching? Or did he rather, foreseeing the mercy of God poured forth even upon strangers,fear that that mercy would, as it were, destroy (the credit of) his proclamation? And accordingly, for the sake of a profane city, not yet possessed of aknowledge ofGod, still sinning inignorance, did theprophet nearly perish?Jonah 1:iv except that he suffered a typical example of the Lord's passion, which was to redeemheathens as well (as others) on their repentance. It is enough for me that even John, whenstrewing the Lord's ways,
was the herald of repentance no less to such as were on military service and topublicans, than to the sons ofAbraham. The Lord Himself presumed repentance on the part of the Sidonians and Tyrians if they had seen the evidences of Hismiracles.
Nay, but I will even contend that repentance ismore competent to natural sinners than tovoluntary. For he will merit its fruit who has not yetused more than he who has already withalabused it; and remedies will be more effective on their first application than when outworn. Nodoubt the Lord iskind
tothe unthankful,
rather than to theignorant! Andmerciful
to thereprobates
sooner than to such as have yet had no probation! so that insults offered to His clemency do not rather incur Hisanger than Hiscaresses! And He does not more willingly impart to strangers that (clemency) which, in the case of His own sons, He has lost, seeing that He has thus adopted theGentiles while theJews make sport of His patience! But what the Psychics mean is this — thatGod, the Judge of righteousness, prefers the repentance to the death of that sinner who has preferred death to repentance! If this is so, it is by sinning that we merit favour.
Come, you rope-walker upon modesty, andchastity, and every kind of sexualsanctity, who, by the instrumentality of a discipline of this nature remote from the path oftruth, mount with uncertain footstep upon a most slender thread, balancing flesh with spirit, moderating your animal principle byfaith, tempering your eye byfear; why are you thus wholly engaged in a single step? Go on, if you succeed in finding power and will, while you are so secure, and as it were upon solid ground. For if any wavering of the flesh, any distraction of themind, any wandering of the eye, shall chance to shake you down from your equipoise,God isgood.
To His own (children), not toheathens, He opens His bosom: a second repentance will await you; you will again, from being an adulterer, be aChristian! These (pleas) you (will urge) to me, most benignant interpreter ofGod. But I would yield my ground to you, if the scripture ofthe Shepherd,
which is the only one which favours adulterers, had deserved to find a place in the Divine canon; if it had not beenhabitually judged by every council of Churches (even of your own) amongapocryphal and false (writings); itself adulterous, and hence a patroness of its comrades; from which in other respects, too, you derive initiation; to which, perchance, thatShepherd,
will play the patron whom you depict upon your (sacramental) chalice, (depict, I say, as) himself withal a prostitutor of theChristian sacrament, (and hence) worthily both the idol ofdrunkenness, and the brize ofadultery by which the chalice will quickly be followed, (a chalice) from which you sip nothing more readily than (the flavour of) theewe
of (your) second repentance! I, however, imbibe theScriptures of that Shepherd who cannot be broken. Him John immediately offers me, together with the laver and duty of repentance; (and offers Him as) saying,Bear worthy fruits of repentance: and say not, We haveAbraham (as our) father
— forfear, to wit, lest they should again take flattering unctions for delinquency from thegrace shown to the fathers —for God is able from these stones to raise sons toAbraham.
Thus it follows that we too (must judge) such assin no more
(as)bearing worthy fruits of repentance.
For what more ripens as the fruit of repentance than the achievement of emendation? But even ifpardon is rather the fruit of repentance, even pardon cannot co-exist without the cessation fromsin. So is the cessation fromsin the root of pardon, that pardon may be the fruit of repentance.
From the side of its pertinence to theGospel, the question of theparables indeed has by this time been disposed of. If, however, the Lord, by Hisdeeds withal, issued any such proclamation in favour of sinners; as when He permitted contact even with his own body to thewoman, a sinner,
— washing, as she did, His feet with tears, and wiping them with her hair, and inaugurating His sepulture with ointment; as when to the Samaritaness — not an adulteress by her now sixth marriage, but a prostitute — He showed (what He did show readily to any one) who He was; — no benefit is hence conferred upon our adversaries, even if it had been to such as were alreadyChristians that He (in these several cases) granted pardon. For we now affirm: This is lawful to the Lord alone: may the power of His indulgence be operative at the present day! At those times, however, in which He lived on earth we lay this down definitively, that it is no prejudgment against us if pardon used to be conferred on sinners — even Jewish ones. ForChristian discipline dates from the renewing of the Testament, and (as we have premised) from the redemption of flesh — that is, the Lord's passion. None was perfect before the discovery of the order offaith; none aChristian before the resumption of Christ to heaven; noneholy before the manifestation of theHoly Spirit from heaven, the Determiner of discipline itself.
Accordingly, these who have receivedanother Paraclete
in and through theapostles —(a Paraclete) whom, not recognising Him even in His specialprophets, they no longer possess in theapostles either — come, now, let them, even from the apostolic instrument, teach us the possibility that the stains of a flesh which afterbaptism has been repolluted, can by repentance be washed away. Do we not, in theapostles also, recognise the form of the Old Law with regard to the demonstration ofadultery, how great (a crime) it is; lest perchance it be esteemed more trivial in the new stage of disciplines than in the old? When first theGospel thundered and shook the old system to its base, when dispute was being held on the question of retaining or not the Law; this is the first rule which theapostles, on the authority of theHoly Spirit, send out to those who were already beginning to be gathered to their side out of the nations:It has seemed (good),
say they,to theHoly Spirit and to us to cast upon you no ampler weight than (that) of those (things) from which it is necessary that abstinence be observed; fromsacrifices, and from fornications, and from blood: by abstaining from which you act rightly, theHoly Spirit carrying you.
Sufficient it is, that in this place withal there has been preserved toadultery and fornication the post of their ownhonour betweenidolatry and murder: for the interdict uponblood
we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more uponhuman blood. Well, then, in what light do theapostles will those crimes to appear which alone they select, in the way of careful guarding against, from the pristine Law? Which alone they prescribe as necessarily to be abstained from? Not that they permit others; but that these alone they put in the foremost rank, of course as not remissible; (they,) who, for theheathens' sake, made the other burdens of the law remissible. Why, then, do they release our neck from so heavy a yoke, except to place forever upon those (necks) these compendia of discipline? Why do they indulgently relax so many bonds, except that they may wholly bind us in perpetuity to such as are more necessary? They loosed us from the more numerous, that we might be bound up to abstinence from the more noxious. The matter has been settled by compensation: we have gained much, in order that we may render somewhat. But the compensation is not revocable; if, that is, it will be revoked by iteration — (iteration) ofadultery, of course, and blood andidolatry: for it will follow that the (burden of) the whole law will be incurred, if the condition of pardon shall be violated. But it is not lightly that theHoly Spirit has come to an agreement with us — coming to this agreement even without our asking; whence He is the more to be honoured. His engagement none but an ungrateful man will dissolve. In that event, He will neither accept back what He has discarded, nor discard what He has retained. Of the latest Testament the condition is ever immutable; and, of course the public recitation of that decree, and the counsel embodied therein, will cease (only) with the world. He has definitely enough refused pardon to those crimes the careful avoidance whereof He selectively enjoined; He has claimed whatever He has not inferentially conceded. Hence it is that there is no restoration of peace granted by the Churches toidolatry
or toblood.
From which final decision of theirs that theapostles should have departed, is (I think) not lawful tobelieve; or else, if some find it possible tobelieve so, they will be bound to prove it.
Weknow plainly at this point, too, the suspicions which they raise. For, in fact, they suspect theApostle 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 besurrendered toSatan, 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 has wholly saddened, he has not wholly saddenedme, but in part, lest I burden you all. Sufficient is such a chiding which is given by many; so that, on the contrary, you should prefer to forgive and console, lest, perhaps, by more abundant sadness, such an one be devoured. For which reason, Ipray you, confirm toward him affection. For to this end withal have I written, that I may learn aproof of you, that in all (things) you areobedient to me. But if you shall have forgiven any, so (do) I; for I, too, if I have forgiven ought, have forgiven in the person ofChrist, lest we be overreached bySatan, since we are notignorant of his injections.
What (reference) is understood here to the fornicator? What to the contaminator of his father's bed? what to theChristian who had overstepped the shamelessness ofheathens?— since, of course, he would have absolved by a special pardon one whom he had condemned by a specialanger. 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 somemoderate indulgence; which (moderation in the indulgence) was now, if ever, to be divined, when it is usual for all thegreatest 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 hisprayers, the repentant adulterer, lead into the midst and prostrate him, all in haircloth and ashes, a compound of disgrace and horror, before thewidows, 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 theparable of theewe
go in quest of your goats? do you, forfear lest yourewe
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 theywould 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,
notcommunion;
as (he writes) withal to the Thessalonians:But if anyobey 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, notcommunion
as well; to an incestuous man, however, not evenaffection;
whom he would, to be sure, have bidden to be banished from theirmidst — much more, of course, from theirmind.But he was apprehensive lest they should be 'overreached bySatan' with regard to the loss of that person whom himself had cast forth toSatan; 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 interpretdestruction of the flesh
of the office of repentance; in that byfasts, and squalor, and every species of neglect and studious ill-treatment devoted to the extermination of the flesh, it seems to make satisfaction toGod; so that they argue that that fornicator — that incestuous person rather — having been delivered by the apostle toSatan, not with a view toperdition,
but with a view toemendation,
on the hypothesis that subsequently he would, on account of thedestruction
(that is, the general affliction)of the flesh,
attain pardon, therefore did actually attain it. Plainly, the selfsame apostle delivered toSatan Hymenæus and Alexander,that they might be emended into notblaspheming,
as he writes to his Timotheus.But withal himself says that 'a stake was given him, anangel ofSatan,' 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 weredelivered toSatan
by him (were so delivered) with a view to emendation, not to perdition; what similarity is there betweenblasphemy and incest, and asoul entirely free from these — nay, rather elated from no other source than the highestsanctity and all innocence; which (elation ofsoul) was being restrained in the apostle bybuffets,
if you will, by means (as they say) of pain in the ear or head? Incest, however, andblasphemy, deserved to have delivered the entirepersons of men toSatan himself for a possession, not toanangel
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 toSatan, but to the apostle himself anangel ofSatan given. Lastly, whenPaul ispraying the Lord for its removal, what does he hear?Hold mygrace sufficient; forvirtue is perfected in infirmity.
This they who are surrendered toSatan 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 toSatan,under a hope of pardon, men already sunken from thefaith intoblasphemy; whence, too, he pronounced themshipwrecked with regard tofaith,
having no longer the solace of the ship, theChurch. For to those who, after believing, have struck upon (the rock of)blasphemy, pardon is denied; on the other hand,heathens andheretics are daily emergingout ofblasphemy. But even if he did say,I delivered them toSatan, that they might receive the discipline of notblaspheming,
he said it of the rest, who, bytheir deliverance toSatan— that is, their projection outside theChurch— had to be trained in theknowledge that there must be noblaspheming. So, therefore, the incestuous fornicator, too, he delivered, not with a view to emendation, but with a view to perdition, toSatan, to whom he had already, by sinning above anheathen, gone over; that they might learn there must be no fornicating. Finally, he says,for thedestruction of the flesh,
not itstorture
— condemning the actual substance through which he had fallen out (of thefaith), which substance had already perished immediately on the loss ofbaptism—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, whetherthe man's own spirit will be saved. In that case, a spirit polluted with so great awickedness will be saved; the object of the perdition of the flesh being, that the spirit may be savedin penalty. In that case, the interpretation which is contrary to ours will recognise a penaltywithout the flesh, if we lose the resurrection of the flesh. It remains, therefore, that his meaning was, thatthat spirit which is accounted to existin theChurch must be presentedsaved,
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:Do you notknow, that a little leaven spoils the savour of the whole lump?
And yet incestuous fornication was not a little, but a large, leaven.
And — these intervening points having accordingly been got rid of — I return to the second of Corinthians; in order to prove that this saying also of the apostle,Sufficient to such a man bethis rebuke which (is administered) by many,
is not suitable to the person of the fornicator. For if he had sentenced himto be surrendered toSatan for the destruction of the flesh,
of course he hadcondemned rather thanrebuked him. Some other, then, it was to whom he willed therebuke
to be sufficient; if, that is, the fornicator had incurred notrebuke
from his sentence, butcondemnation.
For I offer you withal, for your investigation, this very question: Whether there were in the first Epistle others, too, whowholly saddened
the apostle byacting disorderly,
andwere wholly saddened
by him, through incurring (his)rebuke,
according to the sense of the second Epistle; of whom some particular one may in that (second Epistle) have received pardon. Direct we, moreover, our attention to the entire first Epistle, written (that I may so say) as a whole, not with ink, but with gall; swelling, indignant, disdainful, comminatory, invidious, and shaped through (a series of) individual charges, with an eye to certain individuals who were, as it were, the proprietors of those charges? For so had schisms, and emulations, and discussions, and presumptions, and elations, and contentions required, that they should be laden with invidiousness, and rebuffed with curt reproof, and filed down by haughtiness, and deterred by austerity. And what kind of invidiousness is the pungency of humility?To God I give thanks that I havebaptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius, lest any say that I havebaptized in my own name.
For neither did I judge toknow anything among you butJesus Christ, and Him crucified.
And,(I think) God has selected us theapostles (as) hindmost, like men appointed to fight with wild beasts; since we have been made a spectacle to this world, both toangels and to men:
And,We have been made the offscourings of this world, the refuse of all:
And,Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seenChrist Jesus our Lord?
With what kind of superciliousness, on the contrary, was he compelled to declare,But to me it is of small moment that I be interrogated by you, or by ahuman court-day; for neither am I conscious to myself (of any guilt);
and,Myglory none shall make empty.
Do you notknow that we are to judgeangels?
Again, of how open censure (does) the free expression (find utterance), how manifest the edge of the spiritual sword, (in words like these):You are already enriched! You are already satiated! You are already reigning!
and,If any thinks himself toknow, heknows not yet how it behooves him toknow!
Is he not even thensmiting some one's face,
in saying,For who makesyou to differ? What, moreover, have you which you have not received? Why do you glory as if you have not received?
Is he not withalsmiting them upon the mouth,
(in saying):But some, in (their)conscience, even until now eat (it) as if (it were) an idol-sacrifice. But, so sinning, by shocking the weakconsciences of the brethren thoroughly, they willsin againstChrist.
By this time, indeed, (he mentions individuals) by name:Or have we not a power of eating, and of drinking, and of leading aboutwomen, just as the otherapostles withal, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
and,If others attain to (a share) in power over you, (may) not we rather?
In like manner he pricksthem, too, with an individualizing pen:Wherefore, lethim who thinks himself to be standing, see lest he fall;
and,If any seems to be contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) theChurch of the Lord.
With such a final clause (as the following), wound up with a malediction,Ifany loves not theLord Jesus, be heanathema maranatha,
he is, of course, strikingsome particular individual through.
But I will rather take my stand at that point where the apostle is more fervent, where the fornicator himself has troubled others also.As if I be not about to come unto you, some are inflated. But I will come with more speed, if the Lord shall have permitted, and will learn not the speech of those who are inflated, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power. And what will you? Shall I come unto you in a rod, or in a spirit of lenity?
For what was to succeed?There is heard among you generally fornication, and such fornication as (is) not (heard) even among theGentiles, that one should have his own father's wife. And are you inflated, and have you not rather mourned, that he who has committed such a deed may be taken away from the midst of you?
For whom were they tomourn?
Of course, for one dead.To whom were they to mourn? Of course, to the Lord, in order that in some way or other he may betaken away from the midst of them;
not, of course in order that he may be put outside theChurch. For a thing would not have been requested of God which came within the official province of the president (of the Church); but (what would be requested of Him was), that through death — not only this death common to all, but one specially appropriate to that very flesh which was already a corpse, a tombleprous with irremediable uncleanness — he might more fully (than by simpleexcommunication) incur the penalty of beingtaken away
from theChurch. And accordingly, in so far as it was meantime possible for him to betaken away,
headjudged such an one to be surrendered toSatan for the destruction of the flesh.
For it followed that flesh which was being cast forth to thedevil should be accursed, in order that it might be discarded from the sacrament of blessing, never to return into the camp of theChurch.
And thus we see in this place the apostle's severity divided, against one who wasinflated,
and one who wasincestuous:
(we see the apostle) armed against the one witha rod,
against the other with a sentence — arod,
which he was threatening; a sentence, which he was executing: the former (we see) still brandishing, the latter instantaneously hurtling; (the one) wherewith he was rebuking, and (the other) wherewith he was condemning. And certain it is, that immediately thereafter the rebuked one indeed trembled beneath the menace of the uplifted rod, but the condemned perished under the instant infliction of the penalty. Immediately the former retreated fearing the blow, the latter paying the penalty. When a letter of the self-same apostle is sent a second time to the Corinthians, pardon is granted plainly; but it is uncertainto whom, because neither person norcause is advertised. I will compare the cases with the senses. If theincestuous
man is set before us, on the same platform will be theinflated
man too. Surely the analogy of the case is sufficiently maintained, when theinflated
is rebuked, but theincestuous
is condemned. To theinflated
pardon is granted, but after rebuke; to theincestuous
no pardon seems to have been granted, as under condemnation. If it was to him for whom it was feared that he might bedevoured by mourning
that pardon was being granted, therebuked
one was still in danger of being devoured, losing heart on account of the commination, and mourning on account of the rebuke. Thecondemned
one, however, was permanently accounted as already devoured, alike by his fault and by his sentence; (accounted, that is, as one) who had not tomourn,
but tosuffer that which, before suffering it, he might have mourned. If the reason why pardon was being granted waslest we should be defrauded bySatan,
the loss against which precaution was being taken had to do with that which had not yet perished. No precaution is taken in the use of a thing finally dispatched, but in the case of a thing still safe. But the condemned one — condemned, too, to the possession ofSatan— had already perishedfrom theChurch at the moment when he had committed such a deed, not to say withal at the moment of being forsworn by theChurch itself. How should (theChurch)fear to suffer a fraudulent loss of him whom she had already lost on his ereption, and whom, after condemnation, she could not have held? Lastly, to what will it be becoming for a judge to grant indulgence? To that which by a formal pronouncement he has decisively settled, or to that which by an interlocutory sentence he has left in suspense? And, of course, (I am speaking of)that judge who is not wontto rebuild those things which he has destroyed, lest he be held a transgressor.
Come, now, if he had notwholly saddened
so manypersons in the first Epistle; if he hadrebuked
none, hadterrified
none; if he hadsmitten
the incestuous man alone; if, for hiscause, he had sent none into panic, had struck (no)inflated
one with consternation — would it not be better for you to suspect, and more believing for you to argue, that rather some one far different had been in the same predicament at that time among the Corinthians; so that, rebuked, and terrified, and already wounded with mourning, he therefore — the moderate nature of his fault permitting it — subsequently received pardon, than that you should interpret that (pardon as granted) to an incestuous fornicator? For this you had been bound to read, even if not in an Epistle, yet impressed upon the very character of the apostle, by (his) modesty more clearly than by the instrumentality of a pen: not to steep, to wit,Paul, theapostle ofChrist,
theteacher of the nations infaith and verity,
thevessel of election,
the founder of Churches, the censor of discipline, (in the guilt of) levity so great as that he should either have condemned rashly one whom he was presently to absolve, or else rashly absolved one whom he had not rashly condemned, albeit on the ground of that fornication which is the result of simple immodesty, not to say on the ground of incestuous nuptials and impious voluptuousness and parricidallust —(lust) which he had refused to compare even with (thelusts of) thenations, forfear it should be set down to the account of custom; (lust) on which he would sit in judgment though absent, forfear the culprit shouldgain the time;
(lust) which he had condemned after calling to his aid eventhe Lord's power,
forfear the sentence should seemhuman. Therefore he has trifled both with his ownspirit,
and withtheangel of theChurch,
and withthe power of the Lord,
if he rescinded what by their counsel he had formally pronounced.
If you hammer out the sequel of that Epistle to illustrate the meaning of the apostle, neither will that sequel be found to square with the obliteration of incest; lest even here the apostle be put to the blush by the incongruity of his later meanings. For what kind (of hypothesis) is it, that the very moment after making a largess of restoration to the privileges ofecclesiastical peace to an incestuous fornicator, he should immediately have proceeded to accumulate exhortations about turning away from impurities, about pruning away of blemishes, about exhortations todeeds ofsanctity, as if he had decreed nothing of a contrary nature just before? Compare, in short, (and see) whether it be his province to say,Wherefore, having this ministration, in accordance with (the fact) that we have obtained mercy, we faint not; but renounce the secret things of disgrace,
who has just released from condemnation one manifestly convicted of, notdisgrace
merely, but crime too: whether it be province, again, to excuse a conspicuous immodesty, who, among the counts of his own labours, afterstraits and pressures,
afterfasts andvigils,
has namedchastity
also: whether it be, once more, his province to receive back into communion whatsoever reprobates, who writes,For what society (is there) between righteousness and iniquity? What communion, moreover, between light and darkness? What consonance between Christ andBelial? Or what part for a believer with an unbeliever? Or what agreement between the temple ofGod andidols?
Will he not deserve to hear constantly (the reply);And in what manner do you make a separation between things which, in the former part of your Epistle, by restitution of the incestuous one, you have joined? For by his restoration to concorporate unity with theChurch, righteousness is made to have fellowship with iniquity, darkness has communion with light,Belial is consonant with Christ, and believer shares thesacraments with unbeliever. Andidols may see to themselves: the very vitiator of the temple of God is converted into a temple of God: for here, too, he says, 'For you are a temple of the living God. For He says, That I will dwell in you, and will walk in (you), and will be theirGod, and they shall be to Me a people. Wherefore depart from the midst of them, be separate, and touch not the unclean.' This (thread of discourse) also you spin out, O apostle, when at the very moment you yourself are offering your hand to so huge a whirlpool of impurities; nay, you superadd yet further, 'Having therefore this promise, beloved, cleanse we ourselves out from every defilement of flesh andspirit, perfectingchastity in God'sfear.'
Ipray you, had he who fixes such (exhortations) in our minds been recalling some notorious fornicator into theChurch? Or is his reason for writing it, to prevent himself from appearing to you in the present day to have so recalled him? These (words of his) will be in duty bound alike to serve as a prescriptive rule for the foregone, and a prejudgment for the following, (parts of the Epistle). For in saying, toward the end of the Epistle,Lest, when I shall have come, Godhumble me, and I bewail many of those who have formerlysinned, and have not repented of the impurity which they have committed, the fornication, and the vileness,
he did not, of course, determine that they were to be received back (by himinto theChurch) if they should have entered (the path of) repentance, whom he was to findin theChurch, but that they were to be bewailed, and indubitably ejected, that they might lose (the benefit of) repentance. And, besides, it is not congruous that he, who had above asserted that there was no communion between light and darkness, righteousness and iniquity, should in this place have been indicating somewhat touching communion. But all such areignorant of the apostle as understand anything in a sense contrary to the nature and design of the man himself, contrary to the norm and rule of his doctrines; so as to presume that he, a teacher of everysanctity, even by his own example, an execrator and expiator of every impurity, and universally consistent with himself in these points, restoredecclesiastical privileges to an incestuous person sooner than to some more mild offender.
Necessary it is, therefore, that the (character of the) apostle should be continuously pointed out to them; whom I will maintain to be such in the second of Corinthians withal, as Iknow (him to be) in all his letters. (He it is) who even in the first (Epistle) was the first of all (theapostles) to dedicate the temple of God:Do you notknow that you are the temple ofGod, and that in you the Lord dwells?
— who likewise, for the consecrating and purifying (of) that temple, wrote the law pertaining to the temple-keepers:If any shall have marred the temple ofGod, him shall God mar; for the temple of God isholy, which (temple) are you.
Come, now; who in the world has (ever) redintegrated one who has beenmarred
byGod (that is, delivered toSatan with a view to destruction of the flesh), after subjoining for that reason,Let none seduce himself;
that is, let none presume that onemarred
byGod can possibly be redintegrated anew? Just as, again, among all other crimes — nay, evenbefore all others — when affirming thatadulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain thekingdom of God,
he premised,Do noterr
— to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whomthe kingdom
is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding,But such indeed you have been; but you have received ablution, but you have been sanctified, in the Name of theLord Jesus Christ, and in theSpirit of ourGod;
in as far as he puts on the paid side of the account suchsinsbeforebaptism, in so farafterbaptism he determines them irremissible, if it istrue, (as it is), that they are not allowed toreceive ablution
anew. Recognise, too, in what follows,Paul (in the character of) an immoveable column of discipline and its rules:Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: God makes a full end both of the one and of the others; but the body (is) not for fornication, but for God:
forLet Us make man,
saidGod,(conformable) to Our image and likeness.
And God made man; (conformable) to the image and likeness of God made He him.
The Lord for the body:
yes; fortheWord wasmade flesh.
Moreover, God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us through His own power;
on account, to wit, of the union of our body with Him. And accordingly,Do you notknow your bodies (to be) members of Christ?
because Christ, too, is God's temple.Overturn this temple, and I will in three days' space resuscitate it.
Taking away the members ofChrist, shall I make (them) members of an harlot? Do you notknow, that whoever is agglutinated to an harlot is made one body? (for the two shall be (made) into one flesh): but whoever is agglutinated to the Lord is one spirit? Flee fornication.
If revocable by pardon, in what sense am I to flee it, to turn adulterer anew? I shall gain nothing if I do flee it: I shall beone body,
to which by communion I shall be agglutinated.Everysin which ahuman being may have committed is extraneous to the body; but whoever fornicates,sins against his own body.
And, forfear you should fly to that statement for a licence to fornication, on the ground that you will be sinning against a thing which is yours, not the Lord's, he takes you away from yourself, and awards you, according to his previous disposition, to Christ:And you are not your own;
immediately opposing (thereto),for bought you are with a price
— the blood, to wit, of the Lord:glorify and extol the Lord in your body.
See whether he who gives this injunction be likely to have pardoned one who has disgraced the Lord, and who has cast Him down from (the empire of) his body, and this indeed through incest. If you wish to imbibe to the utmost allknowledge of the apostle, in order to understand with what an axe of censorship he lops, and eradicates, and extirpates, every forest oflusts, forfear of permitting anything to regain strength and sprout again; behold him desiringsouls to keep a fast from the legitimate fruit of nature — the apple, I mean, of marriage:But with regard to what you wrote, good it is for a man to have no contact with awoman; but, on account of fornication, let each one have his own wife: let husband to wife, and wife to husband, render what is due.
Who but mustknow that it was against his will that he relaxed the bond of thisgood,
in order to prevent fornication? But if he either has granted, or does grant, indulgence to fornication, of course he has frustrated the design of his own remedy. and will be bound immediately to put the curb upon the nuptials of continence, if the fornication for the sake of which those nuptials are permitted shall cease to be feared. For (a fornication) which has indulgence granted it will not be feared. And yet he professes that he has granted the use of marriageby way of indulgence, not of command.
For hewills
all to be on a level with himself. But when things lawful are (only) granted by way of indulgence, who hope for things unlawful?To the unmarried
also,andwidows,
he says,It isgood, by his example, to persevere
(in their present state);but if they were too weak, to marry; because it is preferable to marry than to burn.
With what fires, Ipray you, is it preferable toburn
— (the fires) of concupiscence, or (the fires) of penalty? Nay, but if fornication is pardonable, it will not be an object ofconcupiscence. But it is more (the manner) of an apostle to take forethought for the fires ofpenalty. Wherefore, if it ispenalty whichburns,
it follows that fornication, whichpenalty awaits, is not pardonable. Meantime withal, while prohibitingdivorce, he uses the Lord's precept againstadultery as an instrument for providing, in place ofdivorce, either perseverance in widowhood, or else a reconciliation of peace: inasmuch aswhoever shall have dismissed a wife (for anycause) except thecause ofadultery, makes her commitadultery; and he who marries one dismissed by a husband commitsadultery.
What powerful remedies does theHoly Spirit furnish, to prevent, to wit, the commission anew of that which He wills not should anew be pardoned!
Now, if in all cases he says it is best for a man thus to be;You are joined to a wife, seek not loosing
(that you may give no occasion toadultery);you are loosed from a wife, seek not a wife,
that you may reserve an opportunity for yourself:but withal, if you shall have married a wife, and if avirgin shall have married, shesins not; pressure, however, of the flesh such shall have,
— even here he is granting a permission by way ofsparing them.
On the other hand, he lays it down thatthe time is wound up,
in order that eventhey who have wives may be as if they had them not.
For the fashion of this world is passing away,
— (this world) no longer, to wit, requiring (the command),Grow and multiply.
Thus he wills us to pass our lifewithout anxiety,
becausethe unmarried care about the Lord, how they may pleaseGod; the married, however, muse about the world, how they may please their spouse.
Thus he pronounces that thepreserver of avirgin
doesbetter
than hergiver in marriage.
Thus, too, he discriminatingly judges her to be more blessed, who, after losing her husband subsequently to her entrance into thefaith, lovingly embraces the opportunity of widowhood. Thus he commends as Divine all these counsels of continence:I think,
he says,I too have theSpirit of God.
Who is this your most audacious asserter of all immodesty, plainly amost faithful
advocate of the adulterous, and fornicators, and incestuous, in whosehonour he has undertaken thiscause against theHoly Spirit, so that he recites a false testimony from (the writings of) His apostle? No such indulgence grantedPaul, who endeavours to obliteratenecessity of the flesh
wholly from (the list of) evenhonourable pretexts (for marriage unions). He does grantindulgence,
I allow — not to adulteries, but to nuptials. He doesspare,
I allow — marriages, not harlotries. He tries to avoid giving pardon even to nature, forfear he may flatter guilt. He is studious to put restraints upon the union which is heir to blessing, forfear that which is heir to curse be excused. This (one possibility) was left him — to purge the flesh from (natural) dregs, for (cleanse it) from (foul) stains he cannot. But this is the usual way with perverse andignorantheretics; yes, and by this time even with Psychics universally: to arm themselves with the opportune support of some one ambiguous passage, in opposition to the disciplined host of sentences of the entire document.
Challenge me to front the apostolic line of battle; look at his Epistles: they all keep guard in defense of modesty, ofchastity, ofsanctity; they all aim their missiles against the interests of luxury, and lasciviousness, andlust. What, in short, does he write to the Thessalonians withal?For our consolation (originated) not of seduction, nor of impurity:
and,This is thewill ofGod, your sanctification, that you abstain from fornication; that each oneknow how to possess his vessel in sanctification andhonour, not in thelust of concupiscence, as (do) the nations which areignorant ofGod.
What do the Galatians read?Manifest are the works of the flesh.
What are these? Among the first he has setfornication, impurity, lasciviousness:
(concerning) which I foretell you, as I have foretold, that whoever do such acts are not to attain by inheritance thekingdom of God.
The Romans, moreover — what learning is more impressed upon them than that there must be no dereliction of the Lord after believing?What, then, say we? Do we persevere insin, in order thatgrace may superabound? Far be it. We, who are dead tosin, how shall we live in it still? Are youignorant that we who have beenbaptized in Christ have beenbaptized into His death? Buried with Him, then, we have been, through thebaptism into the death, in order that, as Christ has risen again from the dead, so we too may walk in newness of life. For if we have been buried together in the likeness of His death, why, we shall be (in that) of (His) resurrection too;knowing this, that our old man has been crucified together with Him. But if we died with Christ, webelieve that we shall live, too, with Him;knowing thatChrist, having been raised from the dead, no more dies, (that) death no more has domination over Him. For in that He died tosin, He diedonce for all; but in that He lives, to God He lives. Thus, too, repute yourselves dead indeed tosin, but living to God through Christ Jesus.
Therefore, Christ being once for all dead, none who, subsequently toChrist, has died, can live again tosin, and especially to so heinous asin. Else, if fornication andadultery may by possibility be anew admissible, Christ withal will be able anew to die. Moreover, the apostle is urgent in prohibitingsin from reigning in our mortal body,
whoseinfirmity of the flesh
heknew.For as you have tendered your members to servile impurity and iniquity, so too now tender them servants to righteousness untoholiness.
For even if he has affirmed thatgood dwells not in his flesh,
yet (he means) according tothe law of the letter,
in which hewas:
but according tothe law of theSpirit,
to which he annexes us, he frees us from theinfirmity of the flesh.
For the law,
he says,of the Spirit of life has manumitted you from the law ofsin and of death.
For albeit he may appear to be partly disputing from the standpoint ofJudaism, yet it is to us that he is directing the integrity and plenitude of the rules of discipline — (us), for whose sake soever, labouring (as we were) in the law,God has sent, through flesh, His own Son, in similitude of flesh ofsin; and, because ofsin, has condemnedsin in the flesh; in order that the righteousness of the law,
he says,might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to flesh, but according to (the) Spirit. For they who walk according to flesh are sensible as to those things which are the flesh's, and they who (walk) according to (the) Spirit those which (are) the Spirit's.
Moreover, he has affirmed thesense of the flesh
to bedeath;
hence too,enmity,
and enmitytoward God; and thatthey who are in the flesh,
that is, in thesense of the flesh,cannot please God:
and,If you live according to flesh,
he says,it will come to pass that you die.
But what do we understandthe sense of the flesh
andthe life of the flesh
(to mean), except whateverit shames (one) to pronounce?
for the other (works) of the flesh even an apostle would have named. Similarly, too, (when writing) to the Ephesians, while recalling past (deeds), he warns (them) concerning the future:In which we too had our conversation, doing the concupiscences and pleasures of the flesh.
Branding, in fine, such as had denied themselves —Christians, to wit — on the score of havingdelivered themselves up to the working of every impurity,
But you,
he says,not so have learned Christ.
And again he says thus:Let him who was wont to steal, steal no more.
But, similarly, let him who was wont to commitadultery hitherto, not commitadultery; and he who was wont to fornicate hitherto, not fornicate: for he would have added these (admonitions) too, had he been in thehabit of extending pardon to such, or at all willed it to be extended — (he) who, not willing pollution to be contracted even by a word, says,Let no base speech proceed out of your mouth.
Again:But let fornication and every impurity not be even named among you, as becomessaints,
— so far is it from being excused —knowing this, that every fornicator or impure (person) has not God's kingdom. Let none seduce you with empty words: on this account comes thewrath of God upon the sons of unbelief.
Whoseduces with empty words
but he who states in a public harangue thatadultery is remissible? Not seeing into the fact that its very foundations have been dug out by the apostle, when he puts restraints upon drunkennesses and revellings, as withal here:And be not inebriated with wine, in which is voluptuousness.
He demonstrates, too, to the Colossians whatmembers
they are tomortify
upon earth:fornication, impurity,lust,evil concupiscence,
andbase talk.
Yield up, by this time, to so many and such sentences, the one (passage) to which you cling. Paucity is cast into the shade by multitude,doubt by certainty, obscurity by plainness. Even if, for certain, the apostle had granted pardon of fornication to that Corinthian, it would be another instance of his once for all contravening his own practice to meet the requirement of the time. Hecircumcised Timotheus alone, and yet did away withcircumcision.
But these (passages),
says (our opponent),will pertain to the interdiction of all immodesty, and the enforcing of all modesty, yet without prejudice to the place of pardon; which (pardon) is not immediately quite denied whensins are condemned, since the time of the pardon is concurrent with the condemnation which it excludes.
This piece of shrewdness on the part of the Psychics was (naturally) sequent; and accordingly we have reserved for this place the cautions which, even in the times of antiquity, were openly taken with a view to the refusing ofecclesiastical communion to cases of this kind.
For even in the Proverbs, which we call Parœmiæ, Solomon specially (treats) of the adulterer (as being) nowhere admissible to expiation.But the adulterer,
he says,through indigence of senses acquires perdition to his ownsoul; sustains dolors and disgraces. His ignominy, moreover, shall not be wiped away for the age. For indignation, full of jealousy, will not spare the man in the day of judgment.
If you think this said about aheathen, at all events aboutbelievers you have already heard (it said) through Isaiah:Go out from the midst of them, and be separate, and touch not the impure.
You have at the very outset of thePsalms,Blessed the man who has not gone astray in the counsel of the impious, nor stood in the way of sinners, and sat in the state-chair of pestilence;
whose voice, withal, (is heard) subsequently:I have not sat with the conclave of vanity; and with them who act iniquitously will I not enter
— this (has to do withthe church
of such as act ill —and with the impious will I not sit;
and,I will wash with the innocent mine hands, and Your altar will I surround, Lord
— as beinga host in himself
— inasmuch as indeedWith anholy (man),holy You will be; and with an innocent man, innocent You will be; and with an elect, elect You will be; and with a perverse, perverse You will be.
And elsewhere:But to the sinner says the Lord, Why do you expound my righteous acts, and take up my testament through your mouth? If you saw a thief, you ran with him; and with adulterers your portion you made.
Deriving his instructions, therefore, from hence, the apostle too says:I wrote to you in the Epistle, not to be mingled up with fornicators: not, of course, with the fornicators of this world
— and so forth —else it behooved you to go out from the world. But now I write to you, if any is named a brother among you, (being) a fornicator, or an idolater
(for what so intimately joined?),or a defrauder
(for what so near akin?), and so on,with such to take no food even,
not to say theEucharist: because, to wit, withala little leaven spoils the flavour of the whole lump.
Again to Timotheus:Lay hands on no one hastily, nor communicate with others'sins.
Again to the Ephesians:Be not, then, partners with them: for you were at one time darkness.
And yet more earnestly:Communicate not with the unfruitful works of darkness; nay rather withal convict them. For (the things) which are done by them in secrecy it is disgraceful even to utter.
What more disgraceful than immodesties? If, moreover, even from abrother
whowalks idly
he warns the Thessalonians to withdraw themselves, how much more withal from a fornicator! For these are the deliberate judgments ofChrist,loving theChurch,
whohas delivered Himself up for her, that He may sanctify her (purifying her utterly by the laver of water) in the word, that He may present theChurch to Himselfglorious, not having stain or wrinkle
— of courseafter the laver —but (that) she may beholy and without reproach;
thereafter, to wit, beingwithout wrinkle
as avirgin,without stain
(of fornication) as a spouse,without disgrace
(of vileness), as having beenutterly purified.
What if, even here, you should conceive to reply that communion is indeed denied to sinners, very especially such as had beenpolluted by the flesh,
but (only) for the present; to be restored, to wit, as the result of penitential suing: in accordance with that clemency of God which prefers a sinner's repentance to his death? — for this fundamental ground of your opinion must be universally attacked. We say, accordingly, that if it had been competent to the Divine clemency to have guaranteed the demonstration of itself even to the post-baptismally lapsed, the apostle would have said thus:Communicate not with the works of darkness,unless they shallhave repented;
and,With such take not food even,unless after they shall have wiped, with rolling at their feet, the shoes of the brethren;
and,Him who shall have marred the temple ofGod, shall God mar,unless he shall have shaken off from his head in the church the ashes of all hearths.
For it had been his duty, in the case of those things which he had condemned, to have equally determined the extent to which he had (and that conditionally) condemned them — whether he had condemned them with a temporary and conditional, and not a perpetual, severity. However, since in all Epistles he both prohibits such a character, (so sinning) after believing, from being admitted (to the society ofbelievers); and, if admitted, detrudes him from communion, without hope of any condition or time; he sides more withour opinion, pointing out that the repentance which the Lord prefers is that whichbefore believing,beforebaptism, is esteemed better than the death of the sinner — (the sinner, I say,) once for all to be washed through thegrace ofChrist, who once for all has suffered death for oursins. For this (rule), even in his own person, the apostle has laid down. For, when affirming that Christ came for this end, that He might save sinners, of whom himself had been thefirst,
what does he add?And I obtained mercy, because I did (so)ignorantly in unbelief.
Thus that clemency ofGod, preferring the repentance of a sinner to his death, looks at such as areignorant still, and still unbelieving, for the sake of whose liberation Christ came; not (at such) as alreadyknowGod, and have learned the sacrament of thefaith. But if the clemency of God is applicable to such as areignorant still, and unbelieving, of course it follows that repentance invites clemency to itself; without prejudice to that species of repentanceafter believing, which either, for lightersins, will be able to obtain pardon from thebishop, or else, for greater and irremissible ones, from God only.
But how far (are we to treat) ofPaul; since even John appears to give some secret countenance to the opposite side? As if in the Apocalypse he has manifestly assigned to fornication the auxiliary aid of repentance, where, to theangel of the Thyatirenes, the Spirit sends a message that Hehas against him that he kept (in communion) thewomanJezebel, who calls herself aprophet, and teaches, and seduces my servants unto fornicating and eating of idolsacrifice. And I gave her bounteously a space of time, that she might enter upon repentance; nor is she willing to enter upon it on the count of fornication. Behold, I will give her into a bed, and her adulterers with herself into greatest pressure, unless they shall have repented of her works.
I am content with the fact that, betweenapostles, there is a common agreement in rules offaith and of discipline. For,Whether (it be) I,
says (Paul),or they, thus we preach.
Accordingly, it is material to the interest of the whole sacrament tobelieve nothing conceded by John, which has been flatly refused byPaul. This harmony of theHoly Spirit whoever observes, shall by Him be conducted into His meanings. For (theangel of the Thyatirene Church) was secretly introducing into theChurch, and urgingjustly to repentance, anhereticalwoman, who had taken upon herself to teach what she had learned from theNicolaitans. For who has adoubt that anheretic, deceived by (a spurious baptismal) rite, upon discovering his mischance, and expiating it by repentance, both attains pardon and is restored to the bosom of theChurch? Whence even among us, as being on a par with anheathen, nay even more thanheathen, anheretic likewise, (such an one) is purged through thebaptism oftruth from each character, and admitted (to the Church). Or else, if you are certain that thatwoman had, after a livingfaith, subsequently expired, and turnedheretic, in order that you may claim pardon as the result of repentance, not as it were for anheretical, but as it were for a believing, sinner: let her, I grant, repent; but with the view of ceasing fromadultery, not however in the prospect of restoration (to Church-fellowship) as well. For this will be a repentance which we, too, acknowledge to be due much more (than you do); but which we reserve, for pardon, toGod.
In short, this Apocalypse, in its later passages, has assignedtheinfamous and fornicators,
as well asthe cowardly, and unbelieving, and murderers, and sorcerers, and idolaters,
who have been guilty of any such crime while professing thefaith, tothe lake of fire,
without anyconditional condemnation. For it will not appear to savour of (a bearing upon)heathens, since it has (just) pronounced with regard tobelievers,They who shall have conquered shall have this inheritance; and I will be to them aGod, and they to me for sons;
and so has subjoined:But to the cowardly, and unbelieving, andinfamous, and fornicators, and murderers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, (shall be) a share in the lake of fire and sulphur, which (lake) is the second death.
Thus, too, again:Blessed they who act according to the precepts, that they may have power over the tree of life and over the gates, for entering into theholy city. Dogs, sorcerers, fornicators, murderers, out!
— of course, such as donot act according to the precepts; forto be sent out is the portion of thosewho have been within. Moreover,What have I to do to judge them who are without?
had preceded (the sentences now in question).
From the Epistle also of John they immediately cull (aproof). It is said:The blood of His Son purifies us utterly from everysin.
Always then, and in every form, we willsin, if always and from everysin He utterly purifies us; or else, if notalways, not again after believing; and if not fromsin, not again from fornication. But what is the point whence (John) has started? He had predicatedGod
to beLight,
and thatdarkness is not in Him,
and thatwe lie if we say that we have communion with Him, and walk in darkness.
If, however,
he says,we walk in the light, we shall have communion with Him, and the blood ofJesus Christ our Lord purifies us utterly from everysin.
Walking, then, in the light, do wesin? And, sinning in the light, shall we be utterly purified? By no means. For he whosins is not in the light, but in darkness. Whence, too, he points out the mode in which we shall be utterly purified fromsin— (by)walking in the light,
in whichsin cannot be committed. Accordingly, the sense in which he says weare utterly purified
is, not in so far as wesin, but in so far as we donotsin. For,walking in the light,
but not having communion with darkness, we shall act as they that areutterly purified;
sin not being quite laid down, but not being wittingly committed. For this is thevirtue of the Lord's blood, that such as it has already purified fromsin, and thenceforward has setin the light,
it renders thenceforward pure, if they shall continue to persevere walking in the light.But he subjoins,
you say,If we say that we have notsin, we are seducing ourselves, and thetruth is not in us. If we confess oursins, faithful and just is He to remit them to us, and utterly purify us from every unrighteousness.
Does he sayfrom impurity?
(No): or else, if that is so, then (Heutterly purifies
us) fromidolatry
too. But there is a difference in the sense. For see yet again:If we say,
he says,that we have notsinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
All the more fully:Little children, these things have I written to you, lest yousin; and if you shall havesinned, an Advocate we have withGod theFather,Jesus Christ the righteous; and, He is the propitiation for oursins.
According to these words,
you say,it will be admitted both that wesin, and that we have pardon.
What, then, will become (of your theory), when, proceeding (with the Epistle), I find something different? For he affirms thatwe do notsin at all; and to this end he treats at large, that he may make no such concession; setting forth thatsins have been once for all deleted by Christ, not subsequently to obtain pardon; in which statement the sense requires us (to apply the statement) to an admonition tochastity.Every one,
he says,who has this hope, makes himself chaste, because He too is chaste. Every one who doessin, does withal iniquity; andsin is iniquity. And youknow that He has been manifested to take awaysins
— henceforth, of course, to be no more incurred, if it istrue, (as it is,) that he subjoins,Every one who abides in Himsins not; every one whosins neither has seen norknows Him. Little children, let none seduce you. Every one who does righteousness is righteous, as He withal is righteous. He who doessin is of thedevil, inasmuch as thedevilsins from the beginning. For unto this end was manifested theSon of God, to undo the works of thedevil:
for He hasundone
them withal, by setting man free throughbaptism, thehandwriting of death
having beenmade a gift of
to him: and accordingly,he who is being born of God does notsin, because the seed of God abides in him; and he cannotsin, because he has been born ofGod. Herein are manifest the sons ofGod and the sons of thedevil.
Wherein? Except it be (thus): the former by not sinning, from the time that they were born fromGod; the latter by sinning, because they are from thedevil, just as if they never were born from God? But if he says,He who is notrighteous is not ofGod,
how shall he who is notmodest again become (a son) ofGod, who has already ceased to be so?
It is therefore nearly equivalent to saying that John has forgotten himself; asserting, in the former part of his Epistle, that we are not withoutsin, but now prescribing that we do notsin at all: and in the one case flattering us somewhat with hope of pardon, but in the other asserting with all stringency, that whoever may havesinned are no sons ofGod.
But away with (the thought): for not even we ourselves forget the distinction betweensins, which was the starting-point of our digression. And (a right distinction it was); for John has here sanctioned it; in that there are somesins of daily committal, to which we all are liable: for who will be free from the accident of either beingangryunjustly, and retaining hisanger beyond sunset; or else even using manualviolence or else carelessly speakingevil; or else rashly swearing; or else forfeiting his plighted word or else lying, from bashfulness ornecessity?
In businesses, in official duties, in trade, in food, in sight, in hearing, by how greattemptations are we plied! So that, if there were no pardon for suchsins as these,salvation would be unattainable to any. Of these, then, there will be pardon, through the successful Suppliant of theFather, Christ. But there are, too, the contraries of these; as the graver and destructive ones, such as are incapable of pardon —murder,idolatry, fraud,apostasy,blasphemy; (and), of course, too,adultery and fornication; and if there be any otherviolation of the temple ofGod.
For these Christ will no more be the successful Pleader: these will not at all be incurred by one who has been born ofGod, who will cease to be the son of God if he do incur them.
Thus John's rule of diversity will be established; arranging as he does a distinction ofsins, while he now admits and now denies that the sons of Godsin. For (in making these assertions) he was looking forward to the final clause of his letter, and for that (final clause) he was laying his preliminary bases; intending to say, in the end, more manifestly:If anyknows his brother to be sinning asin not unto death, he shall make request, and the Lord shall give life to him whosins not unto death. For there is asin unto death: not concerning that do I say that one should make request.
He, too, (as I have been), was mindful that Jeremiah had been prohibited byGod to deprecate (Him) on behalf of a people which was committing mortalsins.Every unrighteousness issin; and there is asin unto death. But weknow that every one who has been born of Godsins not
— to wit, thesin which is unto death. Thus there is no course left for you, but either to deny thatadultery and fornication are mortalsins; or else to confess them irremissible, for which it is not permitted even to make successful intercession.
The discipline, therefore, of theapostles properly (so called), indeed, instructs and determinately directs, as a principal point, the overseer of allsanctity as regards the temple of God to the universal eradication of everysacrilegious outrage upon modesty, without any mention of restoration. I wish, however, redundantly to superadd the testimony likewise of one particular comrade of theapostles —(a testimony) aptly suited for confirming, by most proximate right, the discipline of his masters. For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas — a man sufficiently accredited byGod, as being one whomPaul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence:Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working?
And, of course, the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the Churches than thatapocryphalShepherd
of adulterers. Warning, accordingly, thedisciples to omit all first principles, and strive rather after perfection, and not lay again the foundations of repentance from the works of the dead, he says:For impossible it is that they who have once been illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have participated in theHoly Spirit, and have tasted the word ofGod and found it sweet, when they shall — their age already setting — have fallen away, should be again recalled unto repentance, crucifying again for themselves theSon of God, and dishonouring Him.
For the earth which has drunk the rain often descending upon it, and has borne grass apt for them on whose account it is tilled withal, attains God's blessing; but if it brings forth thorns, it is reprobate, and nighest to cursing, whose end is (doomed) unto utter burning.
He who learned thisfromapostles, and taught itwithapostles, neverknew of anysecond repentance
promised byapostles to the adulterer and fornicator.
For excellently was he wont to interpret the law, and keep its figures even in (the dispensation of) the Truth itself. It was with a reference, in short, to this species of discipline that the caution was taken in the case of theleper:But if the speckled appearance shall have become efflorescent over the skin, and shall have covered the whole skin from the head even unto the feet through all the visible surface, then thepriest, when he shall have seen, shall utterly cleanse him: since he has wholly turned into white he is clean. But on the day that there shall have been seen in such an one quick color, he is defiled.
(The Law) would have the man who is wholly turned from the pristine habit of the flesh to the whiteness offaith— which (faith) is esteemed a defect and blemish in (the eyes of) the world — and is wholly made new, to be understood to beclean;
as being no longerspeckled,
no longer dappled with the pristine and the new (intermixt). If, however, after the reversal (of the sentence of uncleanness), ought of the old nature shall have revived with its tendencies, that which was beginning to be thought utterly dead tosin in his flesh must again be judged unclean, and must no more be expiated by thepriest. Thusadultery, sprouting again from the pristine stock, and wholly blemishing the unity of the new color from which it had been excluded, is a defect that admits of no cleansing. Again, in the case of a house: if any spots and cavities in the party-walls had been reported to thepriest, before he entered to inspect that house he bids all (its contents) be taken away from it; thus the belongings of the house would not be unclean. Then thepriest, if, upon entering, he had found greenish or reddish cavities, and their appearance to the sight deeper down within the body of the party-wall, was to go out to the gate, and separate the house for a period within seven days. Then, upon returning on the seventh day, if he should have perceived the taint to have become diffused in the party-walls, he was to order those stones in which the taint of theleprosy had been to be extracted and cast away outside the city into an unclean place; and other stones, polished and sound, to be taken and replaced in the stead of the first, and the house to be plastered with other mortar. For, in coming to the High Priest of the Father — Christ — all impediments must first be taken away, in the space of a week, that the house which remains, the flesh and thesoul, may be clean; and when theWord of God has entered it, and has foundstains of red and green,
immediately must the deadly and sanguinarypassionsbe extracted
andcast away
out of doors — for the Apocalypse withal has setdeath
upon agreen horse,
but awarrior
upon ared
— and in their stead must be under-strewn stones polished and apt for conjunction, and firm — such as are made (byGod) into (sons) ofAbraham, — that thus the man may be fit for God. But if, after the recovery and reformation, thepriest again perceived in the same house ought of the pristine disorders and blemishes, he pronounced it unclean, and bade the timbers, and the stones, and all the structure of it, to be pulled down, and cast away into an unclean place. This will be the man — flesh andsoul— who, subsequently to reformation, afterbaptism and the entrance of thepriests, again resumes the scabs and stains of the flesh, andis case away outside the city into an unclean place,
—surrendered,
to wit,toSatan for the destruction of the flesh,
— and is no more rebuilt in theChurch after his ruin. So, too, with regard to lying with a female slave, who had beenbetrothed to an husband, but not yet redeemed, not yet set free:provision,
says (the Law), shall be made for her, and she shall not die, because she was not yet manumitted for him for whom she was being kept. For flesh not yet manumitted toChrist, for whom it was being kept, used to be contaminated with impunity: so now, after manumission, it no more receives pardon.
If theapostles understood these (figurative meanings of the Law) better, of course they were more careful (with regard to them than even apostolic men). But I will descend even to this point of contest now, making a separation between thedoctrine ofapostles and theirpower. Discipline governs aman, power sets a seal upon him; apart from the fact that power is theSpirit, but the Spirit isGod. What, moreover, used (the Spirit) to teach? That there must be no communicating with the works of darkness. Observe what He bids. Who, moreover, was able to forgivesins? This is His alone prerogative: forwho remitssins but God alone?
and, of course, (who but He can remit)mortalsins, such as have been committed against Himself, and against His temple? For, as far as you are concerned, such as are chargeable with offense against you personally, you are commanded, in the person of Peter, to forgive even seventy times sevenfold. And so, if it were agreed that even the blessedapostles had granted any such indulgence (to any crime) the pardon of which (comes) fromGod, not from man, it would be competent (for them) to have done so, not in the exercise of discipline, but of power. For they both raised the dead, whichGod alone (can do), and restored the debilitated to their integrity, which none but Christ (can do); nay, they inflicted plagues too, which Christ would not do. For it did not beseem Him to be severe who had come to suffer. Smitten were both Ananias and Elymas — Ananias with death, Elymas with blindness — in order that by this very fact it might beproved that Christ hadhad the power of doing evensuch (miracles). So, too, had theprophets (of old) granted to the repentant thepardon ofmurder, and therewith ofadultery, inasmuch as they gave, at the same time, manifestproofs ofseverity. Exhibit therefore even now to me, apostolic sir, prophetic evidences, that I may recognise your divinevirtue, and vindicate to yourself thepower of remitting suchsins! If, however, you have had the functions ofdiscipline alone allotted you, and (the duty) of presiding not imperially, but ministerially; who or how great are you, that you should grant indulgence, who, by exhibiting neither the prophetic nor the apostolic character, lack thatvirtue whose property it is to indulge?
But,
you say,theChurch has the power of forgivingsins.
This I acknowledge and adjudge more (than you; I) who have the Paraclete Himself in thepersons of the newprophets, saying,The Church has the power to forgivesins; but I will not do it, lest they commit others withal.
What if a pseudo-prophetic spirit has made that declaration?
Nay, but it would have been more the part of a subverter on the one hand to commend himself on the score of clemency, and on the other to influence all others tosin. Or if, again, (the pseudo-prophetic spirit) has been eager to affect this (sentiment) in accordance withthe Spirit oftruth,
it follows thatthe Spirit oftruth
has indeed thepower of indulgently granting pardon to fornicators, butwills not to do it if it involveevil to the majority.
I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right totheChurch.
If, because the Lord has said to Peter,Upon this rock will I build My Church,
to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;
or,Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,
you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?On you,
He says,will I build My Church;
and,I will giveto you the keys,
notto theChurch; and,Whatsoeveryou shall have loosed or bound,
not whatthey shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself theChurch was reared; that is,through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you seewhat (key):Men ofIsrael, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined byGod for you,
and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ'sbaptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) areloosed
thesins that were beforetimebound;
and those which have not beenloosed
arebound,
in accordance withtruesalvation; and Ananias hebound
with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet heabsolved
from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with theSpirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of thenations, to say,And now why are you tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through thegrace ofJesus webelieve that we shall be saved in the same way as they.
This sentence bothloosed
those parts of the law which were abandoned, andbound
those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capitalsins ofbelievers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning againsthim evenseventy times sevenfold,
of course He would have commanded him tobind
— that is, toretain
—nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed againstthe Lord, not against abrother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of aman is a prejudgment against the remission ofsins againstGod.
What, now, (has this to do) with theChurch, andyour (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is tospiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to aprophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity — Father, Son, andHoly Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist inthree.
And thus, from that time forward, every number (ofpersons) who may have combined together into thisfaith is accounteda Church,
from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordinglytheChurch,
it istrue, will forgivesins: but (it will be) theChurch of theSpirit, by means of a spiritual man; not theChurch which consists of a number ofbishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord's, not the servant's; God's Himself, not thepriest's.
But you go so far as to lavish thispower
uponmartyrs withal! No sooner has any one, acting on a preconceived arrangement, put on the bonds — (bonds), moreover, which, in the nominal custody now in vogue, are soft ones — than adulterers beset him, fornicators gain access to him; instantlyprayers echo around him; instantly pools of tears (from the eyes) of all the polluted surround him; nor are there any who are more diligent in purchasing entrance into theprison than they who have lost (the fellowship of) theChurch! Men andwomen are violated in the darkness with which the habitual indulgence oflusts has plainly familiarized them; and they seek peace at the hands of those who are risking their own! Others betake them to the mines, and return, in the character of communicants, from thence, where by this time anothermartyrdom
is necessary forsins committedaftermartyrdom.
Well, who on earth and in the flesh is faultless?
Whatmartyr
(continues to be) an inhabitant of the world supplicating? Pence in hand? Subject to physician and usurer? Suppose, now, (yourmartyr
) beneath the glaive, with head already steadily poised; suppose him on thecross, with body already outstretched; suppose him at the stake, with the lion already let loose; suppose him on the axle, with the fire already heaped; in the very certainty, I say, and possession ofmartyrdom: who permitsman to condone (offenses) which are to be reserved forGod, by whom those (offenses) have been condemned without discharge, which not evenapostles (so far as Iknow)—martyrs withal themselves — have judged condonable? In short,Paul had alreadyfought with beasts at Ephesus,
when he decreeddestruction
to the incestuous person. Let it suffice to themartyr to have purged his ownsins: it is the part of ingratitude or ofpride to lavish upon others also what one has obtained at a high price. Who has redeemed another's death by his own, but theSon of God alone? For even in His very passion He set the robber free. For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure fromsin, and in all respectsholy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners. Similarly, you who emulate Him in condoningsins, if you yourself have done nosin, plainly suffer in my stead. If, however, you are a sinner, how will the oil of your puny torch be able to suffice for you and for me?
I have, even now, a test whereby to prove (the presence of) Christ (in you). If Christ is in themartyr for this reason, that themartyr may absolve adulterers and fornicators, let Him tell publicly the secrets of the heart, that He may thus concede (pardon to)sins; and He isChrist. For thus it was that theLord Jesus Christ showed His power:Why do you thinkevil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Yoursins are remitted you; or, Rise and walk? Therefore, that you mayknow theSon of man to have the power upon earth of remittingsins, I say to you, paralytic, Rise, and walk.
If the Lord set so much store by theproof of His power as to reveal thoughts, and so impart health by His command, lest He should not bebelieved to have the power of remittingsins; it is not lawful for me tobelieve the same power (to reside) in any one, whoever he be, without the sameproofs. In the act, however, of urgently entreating from amartyr pardon for adulterers and fornicators, you yourself confess that crimes of that nature are not to be washed away except by themartyrdom of the criminal himself, while you presume (they can be washed away) by another's. If this is so, thenmartyrdom will be anotherbaptism. ForI have withal,
says He,anotherbaptism.
Whence, too, it was that there flowed out of the wound in the Lord's side water and blood, the materials of eitherbaptism. I ought, then, by thefirstbaptism too to (have theright of) setting another free if I can by thesecond: and we must necessarily force upon the mind (of our opponents this conclusion): Whatever authority, whatever reason, restoresecclesiastical peace to the adulterer and fornicator, the same will be bound to come to the aid of the murderer and idolater in their repentance, — at all events, of theapostate, and of course of him whom, in the battle of his confession, after hard struggling with torments, savagery has overthrown. Besides, it were unworthy ofGod and of His mercy, who prefers the repentance of a sinner to his death, that they should have easier return into (the bosom of) theChurch who have fallen in heat of passion, than they who have fallen in hand-to-hand combat. Indignation urges us to speak. Contaminated bodies you will recall rather than gory ones! Which repentance is more pitiable — that which prostrates tickled flesh, or lacerated? Which pardon is, in all causes, morejustly concessible — that which avoluntary, or that which an involuntary, sinner implores? No one is compelledwith his will toapostatize; no oneagainst his will commits fornication. Lust is exposed to noviolence, except itself: itknows no coercion whatever. Apostasy, on the contrary, what ingenuities of butchery and tribes of penal inflictions enforce! Which has moretrulyapostatized— he who has lost Christ amid agonies, or (he who has done so) amid delights? He who when losing Him grieved, or he who when losing Him sported? And yet those scars graven on theChristian combatant — scars, of course, enviable in the eyes ofChrist, because they yearned after Conquest, and thus alsoglorious, because failing to conquer they yielded; (scars) after which even thedevil himself yet sighs; (scars) with an infelicity of their own, but a chaste one, with a repentance that mourns, but blushes not, to the Lord for pardon — will anew be remitted to such, because theirapostasy was expiable! In their case alone is theflesh weak.
Nay, no flesh so strong as that which crushes out the Spirit!
Source.Translated by S. Thelwall. FromAnte-Nicene Fathers,Vol. 4.Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.,1885.)Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm>.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.