Edition ausblenden
De Pudicitia

XIV.

[1] Et his itaque discussis, quae intercesserant, regredior ad secundam Corinthiorum, ut probem illud quoque apostoli dictum : Sufficiat eiusmodi homini increpatio ista quae a multis, non in fornicatoris persona conuenire. [2] Si enim dedendum satanae pronuntiauerat in interitum carnis, utique damnauerat eum magis quam increpauerat. Alius ergo erat, cui uoluit sufficere increpationem ; siquidem fornicator non increpationem de sententia eius retulerat, sed damnationem. [3] Nam et hoc ipsum dispiciendum tibi offero, an fuerint in epistola prima et alii qui apostolum contristauerint incondite agentes et contristati sint ab illo increpationem referentes iuxta sensum epistolae secundae, ex quibus in ea ueniam aliquis potuerit adipisci. [4] Animaduertamus autem totam epistolam primam, ut ita dixerim, non atramento, sed felle conscriptam, tumentem, indignantem, dedignantem, comminantem, inuidiosam et per singulas causas in quosdam quasi mancipes earum figuratam. [5] Sic enim exegerant schismata et aemulationes et dissensiones et praesumptiones et elationes et contentiones, ut et inuidia onerarentur et correptione retunderentur et superbia elimarentur et austeritate deterrerentur. Et qualis inuidia humilitatis aculeus? [6] Deo gratias ago, quod neminem uestrum tinxerim, nisi Crispum et Gaium, ne qui dicat, quod in nomine meo tinxerim. Nec enim iudicaui scire aliquid in uobis quam Iesum Christum et hunc crucifixum. [7] Et puto, nos Deus apostolos nouissimos elegit uelut bestiarios, quoniam spectaculum facti sumus huic mundo et angelis et hominibus et purgamenta huius mundi facti sumus, omnium peripsema, et: Non sum liber, non sum apostolus, non Christum Iesum Dominum nostrum uidi? [8] De quali contra supercilio pronuntiare compulsus est: Mihi autem in modico est, ut a uobis interroger aut ab humano die; neque enim conscius mihi sum, et: Gloriam meam nemo inaniet. Non scitis quod angelos sumus iudicaturi? [9] Ceterum libertas quam aperta obiurgationis, quam exerta acies machaerae spiritalis : Iam ditati estis, iam saturati estis, iam regnatis, et: Si quis se putat scire, nondum scit quemadmodum oporteat eum scire ! [10] Nonne et tunc in faciem alicuius impingens, quis enim, inquit, te discernit? Quid autem habes, quod non accepisti? <Si autem accepisti,> quid gloriaris, quasi non acceperis? Nonne et illos in os caedit? [11] Quidam autem in conscientia usque nunc quasi idolothytum edunt. Sic autem delinquentes percutiendo conscientias fratrum infirmas in Christum delinquent. Iam uero et nominatim : Aut non habemus potestatem manducandi et bibendi et mulieres circumducendi, sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres Domini et Cephas? Et: Si alii de potestate uestra consequuntur, non magis nos? [12] Aeque et illos singulari stilo figit: Propterea qui se putat stare, uideat ne cadat, et: Si quis contentiosus uidetur, nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Domini. [13] Tali clausula maledicto detexta, si quis non amat Dominum Iesum, sit anathema maranatha, aliquem utique percussit.

Sed illic magis stabo, ubi apostolus magis feruet, ubi ipse fornicator aliis quoque negotium fecit. [14] Quasi non sim uenturus ad uos, inflati sunt quidam. Veniam autem citius, si permiserit Dominus, et cognoscam non sermonem eorum qui inflati sunt, sed uirtutem. Non enim in sermone est regnum Dei, sed in uirtute. Et quid uultis? Veniam ad uos in uirga an in spiritu lenitatis? [15] Quid enim suberat? Auditur in uobis in totum fornicatio et talis fornicatio, qualis nec in gentibus, ut uxorem patris sui quis habeat. Et uos inflati estis, et non luxistis potius, ut auferatur de medio uestrum qui tale facinus admisit? [16] Pro quo lugerent? Vtique pro mortuo. Ad quem lugerent? Vtique ad Dominum, ut quo modo auferatur de medio eorum, non utique ut extra ecclesiam detur (hoc enim non a Deo postularetur quod erat in praesidentis officio), sed ut per mortem hanc quoque communem et propriam carnis ipsius, quae iam cadauer, quo captiuum, esset, immunditia inrecuperabili tabiosum, plenius de ecclesia deberet auferri. [17] Et ideo, quomodo interim potuit auferri, iudicauit dedendum eiusmodi satanae in interitum carnis. Maledici enim eam sequebatur, quae diabolo proiciebatur, ut sacramento benedictionis exauctoraretur numquam in castra ecclesiae reuersura. [18] Videmus itaque hoc in loco diuisam apostoli seueritatem in quendam inflatum et in quendam incestum, in alterum uirga, in alterum sententia armatam: virga, qua minabatur, sententia, quam exsequebatur; illam adhuc coruscantem, hanc statim fulminantem, qua increpabat quaque damnabat. [19] Certumque est exinde increpitum quidem sub intentatione uirgae tremuisse, damnatum uero sub repraesentatione poenae perisse. Stat enim ille timens plagam, abiit ille luens poenam.

[20] Cum ad Corinthios eiusdem apostoli litterae iterantur, uenia fit plane, sed incertum cui, quia nec persona nec causa proscribitur. Res cum sensibus conferam. [21] Si incestus opponitur, ibidem erit et inflatus. Sane rei ratio satis habetur, cum inflatus increpitus est, incestus uero damnatus est. Inflato ignoscitur, sed increpito ; incesto non uidetur ignotum, ut damnato. [22] Si ei ignoscebatur, cui deuoratio ex maerore nimio timebatur, deuorari adhuc increpitus periclitabatur deficiens ob comminationem et maerens ob increpationem ; damnatus uero et culpa et sententia iam deuoratus deputabatur, qui non maerere haberet, sed pati quod ante passionem maerere potuisset. [23] Si idcirco ignoscebatur, ne fraudaremur a satana, in eo utique detrimentum praecauebatur quod nondum perisset. Nihil de transacto praecauetur, sed de adhuc saluo. [24] Damnatus autem et quidem in possessionem satanae iam tunc perierat ecclesiae, cum tale facinus admiserat, nedum cum et ab ipsa eierabatur. Quomodo uereretur fraudem pati eius, quem iam et ereptum amiserat et damnatum habere non potuerat? [25] Postremo, quid iudicem indulgere conueniet, quod pronuntiatione deciderit an quod interlocutione suspenderit, et utique eum iudicem, qui non solet ea quae destruxit reaedificare, ne transgressor habeatur? [26] Age iam, si non tot personas prima epistola contristasset, si neminem increpuisset, neminem terruisset, si solum incestum cecidisset, si nullum in causam eius in pauorem misisset, inflatum consternasset, nonne melius suspicareris et fidelius argumentareris aliquem potius longe alium apud Corinthios tunc in eadem causa fuisse, ut increpitus et territus et maerore saucius propterea permittente modulo delicti ueniam postea ceperit, quam ut eam incesto fornicatori interpretareris? [27] Hoc enim legisse debueras, etsi non epistola, sed in ipsa apostoli secta, a pudore clarius quam stilo eius impressum, ne scilicet Paulum apostolum Christi, doctorem nationum in fide et ueritate, uas electionis, ecclesiarum conditorem, censorem disciplinarum, tantae leuitatis inficeres, ut aut damnauerit temere quem mox esset absoluturus aut temere absoluerit quem non temere damnasset, ob solam licet fornicationem simplicis impudicitiae, nedum ob incestas nuptias et impiam luxuriam et libidinem parricidalem, quam nec nationibus comparauerat, ne in consuetudinem deputaretur, quam absens iudicarat, ne spatium reus lucraretur, quam aduocata etiam Domini uirtute damnauerat, ne humana sententia uideretur. [28] Lusit igitur et de suo spiritu et de ecclesiae angelo et de uirtute Domini, si quod de consilio eorum pronuntiauerat, rescidit.

Übersetzung ausblenden
On Modesty

Chapter XIV.--The Same Subject Continued.

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 be this rebuke which (is administered) by many," is not suitable to the person of the fornicator. For if he had sentenced him "to be surrendered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh," of course he had condemned rather than rebuked him. Some other, then, it was to whom he willed the "rebuke" to be sufficient; if, that is, the fornicator had incurred not "rebuke" from his sentence, but "condemnation." For I offer you withal, for your investigation, this very question: Whether there were in the first Epistle others, too, who "wholly saddened" the apostle by "acting disorderly," ¹ and "were 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 have baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius, lest any say that I have baptized in mine own name." ² "For neither did I judge to know anything among you but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." ³ And, "(I think) God hath selected us the apostles (as) hindmost, like men appointed to fight with wild beasts; since we have been made a spectacle to this world, both to angels 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 seen Christ Jesus our Lord?" ⁴ 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 a human court-day; for neither am I conscious to myself (of any guilt);" and, "My glory none shall make empty." ⁵ "Know ye not that we are to judge angels?" ⁶ Again, of how open censure (does) the free expression (find utterance), how manifest the edge of the spiritual sword, (in words like these): "Ye are already enriched! ye are already satiated! ye are already reigning!" ⁷ and, "If any thinks himself to know, he knoweth not yet how it behoves him to know!" ⁸ Is he not even then "smiting some one's face," ⁹ in saying, "For who maketh thee to differ? What, moreover, hast thou which thou hast not received? Why gloriest thou as if thou have not received?" ¹⁰ Is he not withal "smiting them upon the mouth," ¹¹ (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 weak consciences of the brethren thoroughly, they will sin against Christ." ¹² By this time, indeed, (he mentions individuals) by name: "Or have we not a power of eating, and of drinking, and of leading about women, just as the other apostles 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 pricks them, too, with an individualizing pen: "Wherefore, let him who thinketh himself to be standing, see lest he fall;" and, "If any seemeth to be contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of the Lord." With such a final clause (as the following), wound up with a malediction, "If any loveth not the Lord Jesus, be he anathema maranatha," he is, of course, striking some 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 ye? 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 the Gentiles, that one should have his own father's wife. And are ye inflated, and have ye not rather mourned, that he who hath committed such a deed may be taken away from the midst of you?" For whom were they to "mourn?" 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 be "taken away from the midst of them;" not, of course in order that he may be put outside the Church. 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 tomb leprous with irremediable uncleanness--he might more fully (than by simple excommunication) incur the penalty of being "taken away" from the Church. And accordingly, in so far as it was meantime possible for him to be "taken away," he "adjudged such an one to be surrendered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh." For it followed that flesh which was being cast forth to the devil should be accursed, in order that it might be discarded from the sacrament of blessing, never to return into the camp of the Church.

And thus we see in this place the apostle's severity divided, against one who was "inflated," and one who was "incestuous:" (we see the apostle) armed against the one with "a rod," against the other with a sentence,--a "rod," 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 forthwith 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 uncertain to whom, because neither person nor cause is advertised. I will compare the cases with the senses. If the "incestuous" man is set before us, on the same platform will be the "inflated" man too. Surely the analogy of the case is sufficiently maintained, when the "inflated" is rebuked, but the "incestuous" is condemned. To the "inflated" pardon is granted, but after rebuke; to the "incestuous" no pardon seems to have been granted, as under condemnation. If it was to him for whom it was feared that he might be "devoured by mourning" that pardon was being granted, the "rebuked" one was still in danger of being devoured, losing heart on account of the commination, and mourning on account of the rebuke. The "condemned" one, however, was permanently accounted as already devoured, alike by his fault and by his sentence; (accounted, that is, as one) who had not to "mourn," but to suffer that which, before suffering it, he might have mourned. If the reason why pardon was being granted was "lest we should be defrauded by Satan," 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 despatched, but in the case of a thing still safe. But the condemned one--condemned, too, to the possession of Satan--had already perished from the Church at the moment when he had committed such a deed, not to say withal at the moment of being forsworn by the Church itself. How should (the Church) 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 wont "to rebuild those things which he has destroyed, lest he be held a transgressor." ¹³

Come, now, if he had not "wholly saddened" so many persons in the first Epistle; if he had "rebuked" none, had "terrified" ¹⁴ none; if he had "smitten" the incestuous man alone; if, for his cause, 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, the "apostle of Christ," ¹⁵ the "teacher of the nations in faith and verity," ¹⁶ the "vessel of election," ¹⁷ 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 parricidal lust,--(lust) which he had refused to compare even with (the lusts of) the nations, for fear it should be set down to the account of custom; (lust) on which he would sit in judgment though absent, for fear the culprit should "gain the time;" ¹⁸ (lust) which he had condemned after calling to his aid even "the Lord's power," for fear the sentence should seem human. Therefore he has trifled both with his own "spirit," ¹⁹ and with "the angel of the Church," ²⁰ and with "the power of the Lord," if he rescinded what by their counsel he had formally pronounced.