Questions on the Old and New Testament 102.9–102.32

So throughout the whole law the Lord always urges sinners to turn to him, not wanting his work to be given over to perdition; for there is no other reason for giving the law than that people should turn from error to the truth. Yet in the New Testament the author of the law appears more merciful, because at the time when he deigned to manifest the mystery of his Son our Lord, he wished to be more generous and abundant in mercy, so that there should be more grace when the Son preached than there had been when servants preached. And not undeservedly, for it was fitting that he should bestow greater gifts through the Son than through servants. Indeed to believers who turn to him he grants all sins at once, without any lamentation of penance coming in between. Hence the apostle Paul says: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” But afterward, if they have sinned, they can merit pardon through repentance, so that, because they sinned after receiving free mercy, they may come to pardon no longer freely, but with groaning and weeping coming in between.

For it is impossible for a human being not to sin. Hence the apostle John says: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us; if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, so as to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” So David merited pardon and restoration when he confessed his sin. Certainly the apostle is speaking to Christians, for he says in what follows: “My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin; and if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.” He says this so that, if we sin after baptism, we may entreat the advocate as suppliants to plead with the Father for us. For if repentance had a place among our forebears, how can it have no place at this time, when the mercy of the preaching is greater? And will he who had mercy on enemies by calling them to grace not have mercy on those who have been made friends, when they bring a payment? For contrition of heart is the penitent’s payment. If Novatian’s view were true, people would grieve that they had been made friends out of enemies. Or what kind of person would he be thought to be, if he gave mercy to enemies who did not repent but refused it to friends who entreat him? Especially since the Lord knows that the devil exalts himself and rages more against God’s friends and servants; hence the apostle Peter says: “Be watchful, be sober, because our adversary the devil, roaring like a lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour.”

Since, then, the Lord knows that we have a terrible and powerful adversary, if we have been conquered by him he wants us to flee to his help, grieving that we have been struck down, so that, restored by his power, we may fight back strongly. For just as, unless those days were shortened, as the Lord says, no flesh would be saved, so too, if repentance is denied to people, no one can be saved. For “no one,” it says, “will boast that he has a clean heart.” And elsewhere: “No one,” it says, “is without stain, not even an infant of one day.” Who will be able to escape if repentance is denied? And where is what the Lord says, that there will be joy in heaven over a sinner who does penance?

“But,” he says, “the greater crimes, sexual immorality and idolatry, ought not to be pardoned.” And where then is the Lord’s saying, by which he promises that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven them? He says that absolutely all sins can be forgiven except one. Now choose, Novatian, of whom you want this said: of those who do not yet believe or of those who already believe? If of those who do not believe, how is forgiveness of sins given, since it is certain that all, before they believe, sin against God and against the Holy Spirit? For some call the Lord’s deeds magic, assigning the work of the Holy Spirit to demons. But if you want it said of believers, your assertion is excluded, because all sins will be forgiven: “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man,” he says, “it will be forgiven him.” So whether one sins against God or against Christ, it will be forgiven to men; for he included all sins except that against the Holy Spirit. So he does not want the sin committed against God to be understood as also being the sin against the Holy Spirit; if it were, he would certainly not have excepted the latter. Since, then, he signifies a different sin when the Holy Spirit is blasphemed (for this saying concerns the Spirit’s person, not his nature), all sins will be forgiven, whether to those who already believe, through penance, or to those who will believe, through baptism.

That the Jews sinned against the Holy Spirit is another matter, one that belonged to that time. Hence he shows that this is not forgiven them, either here or in the future. For they sinned against the Holy Spirit not by error but by malevolence. Knowing and understanding that the works they saw in the Savior’s deeds were God’s, they pretended, in order to turn the people from faith in him, that they belonged to the prince of demons. This is why the Lord says to them: “You have the key of knowledge, and neither do you enter nor do you let others enter.” This sentence, then, was pronounced against the malevolent, for whom no remedy can be found by which they may be saved. Nothing is graver than this crime: it pretends that what it knows to be true is false. For the Jews, who were seen to be under God’s law and to whom the promise of Christ had been made, seeing the mighty works and understanding that this was what God had promised, were blinded by envy, so that they denied it, and not only denied it but even persecuted him to death. It is not fitting, then, that this sin should ever be forgiven to those who, with their own conscience as witness, dared to resist God, to whom they claimed to be devoted.

Sins against God and sins against Christ have different causes. Either someone, envying another’s good fortune, rises up against the Creator in grief at his own lowly state, or, having suffered some sudden misfortune, he is stirred by anger and becomes insulting toward his Parent. But to Christ it is his incarnation that provokes insult. For while people do not know the mystery of Christ incarnate, they blaspheme, thinking it unworthy that the Son of God, who is of incorporeal and simple nature, should be said to have been born in human fashion. They blaspheme, then, because they do not know the mystery. Therefore a hand must be held out to them when they turn back, because they set themselves against the truth while thinking they are acting for the truth. Such a man, when tortured and torn with hooks, says that what he follows is true; but the Jews mentioned above thought one thing and did another, and they are always tortured, without judge or executioner, by their own conscience as witness. One who became an enemy of the truth through error rejoices, once turned back, that he has come to know the truth. But the malevolent man has nothing to amend; for if he turns, he will only begin to call true what he never believed to be false.

But there is no cause for doing injury to the Holy Spirit; his function gives no offense, since it appears in the power of signs and wonders. Who would dare to rise up against him when he sees the dead raised? Or who would be angry with him through whose working he sees paralytics running, the blind receiving light, the deaf hearing? Or how will anyone not love him whom he sees casting out unclean spirits, cleansing lepers, and healing all infirmities together? Yet the Jews preferred to insult him, saying that his work was the work of demons, so long as they could satisfy the envy and hatred they were venting on the Savior. Therefore he shows that this sin is forgiven them neither here nor in the future.

But Novatian says: “Let it be proved that the greater crimes, namely idolatry and sexual immorality after the washing, are forgiven by name. For this reason,” he says, “all sins are forgiven together in baptism, so that afterward, if people commit anything grave, they may in no way obtain pardon; because after the Holy Spirit has been received, what is against the Holy Spirit ought not to be committed.” Who would deny that one ought never to sin, if only it were possible? But God, knowing the human race to be frail, has always attended them with saving remedies, so that after sinning they might have a way to restore themselves. If the gift of the Spirit forbids penance to be given to sinners, there is no providence in the New Testament, and better provision will seem to have been made for the ancients, to whom this medicine was not denied. And how then is grace greater in the new than in the old? It would be the act of an enemy, knowing that people cannot be provided for in any other way to reach salvation than by penance coming in between, to give the Holy Spirit on such terms that, if injury is done to him through some fear or by error, satisfaction should no longer have room to restore the person. That would be to seek an occasion for destroying a person, not saving him. But far from it, for the Lord says: “The Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them.” If God commanded us to forgive one another seventy times seven times the sins we commit against one another, if we turn back, how much more does he himself pardon those who turn back when sin is committed against him! For he wills every sinner to be converted.

Hence the apostle proves that forgiveness was granted to the sexually immoral and the unclean, when he says: “lest perhaps when I come I mourn many of those who sinned before and did not do penance for the uncleanness and sexual immorality they committed.” He proves that some had done penance, over whom he does not grieve but rejoices; but he indicates that others had not done penance for their sexual immorality, and for this reason he says he mourns them as not belonging to life, because they did not do penance. For if penance for this crime always had to be in progress throughout this life, he would not say that he mourns them because they “did not do” it, but because they “are not doing” it. But knowing that penance is both begun and completed here, he says “they did not do it.” For he wanted, when he came to them, to have peace in communion with them. See, it is proved that the sexually immoral are to be admitted to communion after penance has been done. They cannot be given communion while they are doing it; but they are to be given communion when, by the church’s judgment, they cease doing it.

It now remains for us to prove whether pardon can be granted specifically to idolaters. In the Apocalypse of the blessed apostle John we read that penance is preached for idolatry. For the bishops, whom he calls angels, that is, messengers (as the blessed apostle Paul says, “You received me as an angel of God”), are admonished to give penance to sinners, and not to let those who cause stumbling in the church go unadmonished, though they themselves belong to the church. He says, then: “And to the angel of the church of Pergamum write: These things says he who has the sword sharp on both sides: I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; and you hold fast my name and did not deny my faith in the days when Antipas, my most faithful witness, was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the eyes of the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed and to commit sexual immorality; so you too have those who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Likewise, do penance.” He says that this teaching of the Nicolaitans is the same as Balaam’s, that is, idolatry and sexual immorality, and he commands penance for it. And he shows that he is speaking to members of the church when he says: “These things the Spirit says to the churches.”

That there is a fruit of penance he signifies thus: “To the one who conquers,” he says, “I will give to eat of the manna that is hidden,” so that through penance one may conquer sins. For what is it to repent but to grieve over the past and to refrain afterward from what one had committed? “And to the angel of the church of Thyatira write: These things says the Son of God, who has his eyes like a flame of fire, and his feet like fine bronze: I know your works and love and faith and ministry and patience, and your last works better than the first. But I have this against you, that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet, and teaches and seduces my servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent, and she would not do penance for her sexual immorality. See, I will cast her into a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance for their deeds; and I will strike her children dead; and all the churches will know that I am he who searches reins and hearts, and I will give to each of you according to his works. But to you I say, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching and do not know the depths of Satan, as they say: I lay on you no other burden; only hold fast what you have until I come. And to the one who conquers and keeps my works to the end I will give authority over the nations.”

In a single letter, addressed to the church of Thyatira, he confounds and overthrows the twofold error of the Novatian heresy: he promises fruit to those who do penance for idolatry, and he shows that in one church the wicked do not contaminate the good, though they were certainly of one communion. He was not writing to those placed outside the church when he said: “Whoever has ears,” he says, “let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” In a similar way the apostle Paul says: “But we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law”; and in another place: “For what have I to do with judging those outside?” So he calls members of one church partly to penance and partly praises them, saying: “But to you I say, the rest who are in Thyatira, whoever do not hold this teaching” (that is, of idolatry), “hold fast what you have until I come”; that is, “persevere to the end,” because whoever perseveres to the end will be saved. In the same way whoever perseveres in evil will be condemned. And therefore, just as the righteousness of the righteous will not deliver him on the day he goes astray, so the wickedness of the wicked will not harm him when he turns back. Therefore he said: “Whoever sacrifices to gods will be rooted out; but if he turns back, he will surely live.” So it is with what the Lord says: “Whoever denies me, I will deny him.” But if he turns back, he cannot be denied by the one he confesses.

This is why it is said in the psalm: “No living man will be justified in my sight.” For a man is held to the sentence in which he dies. That the wicked would be with the good in the church until God’s judgment the Lord himself also signified when he said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers fish of every kind. When they had come to the shore, they put the good into their vessels, but threw the bad away. So it will be at the end of the age: the angels will go out and will separate from the kingdom of God all stumbling blocks and those who do wickedness.” This matter is also signified by the man who was found among the guests without a wedding garment: it shows that he alone was cast out of the gathering of the church, because the crime of his unworthiness did not pollute the others; and because his unworthiness was marked by his not having a wedding garment, it was manifest to the rest, for they saw that he was dressed differently from themselves.

Hence the apostle Paul says: “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay.” He said this because of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who, though they were of the church, held perverse views about the resurrection, just as some in the church of the Corinthians denied the resurrection. But Novatian holds that this great house is to be understood as the world, not the church, so as not to be forced to admit that in one church there are wicked with good, clean with unclean. This, I think, is easily overturned. In one house all are under one name; though they differ in morals, they are all counted under the one name of their master in their profession. But this world contains people of different professions, who even profess to have different gods and lords. You see, then, that this could not be said of the world, but of the church, in which people living under one name differ in conduct. I notice that Novatian was not unaware of this; but because he had no just grounds of complaint for his separation, he forged certain arguments for himself through a bad interpretation of the law, so as not to blush openly, and by them he tried to excuse and cover the envious will of his spite.

Then he replied to what we have said: “I do not refuse that penance be done for idolatry committed, but I do not dare to forgive it, because this crime must be forgiven by the one against whom it was committed.” But he answered this with guile, and he is exposed by his own interpretations, in which his fraud appears. For when he says, “It is written, Whoever denies me, I too will deny him; and he whose words these are cannot lie,” he shows that the penance he says is to be done is empty and fruitless. If the sentence has been given, and he who gave it does not deceive, why do you compel a person to be tormented with lamentations and groans, when you either deny the effect of this penance or admit that you do not know it? Everyone who gives advice to someone gives it in order to declare what he may gain from it. But because you, Novatian, profess this with guile, you say that penance is to be done in order to mock people’s minds. Knowing that it cannot be openly denied, you act subtly, cutting penance off not in word but in effect. Certainly you say that everyone who has sacrificed to idols sins against the Holy Spirit, and you contend from the words of the law that this sin is forgiven him neither here nor in the future. How, then, do you say that penance is to be done for this offense, unless you are deceiving, as I showed above?

But you usually try to cover this fraud with another trick, saying that the apostle Peter too said to Simon in the same sense: “Do penance for this wickedness of yours, if perhaps it may be forgiven you.” But the apostle Peter, seeing the man’s poisoned and most bitter wickedness, gave him a doubtful answer for that reason. For what mortal ever sinned in such a way as to want to buy God’s gift with money? This answer, then, was given to malevolence, not to error. Malevolence has no remedy, because it is neither error nor a necessity by which one might excuse oneself so as to reach pardon by weeping. If any are found in such a case, let them hear what Simon heard. And why he answered doubtfully the apostle Peter shows when he says: “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of wickedness.” If, then, in so grave a case, which seems to be without remedy, a doubtful answer was given, there is no doubt that those who sin against God by error or under some necessity can be forgiven if they do fitting penance. For this has been granted to the church’s authority by its author: both to give penance and, after penance, to receive back.

There is also another thing Novatian finds fault with: “Why,” he says, “do they give the Lord’s body to those whom they know to be sinners?” As if those who are judges could themselves be accusers! But if such people have been accused and exposed, they can be put out. For what judge would take on the role of accuser? If the Lord himself bore with Judas, whom he knew to be a thief who carried off what was put into the purse, and did not cast out one who had not been accused, we ought to follow this example, so that it is not lawful to cast out one who has not been publicly exposed. Nor does it befit a righteous man to accuse anyone. Hence it says: “Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to expose her, wished to put her away secretly.” Judas, then, while he was among the disciples, did not stain them with his contagion, since they certainly did not consent to his thefts; and receiving the Eucharist among them, he did not pollute the innocent. Nor did the Lord deny his body to one whom he knew to be a robber, because, according to the apostle, whoever takes it unworthily takes a sword against himself; and so he did not turn away from his kiss either. For sinners pollute those who consent to their evils. Hence it is said: “You saw a thief and ran with him.”

This is why the apostle rebukes the people of Corinth for not reproving or avoiding the man who publicly had his father’s wife, so that he might amend himself, saying: “Do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump?” Since there was no leader or overseer of the church, it was the people’s part to reprove the man whom they saw living so shamefully and obscenely among them. And therefore the apostle rebukes them as consenting to his crime. In this matter there was no need of an accuser or witnesses, for he publicly had his stepmother in place of a wife.

So, as far as our case is concerned, we have set out our reasoning, not accusing others but defending ourselves. But I appeal to the conscience of Novatian, who always accuses us, whether he knows that all whom he has with him are holy. He is so angry with us that he even denies that we are Christians, though he knows that we were dipped in the same faith on which he himself relies. Certainly profession and life make a Christian. If, then, you see a man professing what you profess and not unlike you in life, why do you deny that he is what you are? Certainly whoever says “Lord Jesus” says it in the Holy Spirit, for he speaks the truth; all truth is from God. Why do you not agree with one who speaks the truth, but deny it? You contradict one who confesses God, not by reason but by fury. Do you not appear to be God’s enemy, you who resist one who professes true things about him? Does a pagan, hearing someone say that idols are gods, deny that he is a pagan? Why do you deny that one is a Christian whom you hear professing the words of the sound faith, when you read: “With the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”? But you, as an enemy, because you do not see through your anger, fight against God, denying that one who confesses these things has salvation, though the Lord says: “Whoever confesses me, I too will confess him.” Does he say, “if a Novatianist confesses me”? But you build your case so as to seem to yourself to be defending this: that he is saved who is not only a Christian but also a Novatianist. But if confession made of Christ gives salvation, then wherever and among whomever this confession is sound, it has salvation. So if the handing on of this confession has been corrupted among us, or its sense changed, you rightly accuse us. But if it remains in us as it does in you, by denying us you seem to deny yourself.

But you accuse the ministers of the faith. Suppose it is true, though you cannot prove it. Yet for those who heard from them, is what they heard true or false? If a vicious man speaks the truth, it will not cease to be true because a vicious man said it; conduct is one matter, profession another. Does not the persecutor, out of hatred of the Christian name, persecute the profession, not the conduct? In the first place, knowing that confessing that we are Christians advances religion, the sacrilegious persecutor believes us when we confess what he does not want to hear, because he hates it. But you, though you share the same profession and seal, do not believe us when we confess what you yourself confess. If you knew that we had been reborn otherwise than you were reborn, you would rightly not believe that we are what you are. Why do I suffer persecution from the sacrilegious if I am not what you are? If I professed of myself what you say of me, I would not suffer persecution. In the end I am to be believed about myself, not you. The judge asks for my profession, not yours about me. Why, then, do you deny when I confess, since it is true that in this matter what is required, whether for me or against me, is not another’s testimony but my own profession? I could wish you were tortured for the name alongside me, so that it might appear whether, when I confessed the truth, you would deny it against me, and whom one would believe. You put this forward with guile, so as to seem to have a just cause for schism. For you are not unaware that in this matter my testimony about myself is required, not another’s, and that what is held true is what I confess, not what another denies.

It is plain, then, that they are free who, out of love for Christ, without inquiring into people’s actions, run together to obtain faith in him, approving in their ministers what they know is useful to themselves, namely that they obtain the handing on of the faith concerning Christ. Whoever thinks that anything of the man besides his ministry is necessary in this matter does injury to the handing on, for he thinks less of the grace of God. When he denies that God’s gift can benefit one who is devoted to God unless the merit of the man is present, he makes the man either superior or equal to the handing on itself, though the man’s merit is far removed from this office, as the apostle Paul says of this very matter: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the growth.”

How can anything in this matter be hoped for from the man, when the words that are to be handed on have been given? Let us see, then, what it will profit if he is of good merit, or what harm it will do if he is of bad merit. The one who approaches desires to hear the words of God, and by giving them his faith he believes that he receives salvation. What difference does it make here whether the one who hands on the solemn words is of good or bad life, since what is required is the devout faith of the one who receives, that he believe with his whole mind what he hears? If the one who hands them on is of bad life, will he put an obstacle in the way of the receiver, so that he does not believe what he hears, though it should be believed, as if the minister’s sin entered his heart and kept him from believing? Or must God, who is just, despise one who is devoted to him because of the sin of a man whom God himself allows to remain in the order? Not even a human being judges like that, though he is known often to be deceived or to show favor. If that were so, and a person pleaded his own case, would he not say to God: “Who this man is, on whose account you despise me, I do not know. I came to him for your sake, because he was called your overseer. I sought you, I desired you, I believed you; I hoped for nothing from the man. Why, then, should his evils harm me, when I would not have known him had I not sought you? If his good deeds could profit me, it might perhaps seem just that his evils should harm me too. But just as his good deeds would have profited me nothing if I had believed with doubt, so his evils ought to do me no harm when I believe rightly. For I gave my faith to his words, which are said to be given by you, which breathe you, speak of you, make promises from you; I believed nothing from him about himself or about his deeds, but I joined myself to the faith that is from you.”

On this reasoning the believer’s case is intact. Think of overseers as advocates. If an advocate is of bad life, will judgment be given against his client? The advocate’s duty is to plead his client’s case according to the order of law; can his life, if it is shameful, harm his client’s case? The advocate’s person can neither harm nor help; as the case is, so will the verdict be. So it is with those who wish to become Christians. They approach the overseer and tell him their vows, and he pronounces the words of the church’s law. If the vows are true, they are accepted by the judge. In what can the overseer either harm or help, since he does not even know his client’s case? It is known to God the judge alone with what mind each one approaches. It belongs to the overseer, then, to perform the office entrusted to him, and to the judge to accept or reject the client’s case. For he himself is found to have said: “Daughter, your faith has saved you.”

You see, then, that each one is saved not by anyone’s help but by his own faith. For God has decreed this for faith: if it does not doubt, it obtains whatever it wishes. Yet you, not as a friend but as an enemy of Christ, have gathered a people under your own name, so that they are not Christians unless they are Novatianists, though the apostle condemns anyone who says he belongs to Paul or to anyone else. But you, judging yourself superior, have put your own name above Christ’s, as though he were not enough to protect his church.