2 Corinthians 12:20–13:2

"For I fear, lest by any means when I come, I should not find you such as I would, and should myself be found of you such as ye would not."

He is going to say something great and offensive. And therefore he also inserts this excuse [for it], both by saying, "All things are for your edifying," and by adding, "I fear," softening the harshness of what was presently going to be said. For it was not here out of arrogance nor the authority of a teacher, but out of a father's tender concern, when he is more fearful and trembling than the sinners themselves at that which is likely to reform them. And not even so does he run them down or make an absolute assertion; but says doubtingly, "lest by any means when I come, I should not find you such as I would." He did not say, 'not virtuous,' but "not such as I would," everywhere employing the terms of affection. And the words, "I should find," are of one who would express what is out of natural expectation, as are also those, "I shall be found by you." For the thing is not of deliberate choice, but of a necessity originating with you. Wherefore he says, "I should be found such as ye would not." He said not here, "such as I would not," but, with more severity, "such as ye wish not." For it would in that case become his own will, not indeed what he would first have willed, but his will nevertheless. For he might indeed have said again, 'such as I would not,' and so have showed his love: but he wishes not to relax his hearer. Yea rather, his words would in that case have been even harsher; but now he has at once dealt them a smarter blow and showed himself more gentle. For this is the characteristic of his wisdom; cutting more deeply, to strike more gently. Then, because he had spoken obscurely, he unveils his meaning, saying,

"Lest there be strife, jealousy, wraths, backbitings, whisperings, swellings."

And what he might well put first, that he puts last: for they were very proud against him. Therefore, that he may not seem principally to be seeking his own, he first mentions what was common. For all these things were gendered of envy, their slanderings, accusations, dissensions. For just like some evil root, envy produced wrath, accusation, pride, and all these other evils, and by them was increased further.

Do you see what fatherly care? Others sinned, yet Paul is alarmed, and does not state his thought directly, but with uncertainty. "Lest, when I come," he says, "I shall find you not such as I wish," that is, corrupted; and by necessity — "and that I shall be found by you not such as you wish," that is, an avenger and punisher.

He ought to have put "pride" in first place, because they were puffed up against him, but so as not to appear to be seeking his own interests, he first speaks of what is of common concern; for from envy and slander everything else proceeds, and in turn all the rest kindles envy. "Gossip" is when someone brings a dispute against another over something; by "pride" he means haughty and arrogant ways, or when conceit becomes, as it were, someone's nature, for being puffed up against him, they esteemed the false apostles.

Having cited as one of the causes for commending the failure of the Corinthians to do the good things they should have done and for which he rebuked their ingratitude, he now states the other cause which arose from what they did in regard to the evils they should have avoided. In regard to this he amplifies their wickedness and does two things. First, he mentions their fault in general; secondly, he explains it in detail (v. 20b).

He says therefore: I have praised myself not only because you have failed to praise me, but also because of your danger, which consists in clinging to the false apostles, because by fostering sin among you they were exposing you to great danger. Therefore he says, I fear that perhaps I may come and find you not what I wish, namely, just, but sinners and uncorrected, and that you will be displeasing to me and I to you, because sinners as sinners are not pleasing to a just man; and that you may find me, i.e., sad and meting out punishment, not what you wish to have me. For evil persons hate correction and the truth: "Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16). Thus their evil is clear in general, namely, that he feared lest they were not yet fully repentant.

Then he manifests their sinfulness in particular, when he says, that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. In regard to this he does two things. First, he enumerates their present evils; secondly, he reminds them of past evils of which they have not yet repented.

In regard to the first it should be noted that after their conversion the Corinthians fell into sins of the flesh, as is evident from the one who had his father's wife; and for this they were corrected by the first epistle, although not completely, because something still remained among them. In addition to this there remained among them many spiritual sins which are directly opposed to charity. Now charity does two things: first, it makes men's hearts consent to one another; secondly, it induces men to mutual progress. Spiritual sins, on the other hand, set men disagreeing and make them offend one another. First, therefore, he lists the spiritual sins which pertain to dissention; secondly, those which make for offense (v. 20c). In regard to dissensions he proceeds in reverse order. For according to the right order, men first disagree, inasmuch as one wants one thing and another the contrary; secondly, they pass from this to inflicting injury, inasmuch as each one wants to obtain his desire; thirdly, when he cannot obtain his desire but fails, he burns with the zeal of jealousy [envy]; fourthly, the result of this is verbal argument.

It is from the last of these that the Apostle begins, saying, that perhaps there may be quarreling [contentions]. As if to say: not only do I fear your evils in general, but also in particular, lest perhaps there be among you contentions over the merits of prelates and baptizers: "It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife" (Prov. 20:3). "Contention is an attack on the truth, accompanied by the confidence of shouting" (Ambrose). This contention springs from jealousy; hence he says, and jealousy by those who are inferior and have less: "For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice" (Jas. 3:16); "Jealousy slays the simple" (Job 5:2); "But through the devil's envy death entered the world" (Wis. 2:24). Envy comes from animosity; hence he says, anger, in revenge and inflicting injury: "Go not on the way with a bold man, lest he burden you with his evils" (Sir. 8:18, Vulgate). Animosity comes from dissensions; hence he says, selfishness, i.e., hatreds and conflicts of spirits: "Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught" (Rom. 15:17); "All of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you" (1 Cor. 1:10).

Then he lists their present evils in regard to offending. But because such evils consist mainly in injuries from words and not from deeds, he passes over injuries from deeds and lists those from words. Here too he proceeds in reverse order, beginning from the last; and this is when a person explicitly says something evil of another. If this is in public, he is a detractor; hence he says, slander [detraction]: "Slanderers, haters of God" (Rom. 1:30). If it is in secret, he is a whisperer; hence he says, gossip [whisperings]. For whisperers are persons who discreetly sow discord: "The whisperer and the double tongue is accursed" (Sir. 28:5, Vulgate). These two proceed from evil words against others; therefore he says, conceit [swelling]. These swellings arise from seditions, which are the preparations made by the parties to a fight, because they are always quarrels among the proud; hence he says, disorder, i.e., uproars for fights: "An evil man always seek quarrels" (Prov. 17:11, Vulgate). Thus their wickedness is made clear in regard to present evils, which are many both in dissensions and in injuries.

Paul is saying that some have repented but others have not. This contradicts Novatian, who claims that fornicators cannot repent or be received back into communion. Paul is affirming that they have indeed repented, and because of this they have been received back into the peace of the church.

AGAINST NOVATIAN. — His disciples say to Jesus, “Lord, do you want us to say that fire should come down from heaven and consume them, as Elijah did?” And the Lord answered them, saying, “You do not know of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them” (Luke 9:54–56). Although it was certainly fitting to take revenge on the Samaritans who did not receive him, nevertheless the Lord, who came to grant mercy, removed the sentence, so that those who were corrected afterwards might be changed. And the prophet Elisha, angered at the boys who insulted him, took vengeance on them with God as judge, so that in that place they were eaten by bears, where there is said to be no forest (2 Kings 2:23–24); but the Lord spared the prostitute who was brought before him, namely the one whom the leaders of the Jews said they had caught in adultery (Jn. 8:11), so that, since a loving declaration had begun, he might teach that she was not to be condemned, but pardoned. For the Law given through Moses, because it had justice directed to revenge, exercised severity in its beginnings. It took funeral revenge on the man who went out to gather wood on the sabbath (Num. 15:32–36); and similarly took punishment on the son of the Egyptian woman who had blasphemed God (Lev. 24:10–14); and in the matter of the molten calf struck the sons of Israel (Exod. 32:27). Each Law, then, in its very beginnings shows its full character: the old Law, because it was more ready to punish, appeared harsher in its early days, so that by instilling fear it might make its hearers diligent and watchful. But the new Law, because it is loving and inclined easily to mercy, showed its beginnings as most gentle and most compassionate, so that by this very charm and love it might call all to forgiveness. Afterwards, however, even that Law which seemed harsher, on account of the frailty of the human race, not only softened its severity, but also showed itself humane and loving, and this Law which seemed gentle at times took vengeance. For Ananias and his wife Sapphira were struck down by God (Acts 5:5, 10). And Elymas the magician, unbelieving and opposing the law of God, was blinded by the judgment and power of the Lord (Acts 13:8–11). And King Herod, because he did not give honor to the God of heaven, was struck by an angel of God and, swelling with worms, breathed his last (Acts 12:23). Lest, because mercy is preached, people should think there is absolutely no punishment and that they may sin with freedom, fear was imposed, showing that forgiveness of sins is given for this purpose: that, as if brought to life from the dead, they should afterwards abstain from the contrary things, so that it may be brought about that no one departs from here with guilt, because there will be a coming to judgment. For the sentence in which each person dies is what is credited to him. Since, therefore, the new Law has the fullness of mercy, lest it be treated with contempt by lovers of sin, it took vengeance on the above-mentioned persons. The old Law, though given for vengeance, nevertheless pardoned some, lest it be called wholly cruel; but it took vengeance on many, because its disposition is ready to punish. Without doubt, then, the grace of the new Law is greater than that of the old. If, therefore, the grace is greater, how is it denied that this Law can grant what that Law granted, which had less grace? For the former was more inclined to severity. Therefore, if that Law is proved to have forgiven the repentant, how can it be that this Law, which is gentle, does not receive the repentant? For even the Jews were called sons of God, who, as we read on the authority of the apostle Paul, were baptized through Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). Indeed, they are known to have been purified as they were about to receive the Law, so that afterwards they might give an account of the Law they had received, and if they sinned, they might reform themselves through repentance; as the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah, “Do penance, you who err, and be converted” (Isa. 45:22). But perhaps, on the contrary, it is said: Repentance indeed was preached, but not remission. If, therefore, repentance has been preached by God, there will be fruit for those doing repentance. For the Lord would not admonish this in vain. Moreover, since the Lord knew that remission of sins must be given to the converted, he commanded this; for he said, “I do not desire the death of the sinner, only that he be converted and live” (Ezek. 18:32). And therefore there is fruit of repentance, as has become clear, for those who are converted to God. Therefore, the assertion wickedly fabricated by Novatian is excluded, by which he overturns the meaning of the Lord’s words, saying, “The Lord said, Whoever shall deny me, I also will deny him” (Matt. 10:33); so that if any Christian, for whatever reason, has denied, he can no longer return, or certainly, if he does return, he is in no way received. And where, then, is the repentance that has been enjoined? When the Savior, after having pronounced this sentence, did not deny the apostle Peter who had denied him. Why? Because, with repentance following, he wept bitterly over his sin (Matt. 26:75), knowing, of course, that forgiveness is granted to those who are converted, and that they are reformed through repentance. But Novatian pretends that repentance is to be done. Because he does not openly dare to deny that repentance should be granted, being limited by the Law, he strives subtly to frustrate it. For when he says that whoever has denied will by no means have pardon, but will himself be denied before the angels of God, how does he not deceitfully profess that repentance is to be done? From this his fraud clearly appears, when he adds, saying, “Whoever shall sin against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither here nor in the future” (Matt. 12:32). Although one cause is that by which there is sin against the Holy Spirit, and another to deny the Lord Jesus, Novatian, nevertheless, in order to deny pardon for this sin, wants there to be one and the same meaning for the one who denies the Lord and for the one who sins against the Holy Spirit, so that by this fudging he may cut off the fruit of repentance. For if denying the Lord is the same as having sinned against the Holy Spirit, there is no pardon to be hoped for by those who deny, nor any fruit of repentance; because this sin, neither here nor in the future, the Lord’s oracles have promised to remit. From this it becomes clear that Novatian speaks deceitfully when he says that penance must be done. For why should one repent, if it is denied that the sin can be removed? For the sighs, tears, and weeping of repentance obtain this: that it both merits pardon and restoration. Therefore David, repenting and confessing his sin, both obtained forgiveness (2 Kings 12:13) and was restored to his former state; for he remained king and afterwards prophesied. This is clearly proven: for in the fiftieth Psalm he repented, and afterwards, having suffered persecution from his son, he prophesied. For the third Psalm according to the historical order is after the fiftieth. But perhaps it will be said that a king had to be forgiven, whereas the lowly must not be forgiven, although it seems that it is rather more difficult to forgive those who are more powerful. For God does not regard the person of a man (Rom. 2:11). The higher one is, the more, even if his sin is slight, it is a grave crime. For just as humility in a powerful man is lofty and noble, so also his fault must be regarded as a crime. Except for those sins which are clearly unlawful for all, not everything is permitted to the powerful that is allowed to the lowly. For it is disgraceful for a man of rank to bargain in trade, and entering a tavern is noteworthy. For senators, lending at interest is a disgrace. If therefore in these lesser matters they are found worthy of censure, how much more must they be held guilty if they sin? From this, then, it appears that David sinned very grievously, and in fact in a twofold way. Yet, when he turned back, he obtained forgiveness for both murder and adultery, and what is more, he was reformed with tears. For when he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan, he did not dare hide his sin, but confessed it, saying, I have sinned against the Lord. Then the prophet answered and said, The Lord has taken away your sin, and you shall not die, because you have repented. And because he is afterwards found to have prophesied, there is no doubt that he was restored. For also Ahab, rebuked by the prophet because of the death of Naboth, went about weeping, and tore his garments, and girded himself with sackcloth; and the word of the Lord came by the hand of His servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said: Have you seen how Ahab is moved before my face? I will not bring the evil upon him in his days (1 Kings 21:27–29). And when the Ninevites wept for their sins, with death awaiting, their life was restored (Jonah 3:10). See how great is the progress of repentance. But perhaps it may be said in reply: Repentance was granted indeed, but not for the crime of idolatry; although these sins are grave, the crime of idolatry is greater. Nevertheless, Novatian’s assertion is rightly overthrown in no small part, since two grave crimes appear to have been granted to repentance. For if fornication ought not to be forgiven, as Novatian thinks, how much less murder or adultery? Yet here his vanity is evident, since those sins which are more serious are shown to have been forgiven. Therefore now it must be asked whether God has promised that forgiveness can be granted even to idolaters. For whatever has not been lawfully granted here cannot be granted in the future. For here, as the Lord said, sins are either bound or loosed (Matt. 16:19); but in the future there will be nothing else but reward or condemnation. For everyone who is lawfully rejected here cannot be chosen or judged worthy in the future. Let us therefore hear what the Lord says about idolaters to the prophet Jeremiah: Go and say, he says, Return to me, backsliding Israel, says the Lord, and I will not set my face against you: for I am merciful, says the Lord, and I will not be angry with you forever. Nevertheless acknowledge your iniquity: you have acted wickedly, and have scattered your ways to strangers under every green tree (Jer. 3:12–13). See what God promises to those who, after their fall, turn back to Him, that after apostasy He will forgive their sins when they return. And again God says through Jeremiah: My delicate ones have walked rough ways, they were led as a flock plundered by enemies. Be steadfast, children, and cry out to God; your memory will be remembered in your captivity. For as your mind was to stray from God, being converted you will seek Him ten times as much. For He who brought evils upon you will bring upon you eternal joy with your salvation (Baruch 4:26–29). O the mercy of God! How He calls upon those who have fallen to rise up again! How He urges them, after the error of idols, to return to Him! Like a kindly father, He promises His children everlasting joy of salvation if they correct themselves. Likewise in the same prophet among other things: And I will restore them to this land, and I will build them up and not destroy; and I will plant them and not pluck them up (Jer. 24:6). Since He had threatened and said, Whoever sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, sinners against God might despair of themselves, as though those who had sacrificed to idols, once uprooted, could not be planted again; He encourages them that, if they repent, they can be restored to their former state. For the sentence remains only if the sin is not corrected. Therefore it was proclaimed to the Ninevites that after three days their city would be overthrown. Why after three days, except that either they might repent and the sentence be lifted, or, remaining as they were, they would perish more justly? This is what He said through the prophet, I do not will the death of the dying, only that he should turn back and live. Therefore it came about that, though the Ninevites were destined to die because of their sins, they were forgiven when repentance followed. For what reason do we find the ark being built for a hundred years in the time of Noah (Gen. 5:31; 7:6), if not that, seeing and hearing what was coming, they might change themselves? For God wills no one to perish. Therefore it is that we read in Solomon: For, he says, the Most High has mercy on those who repent (Sirach 12:3). And again, You have mercy on all, because You can do all things, and You overlook the sins of men for the sake of repentance (Wis. 11:24). In this sense the Lord also, grieving over the treachery of the Jews, says: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you; how often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37)! Therefore the Lord always, throughout the whole Law, urges sinners to turn back to Him, not wishing His workmanship to be accountable to destruction; since there was no other reason for the giving of the Law than that men might be turned from error to the truth. Yet in such a way that in the New Testament the Author of the Law appears more merciful, because at the time when He agreed to reveal the mystery of His Son, our Lord, He willed to be more generous and abundant in mercy, so that there might be more grace when the Son preached than there had been when the servants preached. And not without reason: for it was fitting that greater gifts should be bestowed through the Son than through the servants. Accordingly, to those who turn to Him in faith He grants all sins together, without any preceding cry of penance. Therefore the Apostle Paul says: “For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance” (Rom. 11:29). Afterwards, however, if they sin, they can deserve pardon through penance; so that, because they have sinned after receiving free mercy, they may no longer obtain it freely, but may reach forgiveness with intervening groans and tears. For it is impossible for a man not to sin. Therefore 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 to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:8). Therefore David deserved pardon and renewal when he confessed his sin. John the Apostle is certainly 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” (1 Jn. 2:1). He says this so that, if we sin after Baptism, we may humbly ask the Advocate to plead with the Father for us. For if among our ancestors penance had its place, how can it be that in this time it has no place, when the preaching shows greater mercy? And He who had mercy on His enemies by calling them to grace, will He not have mercy on His friends now that they are His, along with a reward? For the tribulation of the heart is the reward of the repentant. If what you say were true, men would grieve that they have been made friends from being enemies. Or what sort of person must He be thought to be, if He gave mercy to enemies who do not repent, but did not give it to friends who do? Moreover, since the Lord knows that the Devil exalts himself and rages more fiercely against the friends and servants of God, where the Apostle Peter says: “Be watchful and sober, because your adversary the Devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8), since, then, the Lord knows that we have a dreadful and powerful adversary, if we are overcome by him, He wills us to flee to His help, grieving that we have been cast down, so that, restored by His power, we may fight back bravely. For just as, unless those days which the Lord mentions were shortened (Matt. 24:22), no flesh would be saved, so also, if repentance is denied to men, no one can be saved. For “no one,” he says, “can boast that he has a pure heart” (Prov. 20:9); and elsewhere, “No one is without stain, not even an infant of one day” (Job 14:4). Who then will be able to escape, if repentance is denied? And where is that saying of the Lord, that “there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:7)? “But more serious crimes,” you say, “must not be forgiven, fornication and idolatry.” And where is the saying of the Lord in which He promises that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven to men, “but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven to men” (Matt. 12:31)? He declares that absolutely all sins can be forgiven, except one. Now choose, Novatian, of whom you wish this to be understood: of those who do not yet believe, or of those who already believe. If of unbelievers, how is forgiveness of sins given, when it is clear that all, before they believe, sin against God and against the Holy Spirit? For some call the deeds of the Lord magical arts, assigning the work of the Holy Spirit to demons. But if you wish it to be said of believers, your statement is excluded, since He says that all sins will be forgiven: “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him.” Therefore, whether one sins against God or against Christ, it will be forgiven to men. For He has included all sins, except that against the Holy Spirit. Therefore He does not wish that sin which is committed against God to be understood as the same as that against the Holy Spirit; for if this were so, He would not have excepted it. Since therefore He signifies another kind of sin when the Holy Spirit is blasphemed (for this saying refers to the person, not to the nature, of the Holy Spirit), all sins will be forgiven, either to those who already believe through penance, or to those who shall believe through Baptism. But that the Jews sinned against the Holy Spirit has another cause, belonging to that time. Therefore He shows that this will not be forgiven them, neither here nor in the future. For they did not sin against the Holy Spirit through error, but through hatred. Knowing and understanding that the works they saw in the deeds of the Saviour were of God, in order to turn the people away from faith in Him, they pretended that these were of the prince of demons. Therefore it is that the Lord says to them: “You have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves do not enter, and you hinder those who are entering” (Luke 11:52) Therefore this statement is made against the spiteful, for whom no remedy can be found so that they may be saved. For nothing is more serious than this crime: it pretends that what one knows to be true is false. For the Jews, who appeared to be under God’s law and to whom the promise of Christ had been made, seeing the great works and understanding that this was what God had promised, were blinded by envy so that they denied this was so; and not only did they deny it, but they also persecuted it even to death. It is therefore not right that this sin should ever be forgiven to those who, with their own conscience as witness, dared to resist the God to whom they said they were devoted. Now there are different reasons why one sins against God or against Christ. Either someone, envying another’s happiness, rises up against the Creator out of the pain of his own abasement; or, having suddenly suffered some adverse event, stirred to anger, he becomes disrespectful toward his Father. But the incarnation of Christ itself also provokes offense. For while people are ignorant of the mystery of the incarnate Christ, they blaspheme, considering it unworthy that the Son of God, who is of incorporeal and simple nature, should be said to have been born in the manner of men. They therefore blaspheme because they are ignorant of the mystery. Wherefore a helping hand must be extended to such people when they are converted, because they oppose the truth in such a way that they think they are acting for the truth. A person of this kind, once tortured and torn by the nails, declares to be true what he had persecuted. The aforementioned Jews, however, thought one thing and did another, and without judge and executioner they are always tormented by their own conscience as witness. For the one who, through error, has been an enemy of the truth, when he is converted rejoices that he has come to know the truth; but the spiteful man has nothing to correct: for if he were to turn back, he would begin to say that true which he previously did not know to be false. But as for an injury being done to the Holy Spirit, no cause exists: for his office produces no offense, since he appears in the power of signs and wonders. For who would dare hiss against him, seeing the dead raised? Or who would be angry with him, when through his effect he sees the paralyzed running, the blind receiving sight, the deaf hearing? Or how could he not love him, whom he sees casting out unclean spirits, cleansing lepers, and at the same time healing all diseases? The Jews preferred to do him an injury, saying that his work was the work of demons, provided only that, acting out their envy and hatred against the Savior, they could satisfy them. For this reason he shows that this sin is forgiven them neither here nor in the future. But Novatian says, More serious crimes are proved by name to be forgiven, that is, idolatry and fornication after the washing. For this reason, he says, all sins are forgiven at once in Baptism, so that thereafter, if they commit anything serious, they may in no way obtain pardon; because after the Holy Spirit has been received, nothing that is against the Holy Spirit ought to be committed. Who would deny that one ought never to sin, if it were possible? But since God knows the human race is weak, he has always followed them with saving remedies so that, after sins, they might have a way to be restored. If, however, the Spirit once given forbids repentance to be granted to those who sin, there is no providence in the New Testament, and it will seem that better provision was made for those of old, to whom this remedy was by no means denied. And how is grace greater in the New than in the Old? For such a view belongs to an enemy, who, knowing that people cannot otherwise be provided for so as to attain salvation than by the intervention of repentance, grants the Holy Spirit in such a way that, if any injury be done to him through some fear or through some error, then satisfaction has no place for the reforming of a person: this is to have sought an opportunity to destroy people, not to save them. But perish the thought, since the Lord says, The Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save (Luke 9:56). For if, when we sin against one another, God has commanded that our sins be forgiven one another, if we turn back, seventy times seven (Matt. 18:22), how much more does he himself, if one sins against him, forgive those who are converted? For he wills every sinner to be converted. Therefore the Apostle proves that forgiveness was granted to fornicators and the unclean, saying, Lest, when I come again, my God should humble me among you, and I should mourn for many of those who have sinned before, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication which they have committed (2 Cor. 12:21). He proves that some have done penance, for whom he does not grieve, but rejoices; but he indicates that some have not done penance for their fornication, and therefore he says that he mourns for them as not belonging to life, because they have not done penance. For if, in the case of such a crime, penance were to be done continually throughout this life, he would not say that he mourns for them because they have not done penance, but because they are not doing it. But knowing that penance both begins and is completed here, he says, because they have not done penance. For this is what he wanted, that when he came to them he might have peace in communion with them. Here, then, it has been proved that those who have committed fornication are to be admitted to communion after they have done penance. For they cannot be admitted to communion as long as they continue to commit the sin; but they are to be admitted when they cease from it, in accordance with the judgment of the Church. Now it remains to see whether we can prove that idolatry in particular can be forgiven. For we read in the Apocalypse of the blessed Apostle John that penance is preached even for idolatry. For the bishops, whom he calls angels, that is, messengers, as also the blessed Apostle Paul says, You received me as an angel of God (Gal. 4:14), are admonished to grant penance to those who sin, and not to allow those who cause scandals in the Church to be in no way admonished, since they too belong to the Church. He therefore says, And to the angel of the Church in Pergamum write: Therefore says he who has the sharp two-edged sword, I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; and you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to place a stumbling block before the eyes of the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed, and to commit fornication; so you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Likewise, do penance. (Rev. 2:12-16) He says that this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which was also that of Balaam, that is, idolatry and fornication, for which he commands that penance be done. And because he speaks to the people of the Church, he shows this by saying, “These things says the Spirit to the Churches.” And as for what the fruit of penance is, he indicates it therefore: “To the one who conquers,” he says, “I will give to eat of the manna which is hidden”; (Rev. 2:17) so that by penance he may, as it were, conquer sins. For what is it to repent, if not to be grieved for past deeds, and from this time to abstain from those things which one has committed? “And to the angel of the Church in Thyatira write: These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like Tyrian brass: I know your works, and love, and faith, and ministry, and patience, and your works, the last of which are better than the first. But I have against you that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and teaches and seduces my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent, and she was not willing to do penance for her fornication. Behold, 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 kill her children with death; and all the Churches shall 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, and to the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not have this doctrine and do not know the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put upon you no other burden; only hold fast what you have until I come. But to the one who conquers and keeps my works unto the end, I will give authority over the nations” (Rev. 2:12–26). Under a single letter given to the Church of Thyatira he confuses and utterly rejects the double error of the Novatian heresy: for he promises fruit even to those doing penance on account of idolatry, and in one Church he shows that the wicked do not contaminate the good, though they were of one and the same communion; for he was not writing to those placed outside the Church when he said, “He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.” (Rev. 2:29) In a similar way the Apostle Paul says, “For we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law” (Rom. 3:19). And in another place, “For what have I to do with judging those who are outside?” (1 Cor. 5:12). Therefore, men of one and the same Church he partly calls to penance, and partly praises, saying, “But to you I say, and to the rest who are in Thyatira, whoever of you do not have this doctrine, that is, of idolatry, hold fast what you have until I come”; (Rev. 2:24-25) that is, persevere unto the end, because “he who perseveres unto the end, this one shall be saved” (Matt. 10:22). Likewise, the one who perseveres in evil shall be condemned. And therefore, just as the righteousness of the righteous will not free him on the day when he goes astray, so the iniquity of the unrighteous will not harm him when he is converted. Therefore it was said, “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out”; (Exod. 22:20) but if he is converted, “he shall surely live.” So also is that saying of the Lord, “Whoever denies me, I will deny him” (Matt. 33). But if he is converted, he cannot be denied by the one whom he confesses. From this it is that he said in the Psalm, “In your sight no living man shall be justified” (Ps. 142:2). For this sentence is assigned to a man in which he dies. For since within the Church the wicked were to be with the good until the judgment of God, God himself indicated this, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which gathers fish of every kind. When it was full, they brought it to shore; and they chose the good into their vessels, but cast the bad away. So it shall be at the end of the age: the angels will come out and will separate from the kingdom of God all offenses and those who do iniquity” (Matt. 13:47–49). This situation is also signified in that man who was found among the guests not having a wedding garment (Matt. 22:12–13): he shows that he alone was cast out from the company of the Church, because the crime of his unworthiness did not defile the others; and because this unworthiness of his was made evident by the fact that he did not have a wedding garment, he was revealed to the others. For they saw that he was clothed differently among them. From this comes what the Apostle Paul says: “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay” (2 Tim. 2:20). He set this forth because of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who, though they were of the Church, held a perverse opinion about the resurrection; just as some of the Church of the Corinthians denied the resurrection. But Novatian says that this great house is to be understood as the world, not the Church, so that he may not be forced to acknowledge in one Church the wicked with the good, the clean with the unclean. I think this can be easily refuted. For in one house all are under one name: although they differ in conduct, yet in profession they are all counted under the one name of their master. But this world contains men of diverse professions, so that utterly unlike people profess that they have different gods and lords. You see, therefore, that this could not have been said of the world, but of the Church, in which, living under one name, they differ in their deeds. I note that Novatian was not ignorant of this, but because he had no just grounds for the complaints of his secession, and would have been openly ashamed, he forged certain arguments for himself through a bad interpretation of the Law, by which he might try to excuse and cover the envious will of his resentment. Finally, he replies to what we have said, saying, “Nor do I refuse that penance be done for the idolatry committed, but I do not dare to grant remission, because this crime must be forgiven by him against whom it has been committed.” He replies therefore with deceit. For he is exposed by his own interpretations, through which his fraud appears. For when he says, “It is written.” Whoever denies me, I also will deny him, and the one whose words these are cannot lie; he shows that the repentance which he says must be done is empty and fruitless. For if a sentence has been passed, and he who passed it does not deceive, why do you compel a man to be tortured with mourning and groans, when you either deny or openly profess that you do not know the outcome of this matter? For whoever gives counsel to someone gives it precisely in order to declare what benefit may come from it. But because you, Novatian, profess this deceitfully, in order to dupe human minds, you say that repentance must be done. For knowing that this cannot be openly denied, you act subtly, because you cut off repentance not by word but by intention. You certainly say that everyone who sacrifices to idols sins against the Holy Spirit, and you insist by the words of the law that this sin is not forgiven either here or in the future. How then do you say that repentance must be done for this offense, except because you deceive, as I showed above? But you are accustomed to try to cover this fraud with another trick, saying that the apostle Peter also spoke in the same sense to Simon: “Repent of this wickedness of yours, if perhaps it may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22). But when the apostle Peter looked upon the man’s old and venomous and intensely bitter hatred, he therefore gave him an answer worded in doubt. For which mortal ever sinned in such a way as to want to buy the gift of God with money? This answer, then, was given to ill will, not to error. For this is what has no remedy; because it is neither error, nor is there any necessity by which it might be excused so as to be able through tears to attain forgiveness. If, therefore, any are found in such a case, let them hear what Simon heard. For this reason the apostle Peter answered him doubtfully, saying, “For I see that you are in the anger of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23) If then in so grave a case, one which seems without remedy, the answer was given in doubtful terms, it is not doubtful that those who sin against God through some error or necessity can be forgiven, if they perform suitable repentance. For this has been granted to ecclesiastical law by its author: that it may both impose repentance and, after repentance, may receive back. And there is still something that Novatian criticizes: “Why,” he says, “do they hand over the body of the Lord to those whom they know to be sinners?” As though those who are judges could also be accusers. But if they are accused and exposed, they can be cast out. For what judge assumes the role of accuser? For if the Lord himself endured Judas, whom he knew to be a thief, and to carry off what was put in the money bag (Jn. 12:6), nor did he cast out the one who had not been accused, we ought to make use of this example, so that it is not permitted to cast out anyone who has not been publicly detected. For it does not suit a just man to accuse anyone. Therefore Matthew says: “Joseph, being a just man and not willing to expose her, wanted to dismiss her secretly” (Matt. 1:19). Therefore Judas, though he was among the disciples, did not stain them with his contagion, since they, of course, were opposed to his thefts; and when he received the Eucharist among them, he did not defile the innocent. Nor did the Lord deny his body to him whom he knew to be a robber; for, according to the Apostle, “He who receives unworthily receives a sword unto himself” (1 Cor. 11:27). Therefore the Lord did not turn his eyes away from him. For sinners defile only those who consent to their evil deeds. Where it is said, “You saw a thief, and you ran with him” (Ps. 49:18). From this comes the reason why the Apostle reproves the people of Corinth, because they did not correct or avoid him who openly had his father’s wife, so that he might amend himself, saying, “Do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:1, 6). Since there was no leader or bishop of the Church there, it belonged to the people to correct the man whom they saw behaving among them in such shameful and obscene ways. And therefore the Apostle rebukes them as if they were consenting to his crime. For in this matter there was no need of an accuser or of witnesses; he was publicly keeping his stepmother in the place of a wife. And so, as far as our cause is concerned, we have set forth our position, not accusing others, but defending ourselves. But I appeal to the conscience of the Novatians, who always accuse us, whether he knows all those who are with him to be saints. He is so angry with us that he even denies that we are Christians, though he knows that we have been initiated in the same faith on which he prides himself. Certainly it is profession and life that make a Christian. If, then, you see a man profess the same things as you do, and his life is not unlike yours, why do you deny that he is what you are? Surely, “whoever says ‘Lord Jesus’ says it in the Holy Spirit” (see 1 Cor. 12:3); for he speaks truth. For all truth is from God. Why do you not agree with the one who speaks truth, but deny? You contradict the one who confesses God, not with reason, but in madness. Do you not appear to be an enemy of God, when you resist one who speaks true things about him? Does a pagan, hearing someone say that idols are gods, deny that he is a pagan? Why then do you deny that the man is a Christian whom you hear profess the words of the full faith, when you read, “With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10)? But you, as an enemy, in your anger fail to see that you oppose God; you deny that the one who confesses this has salvation, though the Lord says, “Whoever confesses me, I also will confess him” (Luke 12:8). Did he say, “If Novatian confesses me”? But you establish it in such a way that you seem to defend this: that he is saved who is not only a Christian, but who is also a Novatian. Yet if confession made in Christ gives salvation, then wherever and among whoever this confession is whole, it possesses salvation. Therefore, if the handing down of this confession has been corrupted among us, or its sense altered, you rightly accuse us. For if this remains in us as it does in you, by denying us you seem also to deny yourself. But you accuse the ministers of faith: grant that what you say is true, even though you cannot prove it. Those who heard it from them, did they hear truth or falsehood? For if a flawed man has spoken the truth, it will not cease to be true because it was spoken by a flawed man; for the cause of one’s conduct is one thing, and the cause of one’s profession another. Does not the persecutor, out of hatred for the Christian name, persecute the profession, not the conduct? First of all, knowing that this benefits religion, when we confess that we are Christians, the sacrilegious man believes what we confess, though he does not wish to hear it, because he does in fact hear it. But you, although you bear the same profession and seal, do not believe us who confess what you yourself confess. If you knew that we were reborn in some way different from that in which you were reborn, then you would rightly not believe that we are what you are. Why then do I suffer persecution from a sacrilegious man, if I am not what you are? For if I professed concerning myself what you say about me, I would not suffer persecution. And in the end, I must be believed about myself, not you. For the judge seeks my own profession, not yours about me. Why then do you deny me when I confess, though it is true, when in this case not another’s testimony, but my own profession is required, either for me or against me? I was unwilling, for the sake of the name, to have you tortured against me, so that it might appear, if you too were to deny the one confessing the truth against me, to whom belief would be given. For you propose this deceitfully, so that you may seem to have a just cause for schism. For you are not ignorant that in this matter my own testimony about myself is required, not another’s; and that what I have confessed is held to be true, not what someone else has denied. It is clear that those are free who, out of love for Christ and without scrutinizing the deeds of men, press forward to obtain faith in him: approving in them only what they know to be useful for themselves, that is, to obtain the tradition of the faith which is of Christ. For whoever thinks that, besides the sacrament, something else is necessary for a man in this matter, does an injury to the tradition; for he thinks too little of the grace of God. For whenever he denies that the gift of God can profit one who is devoted to him unless some human merit is present, he makes man either superior or equal to the tradition itself, whereas man’s merit is far removed from such a role. As the apostle Paul says about this same matter: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6–7). How then can anything be hoped for from man in this matter, since the words which are handed on have been given? Let us see then what advantage there will be if he is of good merit, or what disadvantage if he is of bad merit. One comes, desiring to hear the words of God, to which, by lending faith, he believes he will receive salvation. What difference does it make in this matter whether the one who delivers the solemn words is of good or bad life, since what is sought is the devoted faith of the recipient, so that he may with his whole mind believe what he hears? If the one who delivers them is of bad life, will he create an obstacle for the recipient, so that he will not believe what he hears and ought to believe, so that his sin might enter the other’s heart so that he does not believe? Or will God, who is just, despise one devoted to him because of the sin of that man whom he himself allows to be in office? Nor does man judge in this way, although it is clear that he frequently errs or is partial. If it were so, and a man were conducting his own case, would he not say to God: Who this man is whose fault makes you despise me, I do not know. I approached him on your account, because he was said to be your priest: I sought you, I desired you, I believed in you, I hoped for nothing from the man: why then should his sins harm me, whom I would not have known unless I had sought you? If his good deeds could profit me, it might perhaps seem just that his evil deeds should harm me. But just as, if I had believed his good deeds with hesitation, they would have profited me nothing, so also his evil deeds ought to harm me nothing, if I believe rightly. For I entrusted faith to his words, which are said to be given by you, and which are inspired by you, spoken by you, and promise you: to him I believed nothing about himself nor about his deeds; but I joined myself to the faith which is from you. According to this, the case of the believer is sound. Consider bishops after the manner of advocates: if an advocate is of bad life, will the judgment be against the client he has taken up? This is the advocate’s office, that according to the order of law he should plead the case of his client: can his life, if it is shameful, harm his client’s case? For the advocate’s person can neither harm nor profit; for as the case is, so will the judgment be upon it. So it is also with those who wish to become Christians: they come to the bishop, they declare to him their vows: he recites the words of ecclesiastical law. If the vows are true, they are received by the Judge: in what way then can he either harm or profit, since he does not even know the case of his client? For it is known to God alone the Judge, with what mind each one approaches. It is therefore the bishop’s task to perform the office delegated to him; but it is the Judge’s to accept or to reject the case of the petitioner. For he himself is found to have said: Daughter, your faith has made you whole (Matt. 9:22). You see then that each one is saved by his own faith, not by anyone’s assistance. For God has decreed this for faith, that if it does not doubt, it may obtain everything it wills. Yet you, not as a friend but as if an enemy of Christ, have gathered a people under your own name, so that they are not Christians unless they are also Novatianists; whereas the Apostle condemns anyone who says that he is of Paul or of some other (1 Cor. 3:4). But you, judging yourself superior, have placed your own name above the name of Christ, as though his name were not sufficient to guard his Church.

And yet to these persons themselves repentance is granted, and the hope of lamenting and atoning is left, according to the saying of the same apostle: "I fear lest, when I come to you, I shall bewail many of those who have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have committed.". Also in the same: "But I fear lest perchance, when I come to you, God may again humble me among you, and I shall bewail many of those who have sinned before, and have not repented, for that they have committed fornication and lasciviousness."

Concerning those who though within the church persisted in their evil deeds, he spoke thus to the Corinthians with these words of comfort: "I fear that when I come again, my God may humiliate me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, immorality and licentiousness they practiced." The apostle would not be saddened or humiliated in mourning over them if he believed that the forgiveness of sins would be granted to sinners and the wicked who continue to exasperate the divine justice without conversion of heart. The forgiveness of sins has no effect except in the conversion of the heart. We refer to those who have been converted by divine aid through the exercise of their own freedom of choice and whose lives are genuinely changed for the better. These converts will still occasionally sin, either through ignorance or through the stubbornness of a will that is knowingly lured by evil. They do not, however, stop asking for the forgiveness of their sins.

"And lest when I come again, my God should humble me among you."

And the word "again," too, is as smiting them. For he means, 'What happened before is enough;' as he said also in the beginning [of the Epistle], "to spare you, I came not as yet to Corinth." Seest thou how he shows both indignation and tender affection? But what means, "will humble me?" And yet this is glorious rather, to accuse, to take vengeance, to call to account, to be seated in the place of judge; howbeit he calls it a humbling. So far was he from being ashamed of that [cause of] humbling, because, "his bodily presence was weak, and his speech of no account," that he wished to be even for ever in that case, and deprecated the contrary. And he says this more clearly as he proceeds; and he counts this to be especially humbling, to be involved in such a necessity as the present, of punishing and taking vengeance. And wherefore did he not say, 'lest when I come I shall be humbled,' but, "lest when I come my God will humble me." 'Because had it not been for His sake, I should have paid no attention nor been anxious. For it is not as possessing authority and for my own pleasure, that I demand satisfaction, but because of His commandment.' Now above, indeed, he expressed himself thus, "I shall be found;" here, however, he relaxes and adopts milder and gentler language, saying,

"I shall mourn for many of them who have sinned." Not simply, "who have sinned," but,

"Who have not repented." And he said not, 'all,' but "many;" nor made it clear who these were either, thereby making the return unto repentance easy to them; and to make it plain that a repentance is able to right transgressions, he bewails those that repent not, those who are incurably diseased, those who continue in their wounds. Observe then Apostolic virtue, in that, conscious of no evil in himself, he laments over the evils of others and is humbled for other men's transgressions. For this is the especial mark of a teacher, so to sympathize with the calamities of his disciples, and to mourn over the wounds of those who are under him. Then he mentions also the specific sin.

"Of the lasciviousness and uncleanness which they committed." Now in these words he alludes indeed to fornication; but if one carefully examine the subject, every kind of sin can be called by this name. For although the fornicator and adulterer is preeminently styled unclean, yet still the other sins also produce uncleanness in the soul. And therefore it is that Christ also calls the Jews unclean, not charging them with fornication only, but with wickedness of other kinds as well. Wherefore also He says that they made the outside clean, and that "not the things which enter in defile the man, but those which come out from him;" and it is said in another place, "Every one that is proud in heart is unclean before the Lord."

For in saying, toward the end of the Epistle, "Lest, when I shall have come, God humble me, and I bewail many of those who have formerly sinned, 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 hack (by him into the Church) if they should have entered (the path of) repentance, whom he was to find in the Church, but that they were to be bewailed, and indubitably ejected, that they might lose (the benefit of) repentance.

That is, the above said is sufficient, and I am afraid that, having come to you, I will be compelled to deal with you severely. By humiliation, then, he means the necessity of strongly punishing someone, although many consider this an honor for themselves. And he did not say "lest I be humiliated," but "lest my God humiliate me," showing that he would do this for the sake of God. And if the matter did not concern God and His commandments, he himself would not have appeared so severe. By the words "my God" he shows his fervent love for God.

Notice the tenderness of the apostle: he bewails the transgressions of others. He did not say "all," but "many," and not simply "who have sinned," but also "have not repented," because those who persist in their wound are worthy of compassion. He also does not expose them, giving them a convenient path to repentance; for he mentioned repentance so that they might turn to it, and so that when he comes, he would not have to punish them and therefore be humbled, that is, grieve exceedingly. Notice also that he mentioned repentance on account of the Novatians. By sin, understand every kind of uncleanness, because every sin defiles. Or in particular, the abominations of carnal intercourse, for in Corinth there was not just one adulterer, but many, and moreover in many forms of licentiousness.

Then he manifests their wickedness in regard to past evils for which they have not repented, when he says: I fear that when I come again my God may humble me, i.e., afflict me, before you and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned before, i.e., before the first epistle. And rightly do I mourn, because just as the glory of the father is in the glory of his children, so the father's shame is the shame of the children. Thus did Samuel mourn over Saul: "How long will you grieve over Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel?" (1 Sam. 16:1). And this because they have not repented or done penance for their past carnal sins, some of which are contrary to nature; hence he says, and have not repented of the impurity, i.e., lust contrary to nature. Some are committed with women no longer virgins, namely, widows or married women; hence he says, immorality [fornication]; others are committed by deflowering virgins; hence he says, and licentiousness which they have practiced continually: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness" (Gal. 5:19).

Paul is here appealing to the law, saying that it applies to the Corinthians as well.

The wisdom of Paul and his much tender affection, one may observe in many other circumstances, but especially in this, his being so abundant and vehement in his admonitions, but so tardy and procrastinating in his punishments. For he did not chastise them immediately on their sinning, but warned them once and again; and not even so, upon their paying no attention, does he exact punishment, but warns again, saying, "This is the third time I am coming to you;" and "before I come I write again." Then, that his procrastinating may not produce indifference, see how he corrects this result also, by threatening continually and holding the blow suspended over them, and saying, "If I come again I will not spare;" and "lest when I come again I should mourn for many." These things, then, he doeth and speaketh, in this too imitating the Lord of all: because that God also threateneth indeed continually and warneth often, but not often chastiseth and punisheth. And so in truth also doth Paul, and therefore he said also before, "To spare you I came not as yet to Corinth." What is, "to spare you?" Lest finding you to have sinned and to continue unamended, I should visit with chastisement and punishment. And here, "This is the third time I am coming to you. At the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every word be established."

He joins the unwritten to the written, as he has done also in another place, saying, "He that is joined to an harlot is one body; for the twain," saith He, "shall become one flesh." Howbeit, this was spoken of lawful marriage; but he diverted its application unto this thing conveniently, so as to terrify them the more. And so he doth here also, setting his comings and his warnings in the place of witnesses. And what he says is this: "I spoke once and again when I was with you; I speak also now by letter. And if indeed ye attend to me, what I desired is accomplished; but if ye pay no attention, it is necessary henceforth to stop speaking, and to inflict the punishment."

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? " Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because "by three witnesses must every word be established." After the same fashion, too, (I suppose, ) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, "to expound all the Scriptures.

But when "they found not the body (of the Lord Jesus)," "His sepulture was removed from the midst of them," according to the prophecy of Isaiah. "Two angels however, appeared there." For just so many honorary companions were required by the word of God, which usually prescribes "two witnesses." Moreover, the women, returning from the sepulchre, and from this vision of the angels, were foreseen by Isaiah, when he says, "Come, ye women, who return from the vision; " that is, "come," to report the resurrection of the Lord.

Is he then the same God as He who gave Satan power over the person of Job that his "strength might be made perfect in weakness? " How is it that the censurer of the Galatians still retains the very formula of the law: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established? " How again is it that he threatens sinners "that he will not spare" them -he, the preacher of a most gentle god? Yea, he even declares that "the Lord hath given to him the power of using sharpness in their presence!" Deny now, O heretic, (at your cost, ) that your god is an object to be feared, when his apostle was for making himself so formidable!

For if "in the mouth of three witnesses every word shall stand: " -while, through the benediction, we have the same (three) as witnesses of our faith whom we have as sureties of our salvation too-how much more does the number of the divine names suffice for the assurance of our hope likewise! Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under "three witnesses," there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, ) there is the Church, which is a body of three.

Just as God Himself threatens much but always delays punishment, so too Paul, imitating Him, gathers many witnesses beforehand, saying: as it is written, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established, that is, confirmed (Deut. 17:6), so also by my three comings every threatening word of mine is determined and will be confirmed against you, if you do not repent. For he puts his comings in the place of witnesses.

Having said many things to the disadvantage of the false apostles, the Apostle now speaks against those who have been misled by them. In regard to this he does two things. First, he rebukes those who have been misled; secondly, he congratulates those who remained faithful (v. 11). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he threatens a severe sentence; secondly, he discloses his judiciary power (v. 3); thirdly, he warns them to amend themselves (v. 5). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he promises his presence; secondly, he indicates the form of his judgment (v. 1b); thirdly, he threatens a severe sentence.

Therefore, he first promises to come, saying, behold I am coming to you. As if to say: be assured that I am coming to you, so take care that I do not find you unprepared. He says: This is the third time, not that he had come a third time, but because he was prepared a third time to come; for he actually came only once so far, although he was ready to come the second time but was prevented: "But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills" (1 Cor. 4:19).

I will come, I say, and judge the wicked; in an orderly fashion, however, that by the evidence of two or three witnesses accusing or bearing witness against anyone, any charge of the accusers must be sustained. This is based on Deut. (17:6): "A person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness," and Deut. (19:15): "A single witness shall not prevail against a man." Or another way: in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand. As if to say: that which I say about my coming to you is as certain as the testimony of two or three. Thus there will be an order in the judgment.

That all sins may be forgiven him who has turned to God with his whole heart... Also in the same [second Epistle of the blessed Paul to the Corinthians]: "I told you before, and foretell you as I sit present; and absent now from those who before have sinned, and to all others; as, ill shall come again, I will not spare."

"For if at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word shall be established, and I have come twice and spoken, and speak now also by this Epistle; it follows, I must after this keep my word. For think not, I pray you, that my writing is of less account than my coming; for as I spoke when present, so now I write also when absent." Seest thou his fraternal solicitude? Seest thou forethought becoming a teacher? He neither kept silence nor punished, but he both foretells often, and continues ever threatening, and puts off the punishment, and if they should continue unamended, then he threatens to bring it to the proof. But what didst thou tell them before when present, and when absent writest? "That if I come again, I will not spare."

Having showed before that he is unable to do this unless he is compelled, and having called the thing a mourning, and a humbling; (for he saith, "lest my God should humble me before you, and I should mourn for them that have sinned heretofore, and not repented;") and having made his excuse unto them, namely, that he had told them before, once and twice and thrice, and that he does and contrives all he can so as to hold back the punishment, and by the fear of his words to make them better, he then used this unpleasing and terrifying expression, "If I come again, I will not spare." He did not say, "I will avenge and punish and exact satisfaction:" but again expresses even punishment itself in paternal language; showing his tender affection, and his heart to be grieved along with them; because that he always to "spare" them put off.

Then that they may not think now also that there will be again a putting off, and merely a threat in words, therefore he both said before, "At the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every word be established;" and [now], "If I come again, I will not spare." Now what he means is this: "I will no longer put off, if (which God forbid) I find you unamended; but will certainly visit it, and make good what I have said."

Is he then the same God as He who gave Satan power over the person of Job that his "strength might be made perfect in weakness? " How is it that the censurer of the Galatians still retains the very formula of the law: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established? " How again is it that he threatens sinners "that he will not spare" them -he, the preacher of a most gentle god? Yea, he even declares that "the Lord hath given to him the power of using sharpness in their presence!" Deny now, O heretic, (at your cost, ) that your god is an object to be feared, when his apostle was for making himself so formidable!

I previously told you, and I say again: as during my second visit, being with you, I said, so now also through this epistle I declare to you — to those who have sinned, as being in need of correction, and to the rest, as witnesses — that when I come again, I will not spare. He did not say: I will punish, but used the fatherly word of sparing; for if I find them, he says, uncorrected, then I will not delay for long.

But he threatens a severe sentence, saying: I warned those who sinned before and all the others. Here he first suggests the judicial process to be followed, which requires that three warnings have been given. In regard to this he says: I have warned you before twice, as I warned them when present, namely, when I was among you, so I warn them now, that is, while absent. Thus he warns them three times. I warn, I say, those who sinned before and all the others. As if to say: I warn everyone. Secondly, having given the warning, he threatens the sentence; hence, he says, that if I come again I will not spare them. As if to say: those who sinned I spared the first time; but if they sin again, or have not done penance, I will not spare them again. This would be just, because a person who is forgiven once and sins again, if he were forgiven, would grow in malice and become insolent. Hence the wise man says in Prov. (13:24): "He that spares the rod hates his son." As a result the Church has decreed that three admonitions must be given before it declares one excommunicated, because it happens that some, although they are in sin and offend, are corrected by a mere word of warning and make satisfaction. But if they are not influenced by warnings, the severity of sentence must be applied, lest they grow more insolent: "Because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil" (Ec. 8:11).