Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἡ δὲ τοῦ Πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις·
Сегѡ̀ ра́ди гл҃ю ва́мъ: всѧ́къ грѣ́хъ и҆ хꙋла̀ ѿпꙋ́ститсѧ человѣ́кѡмъ: а҆ ꙗ҆́же на дх҃а хꙋла̀ не ѿпꙋ́ститсѧ человѣ́кѡмъ:
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.
QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, QUESTION 102: AGAINST NOVATIAN(Serm. 71. 13.) For what difference does it make to the purpose, whether it be said, The spirit of blasphemy shall not be forgiven, or, Whose shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven him. (Luke 12:10) as Luke speaks; except that the same sense is expressed more clearly in the one place than in the other, the one Evangelist not overthrowing but explaining the other? The spirit of blasphemy it is said shortly, not expressing what spirit; to make which clear it is added, And whoso shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him. After having said the same of all manner of blasphemy, He would in a more particular way speak of that blasphemy which is against the Son of Man, and which in the Gospel according to John He shows to be very heavy, where He says concerning the Holy Ghost, He shall convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; of sin, because they believe not on me. That then which here follows, He who shall speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come, is not said because the Holy Spirit is in the Trinity greater than the Son, which no heretic ever affirmed.
(ubi sup.) But if this were said in such manner, then every other kind of blasphemy is omitted, and that only which is spoken against the Son of Man, as when He is pronounced to be mere man, is to be forgiven. That then that is said, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, without doubt blasphemy spoken against the Father is included in its largeness; though here again that alone is declared irremissible which is spoken against the Holy Ghost. What then, hath the Father also taken upon Him the form of a servant, that the Holy Ghost is thus as it were spoken of as greater? For who could not be convicted of having spoken a word against the Holy Spirit, before He become a Christian or a Catholic? First, the Pagans themselves when they say that Christ wrought miracles by magic arts, are they not like those who said that He cast out dæmons by the Prince of the dæmons? Likewise the Jews and all such heretics as confess the Holy Spirit, but deny that He is in the body of Christ, which is the Church Catholic, are like the Pharisees, who denied that the Holy Spirit was in Christ. Some heretics even contend that the Holy Spirit Himself is either a creature, as the Arians, Eunomians, and Macedonians, or deny Him at least in such sort that they may deny the Trinity in the Godhead; others assert that the Father alone is God, and the same is sometimes spoken of as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Spirit, as the Sabellians. The Photinians also say, that the Father only is God, and that the Son is nothing more than a man, and deny altogether that there is any third Person, the Holy Spirit. It is clear then that the Holy Spirit is blasphemed, both by Pagans, Jews, and heretics. Are all such then to be left out, and looked upon as having no hope? For if the word they have spoken against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven them, then in vain is the promise made to them, that in Baptism or in the Church, they should receive the forgiveness of their sins. For it is not said, 'It shall not be forgiven him in Baptism;' but, Neither in this world, nor in the world to come; and so they alone are to be supposed clear of the guilt of this most heavy sin who have been Catholics from their infancy. Some again think that they only sin against the Holy Ghost, who having been washed in the laver of regeneration in the Church, do afterwards, as though ungrateful for such a gift of the Saviour, plunge themselves into some deadly sin, such as adultery, murder, or quitting the Christian name, or the Church Catholic. But whence this meaning can be proved, I know not; since place for penitence of sins however great was never denied in the Church, and even heretics are exhorted to embrace it by the Apostle. If God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. (2 Tim. 2:25.) Lastly, the Lord says not, 'If any Catholic believer,' but, Whoso shall speak a word, that is, whosoever, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
(Serm. in Mont. 1.22.) Otherwise, The Apostle John says, There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it. This sin of the brother unto death I judge to be, when any one having come to the knowledge of God, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, opposes Himself against the brotherhood, or is roused by the fury of jealousy against that grace by which he was reconciled to God. (1 John 5:16) The stain of this sin is so great, that it may not submit to the humility of prayer, even when the sinful conscience is driven to acknowledge and proclaim its own sin. Which state of mind because of the greatness of their sin we must suppose some may be brought to; and this perhaps may be to sin against the Holy Ghost, that is through malice and jealousy to assail brotherly charity after having received the grace of the Holy Spirit; and this sin the Lord declares shall be forgiven neither in this world, nor in that to come. Whence it may be enquired whether the Jews sinned this sin against the Holy Ghost when they said that the Lord cast out dæmons by Beelzebub the Prince of the dæmons. Are we to suppose this spoken of our Lord Himself, because He said in another place, If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more they of his household? (Mat. 10:24) Seeing they thus spoke out of jealousy, ungrateful for so great present benefits, are they, though not Christians, to be supposed by the very greatness of that jealousy to have sinned the sin against the Holy Spirit? This cannot be gathered from the Lord's words. Yet He may seem to have warned them that they should come to grace, and that after that grace received they should not sin as they now sinned. For now their evil word had been spoken against the Son of Man, but it might be forgiven them, if they should be converted, and believe on Him. But if after they had received the Holy Spirit, they should be jealous against the brotherhood, and should fight against that grace which they had received, it should not be forgiven them neither in this world, nor in the world to come. For if He had there condemned them in such sort that no hope remained for them, He would not have added au admonition, Either make the tree good, &c.
(Retract. i. 19.) But I do not affirm this for certain, by saying that I think thus; yet thus much might have been added; If he should close this life in this impious hardness of heart, yet since we may not utterly despair of any however evil, so long as he is in this life, so neither is it unreasonable to pray for him of whom we do not despair.
(Serm. 71. 8.) Yet is this enquiry very mysterious. Let us then seek the light of exposition from the Lord. I say unto you, beloved, that in all Holy Scripture there is not perhaps so great or so difficult a question as this. First then I request you to note that the Lord said not, Every blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven, nor, Whoso shall speak any word against—but, Whoso shall speak the word. Wherefore it is not necessary to think that every blasphemy and every word spoken against the Holy Spirit shall be without pardon; it is only necessary that there be some word which if spoken against the Holy Spirit shall be without pardon. For such is the manner of Scripture, that when any thing is so declared in it as that it is not declared whether it is said of the whole, or a part, it is not necessary that because it can apply to the whole, it therefore is not to be understood of the part. As when the Lord said to the Jews, If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin, (John 15:22) this does not mean that the Jews would have been altogether without sin, but that there was a sin they would not have had, if Christ had not come. What then is this manner of speaking against the Holy Ghost, comes now to be explained. Now in the Father is represented to us the Author of all things, in the Son birth, in the Holy Spirit community of the Father and the Son. What then is common to the Father and the Son, through that they would have us have communion among ourselves and with them; The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which he hath given us, (Rom. 5:5) and because by our sins we were alienated, from the possession of true goods, Charity shall cover the multitude of sins. (1 Pet. 4:8) And for that Christ forgives sins through the Holy Spirit, hence may be understood how, when He said to his disciples, Receive ye the Holy Spirit, (John 20:22) He subjoined straight, Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they shall be forgiven them. The first benefit therefore of them that believe is forgiveness of sins in the Holy Spirit. Against this gift of free grace the impenitent heart speaks; impenitence itself therefore is the blasphemy against the Spirit which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in that to come. For indeed he speaks the evil word against the Holy Spirit either in his thought, or with his tongue, who by his hard and impenitent heart treasures up for himself wrath against the day of wrath. Such impenitence truly has no forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come, for penitence obtains forgiveness in this world which shall hold in the world to come. But that impenitence as long as any lives in the flesh may not be judged, for we must despair of none so long as the patience of God leads to repentance. For what if those whom you discover in any manner of sin, and condemn as most desperate, should before they close this life betake themselves to penitence, and find true life in the world to come? But this kind of blasphemy though it be long, and comprised in many words, yet the Scripture is wont to speak of many words as one word. It was more than a single word which the Lord spoke with the prophet, and yet we read, The word which came unto this or that prophet. Here perhaps some may enquire whether the Holy Spirit only forgives sins, or the Father and the Son likewise. We answer the Father and the Son likewise; for the Son Himself saith of the Father, Your Father shall forgive you your sins, (Mat. 6:14) and He saith of Himself, The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins. (Mat. 9:6) Why then is that impenitence which is never forgiven, spoken of as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit only? Forasmuch as he who falls under this sin of impenitence seems to resist the gift of the Holy Spirit, because in that gift is conveyed remission of sin. But sins, because they are not remitted out of the Church, must be remitted in that Spirit by which the Church is gathered into one. Thus this remission of sins which is given by the whole Trinity is said to be the proper office of the Holy Spirit alone, for it is He, The Spirit of adoption, in which we cry, Abba Father, (Rom. 8:15) so that to Him we may pray, Forgive us our sins; And hereby we know, speaks John, that Christ abideth in us, by the Holy Spirit which He hath given unto us. (1 John 4:13) For to Him belongs that bond by which we are made one body of the only-begotten Son of God; for the Holy Spirit Himself is in a manner the bond of the Father and the Son. Whosoever then shall be found guilty of impenitence against the Holy Spirit, in whom the Church is gathered together in unity and one bond of communion, it is never remitted to him.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas(ap. Anselm. vid. infra in cap. 25. 46.) This passage destroys that heresy of Origen, who asserted that after many ages all sinners should obtain pardon; for it is here said, this shall not be forgiven either in this world, or in the world to come.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas(Dial. iv. 39.) Hence we may gather that there are some sins that are remitted in this world, and some in the world to come; for what is denied of one sin, must be supposed to be admitted of others. And this may be believed in the case of trifling faults; such as much idle discourse, immoderate laughter, or the sin of carefulness in our worldly affairs, which indeed can hardly be managed without sin even by one who knows how he ought to avoid sin; or sins through ignorance (if they be lesser sins) which burden us even after death, if they have not been remitted to us while yet in this life. But it should be known that none will there obtain any purgation even of the least sin, but he who by good actions has merited the same in this life.
Catena Aurea by AquinasHe condemns in no uncertain terms the thinking of the Pharisees and their intellectual bedfellows. He promises forgiveness of all sins and denies pardon for blasphemy against the Spirit. For although other words and deeds may be treated with liberal forgiveness, there is no mercy if God is denied in Christ. For whatever sins one may commit, he extends the benevolence of his repeated admonition. All kinds of sins are to be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. For what is so beyond the pale of forgiveness as to deny Christ since he is of God? To forsake Christ is to forsake the nature of the Spirit of the Father residing in him. For Jesus fulfills every work in the Spirit of God, is himself the kingdom of heaven, and in him God is reconciling the world to himself. Therefore any blasphemy aimed at Christ is aimed at God, because God is in Christ and Christ is in God.
Commentary on Matthew 12.17He condemns by a most rigorous sentence this opinion of the Pharisees, and of such as thought with them, promising pardon for all sins, but refusing it to blasphemy against the Spirit; Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men.
And what is so beyond all pardon as to deny that in Christ which is of God, and to take away the substance of the Father's Spirit which is in Him, seeing that He performs every work in the Spirit of God, and in Him God is reconciling the world unto Himself.
Catena Aurea by AquinasOr the passage may be thus understood; Whoso speaks a word against the Son of Man, as stumbling at My flesh, and thinking of Me as no more than man, such opinion and blasphemy though it is not free from the sin of heresy, yet finds pardon because of the little worth of the body. But whoso plainly perceiving the works of God, and being unable to deny the power of God, speaks falsely against them prompted by jealousy, and calls Christ who is the Word of God, and the works of the Holy Ghost, Beelzebub, to him it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
Catena Aurea by AquinasThus having defended Himself, and refuted their objection, and proved the vanity of their shameless dealings, He proceeds to alarm them. For this too is no small part of advice and correction, not only to plead and persuade, but to threaten also; which He doth in many passages, when making laws and giving counsel.
And though the saying seem to have much obscurity, yet if we attend, its solution will prove easy.
First then it were well to listen to the very words: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto them. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to Come."
What now is it that He affirms? Many things have ye spoken against me; that I am a deceiver, an adversary of God. These things I forgive you on your repentance, and exact no penalty of you; but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven, no, not to those who repent. And how can this be right? For even this was forgiven upon repentance. Many at least of those who said these words believed afterward, and all was forgiven them. What is it then that He saith? That this sin is above all things unpardonable. Why so? Because Himself indeed they knew not, who He might be, but of the Spirit they received ample experience. For the prophets also by the Spirit said whatever they said; and indeed all in the Old Testament had a very high notion of Him.
What He saith, then, is this: Be it so: ye are offended at me, because of the flesh with which I am encompassed: can ye say of the Spirit also, We know it not? And therefore is your blasphemy unpardonable, and both here and hereafter shall ye suffer punishment. For many indeed have been punished here only (as he who had committed fornication, as they who partook unworthily of the mysteries, amongst the Corinthians); but ye, both here and hereafter.
Now as to your blasphemies against me, before the cross, I forgive them: and the daring crime too of the cross itself; neither shall ye be condemned for your unbelief alone. (For neither had they, that believed before the cross, perfect faith. And on many occasions He even charges them to make Him known to no man before the Passion; and on the cross He said that this sin was forgiven them.) But as to your words touching the Spirit, they will have no excuse. For in proof that He is speaking of what was said of Him before the crucifixion, He added, "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost," there is no more forgiveness. Wherefore? Because this is known to you; and the truths are notorious which you harden yourselves against. For though ye say that ye know not me; yet of this surely ye are not ignorant, that to cast out devils, and to do cures, is a work of the Holy Ghost. It is not then I only whom ye are insulting, but the Holy Ghost also. Wherefore your punishment can be averted by no prayers, neither here nor there.
For so of men, some are punished both here, and there, some here only, some there only, others neither here nor there. Here and there, as these very men (for both here did they pay a penalty, when they suffered those incurable ills at the taking of their city, and there shall they undergo a very grievous one), as the inhabitants of Sodom; as many others. There only, as the rich man who endured the flames, and had not at his command so much as a drop of water. Here, as he that had committed fornication amongst the Corinthians. Neither here nor there, as the apostles, as the prophets, as the blessed Job; for their sufferings were not surely in the way of punishment, but as contests and wrestlings.
Let us labor, therefore, to be of the same part with these: or if not with these, at least with them that wash away their sins here. For fearful indeed is that other judgment, and inexorable the vengeance, and incurable the punishment.
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 41But it should be known that they are not forgiven to all men universally, but to such only as have performed due penitence for their guiltinesses. So by these words is overthrown the error of Novatian, who said that the faithful could not rise by penitence after a fall, nor merit pardon of their sins, especially they who in persecution deniedb.
Catena Aurea by AquinasTherefore, no matter what they say in blasphemy—even against the Son of Man when they were scandalized under the economy of law according to the flesh, as I pointed out—our Lord makes it clear they will be forgiven on the excuse of their ignorance of the mystery, his self-abasement and humility shown as a man. That is why Jesus said, "It will be forgiven humans" and did not say "you." What he was saying in effect was "It is to those who do not know the depth of my dispensation that I offer forgiveness." But in their blasphemy they heaped insults against the divine signs he manifested and the many miracles he worked through the Spirit who was in him and who is of the same essence (ousia). They exclaimed, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons." Those insults—since they smack of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and (because of the facts themselves) what is proper of God, with no room for excuse—Christ says they shall not be forgiven. They could not use ignorance as a pretext for their defense.
CATHEDRAL SERMONS, HOMILY 98.32He is saying here that every other sin, such as fornication or theft, has some defense, however slight. For we take refuge in human weakness and we may be forgiven. But when one sees miracles performed by the Spirit and slanders them as being the work of a demon, what defense will he have? For it is clear that such a slanderer knows that these things are of the Holy Spirit, yet he speaks evil of his own will. How then can such a man be forgiven? When the Jews saw the Lord eating and drinking, associating with publicans and harlots, and doing all the other things He did as the Son of Man, then they slandered Him as a glutton and drunkard; yet for this they deserve forgiveness, and not even repentance will be required. For they were understandably scandalized. But when they saw Him working miracles and were slandering and blaspheming the Holy Spirit, saying that it was something demonic, how will this sin be forgiven them, unless they repent? So, then, know that he who blasphemes the Son of Man, seeing Him living as a man, and says that He is a friend of harlots, a glutton, and a drunkard because of those things which Christ does, such a man will not have to give an answer for this, even if he does not repent. For he is forgiven, as he did not realize that this was God concealed. But he who blasphemes the Holy Spirit, that is, the spiritual deeds of Christ, and calls them demonic, unless he repents, he will not be forgiven. For he does not have a reasonable excuse to slander, as does the man who sees Christ with harlots and publicans and then slanders. He will not be forgiven either here or there, but both here and there he will be punished. For many are punished here, but there, not at all, such as the poor man, Lazarus; while others are punished both here and there, as the Sodomites and those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit. But some, like the apostles and the Forerunner, are punished neither here nor there. For though they who are persecuted appear to suffer punishment, these are not punishments for sins, but rather trials and crowns.
Commentary on MatthewTherefore I tell you that every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men... After refuting their claim, he inveighs against them: first, for the gravity of their sin; secondly, their evil intention (v. 33); thirdly, the future judgment (v. 36).
In regard to the first he does two things: first, he begins with several general statements; secondly, he explains (v. 32b).
He says, therefore: it has come to pass in the manner you claim; therefore I tell you. And he makes two statements. The first concerns the forgiveness of sin in general. I say that every sin, namely, of deed, and blasphemy, namely, of word, will be forgiven men, namely, if they repent: "He forgives all your iniquities, and heals all your infirmities" (Ps 103:3); "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered" (Ps 32:1). And in this is refuted the opinion of Novatian, who said that not all sins are forgivable; but here it is stated that every sin is forgivable. Secondly, he mentions a special one, which is not forgiven: but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven, i.e., the will to blaspheme, namely, when one blasphemes from certain malice. And these are stated as a general rule.
Then he explains the first statement by the second. It has been said that every sin... That this is true I show by the fact that blasphemy against the Son can be forgiven. Hence whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven, namely, if he repents. But whoever says a word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. And as Augustine says, these words are so difficult that there are no stronger words in the gospel. Therefore it should be noted that the manner of expounding is threefold. Some expound according to the letter, because they saw him working miracles and performing the works of the Holy Spirit, and said that he had an unclean spirit; therefore, they blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. And there are two explanations of this. Some say that both should be referred to the person of the Son. But there are two natures in the Son, human and divine, and according to the divine he is both spirit and holy. Hence the Son is called the Holy Spirit, not in the sense that it is taken under the aspect of one name. This is the way Hilary explains it. And there is another sense: whoever says a word against the Son, and against the human nature has an excuse, if he is moved by weakness; but whoever says anything against the divine has no excuse.
Others expound it of the Holy Spirit in as much as he is the third person in the Trinity. Hence whoever says anything against the Son of man, i.e., the human nature, will be forgiven; but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit working does not obtain pardon. This seems to be the full explanation and what the text says. But Augustine objects in the following way: It is obvious that all pagans blaspheme, because they do not believe that the Holy Spirit is in the Church. Again, there are many heretics, but the way to salvation is not closed to them. Furthermore, there are many Jews... But someone could say: these statements do not apply until one has accepted the faith. But if that is the case, is one to be denied forgiveness, if he repents? However, he does not say "any Christian" but "whoever". How then, should it be solved?
Augustine gives two solutions: one is found in his book on the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, and he retracted it later. The other is in the book On the Words of the Lord. Hence it is necessary to understand that a sin against the Holy Spirit is not called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but is taken from the way one sins. To the Holy Spirit is attributed goodness, charity and love; to goodness malice responds, to charity envy. Therefore, if anyone knows the truth and detracts from it, he sins against the Holy Spirit; likewise, if one sees holy works in someone and detracts from them through envy. For envy of holiness, not of the person, is an unforgivable sin, not because it is impossible to be forgiven, but because the deformity is such that from divine justice it comes about that one does not repent. Hence those who said that he cast out devils by Beelzebub did not sin against the Holy Spirit, as Augustine claims, because they had not reached that depth of malice. But he began to say this, not because they had done it but in order that those who had begun might be warned not to reach this state.
Augustine repudiates this explanation and retracts it, because there would exist a state for which no prayer could be said; which is not true of anyone in this life.
Therefore he explains it another way in the book On the Words of the Lord, and it is this: Note that he did not say "whoever has said a word of blasphemy," but simply a "word". But a thing put indefinitely that way is not taken universally but sometimes particularly, as John (15:22): "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; not universally, but they would have the sin of unbelief: similarly, whoever has said a word; not just any word, but a word such that, if it is spoken, it is unforgivable. But what that is, Augustine says. The Holy Spirit is charity, through which the members of the Church are united to Christ, the Head, and every sin is forgiven by the Holy Spirit. But although the entire Trinity forgives, yet it is appropriated to the Holy Spirit on account of love. Therefore, whoever has an unrepentant heart speaks against the Holy Spirit. Hence impenitence is opposed to the charity of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, not anyone who says just any word, but that special word, namely, of impenitence, is unforgivable. And he says "word" and not "words", because the custom in Scripture is to call many words one word. Hence in Isaiah the Lord often says, "You will speak my word," although he said many words to him. Hence there is no conflict with what was stated above: therefore, I tell you, every sin and blasphemy..., because whoever says a word against the Holy Spirit blasphemes. Hence a certain teacher, when asked what would be a sin against the Holy Spirit, said: Impenitence stores up wrath for itself.
But why is it that it will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come? Are there any sins that will be forgiven in the age to come? Augustine says not. Therefore, it does not say that some sins are forgiven in the present and some in future, but that sins are so forgiven here, that the forgiveness is valid in the future. Or another way: some sins, namely, mortal, are forgiven in the present age, but others, namely, venial, in the age to come; so if someone dies in venial sin, it is clear that they can be forgiven. Hence there will be some mercy in the age to come, because then he will still be on the way. Chrysostom's explanation is quite clear and says that here he is speaking of two kinds of blasphemy, namely, against the Son of man and the Holy Spirit. They blasphemed the Son of man, because they said that he was a wine-bibber. Their blasphemy was also against the Holy Spirit, because they said that he cast out devils by a devil-spirit. For the first they had an excuse, because they did not know; but they had no excuse for what they said against the Holy Spirit, because they could not verify it by the Scriptures; therefore, they will not be forgiven. But why neither in this age nor in the age to come? This is said, because some sins are punished in this age, some in the other, some both here and there. Some sins are punished only in this age, as in the case of penitents. Some only in the age to come, as those of whom it says in Job (2:13): "They spend their days in prosperity, and in a moment they go down into hell." The one punished here and in the age to come is the sin against the Holy Spirit; hence it will be forgiven neither in this age nor in the age to come, not because there might be forgiveness in the age to come, but because there will be punishment. Hence the meaning is that it will not be forgiven without punishment by suffering in this age and in the age to come. Thus do the saints speak about that sin.
It should be noted that the Master [Peter Lombard] in the Sentences, dist. 43, book 2, art. 3, makes a distinction and assigns six species of sin against the Holy Spirit: despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, attack upon the known truth, and envy of a brother's grace. Hence those are said to sin against the Holy Spirit who sin against qualities appropriated to the Holy Spirit. To the Father is appropriated power, to the Son wisdom, to the Holy Spirit goodness. Therefore, one who sins from weakness is said to sin against the Father; from ignorance against the Son; from malice against the Holy Spirit. But it should be pointed out that one sins from malice, when he sins voluntarily, which is from certain malice; and this is two ways: either because he has an inclination to sin, or because he does not. For when a person commits many sins, a habit of sinning is left in him, and so he sins from choice. Again, someone sins because that by which he was kept from sin is removed. But he is kept from sin by the hope of eternal life; hence a person who does not hope in eternal life sins from certain malice: "Despairing, they have given themselves to licentiousness" (Eph 4:19). Hence a person who sins from inclination sins against the Holy Spirit, namely, from the fact that what restrains from sin has departed. But this happens in six ways. For in God are mercy and justice. From scorning mercy arises despair; from scorning justice, presumption. Again on the part of turning away from God, because one turns to a fragile good, obstinacy comes. Again on the part of turning away from God, because one does not propose to return to God, impenitence results. Then on the part of the remedy, namely, of hope and charity, there come attack on the known truth and envy of brotherly love. These are sins against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if there is actual impenitence, it is not forgiven, not because it is not forgiven at all, but because it is not easily forgiven; for it lacks the disposition to be forgiven, but only by God's grace: just as if a person has a fever, say, tertian, he has the capacity to be cured; but if he has emitreteum he does not have the resources to be cured, because he is not cured except by divine help.
Commentary on MatthewAnd whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
καὶ ὃς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι.
и҆ и҆́же а҆́ще рече́тъ сло́во на сн҃а чл҃вѣ́ческаго, ѿпꙋ́ститсѧ є҆мꙋ̀: а҆ и҆́же рече́тъ на дх҃а ст҃а́го, не ѿпꙋ́ститсѧ є҆мꙋ̀ ни въ се́й вѣ́къ, ни въ бꙋ́дꙋщїй.
Against this unmerited gift, against this free grace of God, the impenitent heart may continue to murmur. So it is unrepentance that is a blasphemy against the Spirit. It is not forgiven either in this world or in the next. Think of a person whose sins are entirely forgiven in faithful baptism and whom the church has welcomed. This is the very church commissioned to remit sin, in which whatever sins it remits are promised to be truly remitted. You are speaking a very evil, utterly graceless word against the Holy Spirit, you are speaking it in thought or out loud, if when the patience of God is beckoning you to repentance, you harden your impenitent heart. By doing so you store up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to us all according to our works. This is the impenitence that is called both by the name of blasphemy and speaking against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. This is the flagrant impenitence against which both the herald and the Judge cried out when they proclaimed: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." It is the same impenitence against which the Lord opened his mouth to preach the gospel. He preached against it when he foretold that the gospel itself was to be preached in the whole world; when he said to the disciples after rising from the dead that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead on the third day; and for repentance and the forgiveness of sins to be preached in his name throughout all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Yes, this refusal to repent has absolutely no forgiveness, neither in this age nor in the age to come, because repentance obtains forgiveness in this world in preparation for the next.
SERMON 71.12.20Although every sin generally is against the triune and one God, yet by appropriation a certain sin is said to be against the Father, another against the Son, and another against the Holy Spirit. Now this sin against the Holy Spirit is called irremissible in this age and in the age to come, not because it cannot be forgiven in this age, but because it is rarely or scarcely forgiven in this age with respect to guilt, and little or almost no remission is made for it in the future with respect to punishment. Now there are six species of this sin, namely: envy of fraternal grace, opposition to acknowledged truth, despair, presumption, obstinacy of mind, and final impenitence.
Since sin denotes a departure from the first principle who is triune and one, every sin deforms the image of the Trinity and defiles the soul itself with respect to its threefold power. Since certain sins arise from impotence, certain from ignorance, and certain from malice—and power is attributed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and will to the Holy Spirit—certain sins are said to be against the Father, certain against the Son, and certain against the Holy Spirit. And since nothing is more in the will than the will itself, and the will itself is the origin of sin, no sin is so purely and entirely voluntary as that which proceeds from a corruption existing in the will. When the will by its own corruption alone, although it can resist and knows this to be evil, chooses something, then it is said to sin from deliberate malice; and such a sin proceeds purely from the wickedness of the will of free choice and directly assails the grace of the Holy Spirit. And because it proceeds purely from freedom of choice, it therefore has no color of excuse, and for this reason little or almost nothing of the punishment ought to be relaxed for the one who is punished. Because indeed it directly assails the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which the remission of sin is accomplished, it is therefore called irremissible, not because it can in no way be remitted, but because, as far as it is in itself, it directly assails the medicine and remedy through which the remission of sin is accomplished.
And since the remission of sin is accomplished by God through penitential grace within ecclesiastical unity, the differences of this sin are taken according as they directly assail those three things. For they either assail penitential grace itself in itself; or in relation to God, from whom it is given; or in relation to the Church, in which it is received. If in relation to the unity of the Church: since the unity of the Church consists in faith and charity, that is, in grace and truth, there is thus a twofold sin, namely envy of fraternal grace and assailing of acknowledged truth. If in relation to God who gives: since all His ways with respect to justification are especially mercy and truth, there is thus a twofold sin: one which assails mercy, and this is despair; another which assails justice, and this is presumption of impunity. But if it assails penitential grace itself in itself or according to itself, it is thus twofold: because penitential grace causes one to recoil from sins committed and to guard against sins to be committed. Against the first is obstinacy of mind; against the second is final impenitence, insofar as final impenitence means the resolution not to repent; for thus it is a species of sin against the Holy Spirit. But insofar as final impenitence denotes the continuation of sin unto the end, it is thus the consequence of all mortal sins that are not remitted in this life, and especially of all species of sin against the Holy Spirit.
And thus every sin takes its beginning from pride and has its consummation or end in final impenitence; and whoever arrives at this falls into hell, from which no one sinning mortally can be delivered unless the grace of Christ the Mediator intervenes.
Breviloquium, Part 3, Chapter 11The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—"Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him." But to evade the Son of man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven't noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him—this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.
MAN OR RABBIT?, from God in the Dock(Verse 32.) And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the age to come. And how is it that some of our bishops and priests, after blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, are reinstated in their positions, when the Savior says that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven to men, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in the present time or in the future? Unless perhaps we take that example from the evangelist Mark, who expressed the causes of such anger more clearly, saying: 'Because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit.' Therefore, whoever attributes the works of the Savior to Beelzebub, the prince of demons, and says that the Son of God has an unclean spirit, to this person blasphemy will never be forgiven. Or perhaps this passage should be understood as follows: Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, being scandalized by my flesh and considering me only human, that I am the son of a carpenter and have brothers named James, Joseph, and Judas; and that I am a glutton and a drunkard, such an opinion and blasphemy, although it is not without fault of error, nevertheless will receive forgiveness on account of the lowliness of the body. But those who clearly understand the works of God, since they cannot deny the power, driven by the same envy, they slander; and they say that Christ, the Word of God, and the works of the Holy Spirit are Beelzebub: these will not be forgiven, neither in this age, nor in the age to come.
Commentary on MatthewMoreover, if the crime of Hymenaeus and Alexander-blasphemy, to wit-is irremissible in this and in the future. age, of course the apostle would not, in opposition to the determinate decision of the Lord, have given to Satan, under a hope of pardon, men already sunken from the faith into blasphemy; whence, too, he pronounced them "shipwrecked with regard to faith," having no longer the solace of the ship, the Church.
On ModestyEither make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον καλόν, καὶ τὸν καρπόν αὐτοῦ καλόν, ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον σαπρόν, καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ σαπρόν· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται.
И҆лѝ сотворитѐ дре́во добро̀ и҆ пло́дъ є҆гѡ̀ до́бръ: и҆лѝ сотворитѐ дре́во ѕло̀ и҆ пло́дъ є҆гѡ̀ ѕо́лъ: ѿ плода́ бо дре́во позна́но бꙋ́детъ.
When he says, "Make the tree good and its fruit good," this is not a friendly admonition but a clear command to be obeyed. And when Jesus says, "Make the tree bad and its fruit bad," he does not command you to do so, but he warns you to guard against it. He is referring to those who think they are able, though they are bad, to speak good things or to do good works. This the Lord Jesus says they cannot do. For a person must first be changed in order for his works to be changed. But if a person remains in an evil state, that one cannot do good works. If he abides in what is good, he will not be found producing evil works.
SERMONS ON NEW TESTAMENT LESSONS 72.1.1(Serm. 72. 1.) Or this is an admonition to ourselves that we should be good trees that we may be able to bring forth good fruit; Make the tree good, and its fruit good, is a precept of health to which obedience is necessary. But what He says, Make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt, is not a command to do, but a warning to take heed, spoken against those who being evil thought that they could speak good things, or have good works; this the Lord declares is impossible. The man must be changed first, that his works may be changed; for if the man remains in that wherein he is evil, he cannot have good works; if he remains in that wherein he is good, he cannot have evil works. Christ found us all corrupt trees, but gave power to become sons of God to them that believe on His name.
Catena Aurea by AquinasThough spoken in the present, Jesus' words would be borne out in the future. For in the present he refutes the Jews. They could see that the works of Christ were beyond human power, but they were unwilling to declare them as works of God. In saying this Jesus anticipates the future of numerous perversions of faith, especially of those who would divest the Lord of the dignity and union with the Father's nature and so plunge into heresy. They then wander aimlessly in the arena between those who act with the excuse of ignorance and those who live in the knowledge of truth.…Through a tree's inherent vitality, fruitfulness abounds. Therefore either the tree must be made good with good fruit or made bad with bad fruit, because by its fruit the tree is known. The meaning is not that a bad tree, according to the nature of trees, can constitute what is good or be good in its branches if it is bad. Rather, it is that Christ must either be left behind as useless or held onto as good because of the usefulness of good fruit.
Commentary on Matthew 12.18Thus did He at that present refute the Jews, who seeing Christ's works to be of power more than human, would notwithstanding not allow the hand of God. And at the same time He convicts all future errors of the faith, such as that of those who taking away from the Lord His divinity, and communion of the Father's substance, have fallen into divers heresies; having their habitation neither under the plea of ignorance as the Gentiles, nor yet within the knowledge of the truth. He figures Himself as a tree set in the body, seeing that through the inward fruitfulness of His power sprung forth abundant richness of fruit. Therefore either must be made a good tree with good fruits, or an evil tree with evil fruits; not that a good tree is to be made a bad tree, or the reverse; but that in this metaphor we may understand that Christ is either to be left in fruitlessness, or to be retained in the fruitfulness of good works. But to hold one's self neuter, to attribute some things to Christ, but to deny Him those things that are highest, to worship Him as God, and yet to deny Him a common substance with the Father, is blasphemy against the Spirit. In admiration of His so great works you dare not take away the name of God, yet through malevolence of soul you debase His high nature by denying His participation of the Father's substance.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas(Verse 33.) Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad. For the tree is known by its fruit. It constrains them with an unassailable argument, which the Greeks call ἄφυκτον and we can call inevitable: it concludes from questions asked here and there, and presses with both horns. If, he says, the devil is evil, he cannot do good works. But if the works you see are good, it follows that the one who does them is not the devil. For it is not possible for good to arise from evil, or for evil to arise from good. But as follows:
Commentary on MatthewThus He holds them in a syllogism which the Greeks call 'Aphycton,' the unavoidable; which shuts in the person questioned on both sides, and presses him with either horn. If, He saith, the Devil be evil, he cannot do good works; so that if the works you see be good, it follows that the Devil was not the agent thereof. For it cannot be that good should come of evil, or evil of good.
Catena Aurea by AquinasAgain in another way He shames them, and is not content with His former refutations. But this He doth, not freeing Himself from accusations, (for what went before was quite enough), but as wishing to amend them.
Now His meaning is like this: none of you hath either found fault about the persons healed, as not being healed; nor hath said, that it is an evil thing to deliver one from a devil. For though they had been ever so shameless, they could not have said this.
Since therefore they brought no charge against the works, but were defaming the Doer of them, He signifies that this accusation is against both the common modes of reasoning, and the congruity of the circumstances. A thing of aggravated shamelessness, not only to interpret maliciously, but also to make up such charges as are contrary to men's common notions.
And see how free He is from contentiousness. For He said not, "Make the tree good, forasmuch as the fruit also is good;" but, most entirely stopping their mouths, and exhibiting His own considerateness, and their insolence, He saith, Even if ye are minded to find fault with my works, I forbid it not at all, only bring not inconsistent and contradictory charges. For thus were they sure to be most clearly detected, persisting against what was too palpable. Wherefore to no purpose is your maliciousness, saith He, and your self-contradictory statements. Because in truth the distinction of the tree is shown by the fruit, not the fruit by the tree; but ye do the contrary. For what if the tree be the origin of the fruit; yet it is the fruit that makes the tree to be known. And it were consistent, either in blaming us to find fault with our works too, or praising these, to set us who do them free from these charges. But now ye do the contrary; for having no fault to find with the works, which is the fruit, ye pass the opposite judgment upon the tree, calling me a demoniac; which is utter insanity.
Yea, and what He had said before, this He establishes now also; that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor again can the converse be. So that their charges were against all consistency and nature.
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 42Since the Jews were not able to slander the miracles as bad, they blasphemed as demonic the One Who did them, Christ. So He says: either say that I am a good tree, and then all My miracles, which are the fruit, are good as well; or if you say that I am a corrupt tree, then it is clear that the fruit, that is, the miracles, are corrupt as well. But you say that the miracles, the fruit, are good; therefore, I, the tree, am also good. For indeed, just as the tree is known by its fruit, so I am known by the miracles which I do.
Commentary on MatthewHe continues: Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad. Above the Lord spoke against the manner of the Pharisees, in as much as they were speaking against his deeds by showing the gravity of sin; now against them he states that their doctrine is wrong. First, he presents an example; secondly, he adapts it (v. 34); thirdly, he assigns a reason (v. 34b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the example; secondly, the proof (v. 33b). He says, therefore: Either make the tree good, and its fruit good... This is explained in two ways. One explanation is according to Chrysostom and Jerome; the other according to Augustine. According to Chrysostom it is this: He wants to show that their vituperation is unreasonable; hence he compares actions to life, as fruit to a tree. If a person sees good fruit, he judges that the tree is good; but conversely, if it is evil. They saw Christ's actions, for example, the expulsion of demons, and this was good; therefore, what you say is quite unreasonable. And most suitably he goes from effect to cause, as the Apostle says in Romans (1:20): "The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen from the things that were made..." Hence he wants to say either you, namely, the Pharisees, make, i.e., concede, that if the fruit is good, the tree is good; or make, i.e., say that the fruit is evil, and thus the tree is evil. And this you cannot say.
Augustine, however, refers to the intention. They said that he cast out devils by Beelzebub. Therefore, he wants to show from what root this accusation proceeded, because it was from the malice in their hearts. So he says, either make... Here two things are presented: one is meritorious and ought to be done, namely, make the tree good, i.e., do the work and apply the energy required for being a good tree, which a man cannot be without preparation. Hence, do what is required to be a good tree, and then the fruit will be good and your words good. But the statement which follows indicates something to avoid, namely, or make the tree evil and its fruit evil, i.e., or you will pursue malice, and so you will be an evil tree and your fruit evil: "I have planted you a choice vine, wholly of pure seed. How then have you turned degenerate and become a wild vine?" (Jer 2:21). According to both renditions the proof which follows is suitable: For the tree is known by its fruit, because by good fruit a good tree is known, and by evil fruit an evil one.
Commentary on MatthewO generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ ὄντες; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ.
Порождє́нїѧ є҆хі́днѡва, ка́кѡ мо́жете добро̀ глаго́лати, ѕлѝ сꙋ́ще; Ѿ и҆збы́тка бо се́рдца ᲂу҆ста̀ глаго́лютъ.
A brother asked Poemen about the words, 'Do not render evil for evil' (1 Thess. 5:15). He said to him, 'The passions work in four stages: first in the heart, then in the face, third in words, fourth in deeds – and it is in deeds that it is essential not to render evil for evil. If you purify your heart, passion will not show in your expression, but if it does, take care not to speak about it; if you do speak, cut the conversation short in case you render evil for evil.'
The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian MonksThis new frivolity is inadequate because there is in it no strong sense of an unuttered joy. The men and women who exchange the repartees may not only be hating each other, but hating even themselves. Any one of them might be bankrupt that day, or sentenced to be shot the next. They are joking, not because they are merry, but because they are not; out of the emptiness of the heart the mouth speaketh. Even when they talk pure nonsense it is a careful nonsense—a nonsense of which they are economical, or, to use the perfect expression of Mr. W. S. Gilbert in "Patience," it is such "precious nonsense." Even when they become light-headed they do not become light-hearted. All those who have read anything of the rationalism of the moderns know that their Reason is a sad thing. But even their unreason is sad.
Heretics, Ch. 15: On Smart Novelists and the Smart Set (1905)He taught that a corrupt outlook on life arises out of a corrupted nature. He taught that from an evil storehouse nothing can come but what is evil. An account must be rendered to God for every idle, careless and useless word. We are to be condemned or justified by the words we speak. The mercy or the judgment we receive shall depend on the inward conviction we have about the Lord of heavenly glory.
Commentary on Matthew 12.19(Verse 34.) Brood of vipers, how can you speak good when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. It reveals that they are a bad tree, producing fruit of blasphemy, which have the seeds of the devil.
Commentary on MatthewThen since He is arguing not for Himself, but for the Spirit, He hath dealt out His reproof even as a torrent, saying, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?"
Now this is at once to accuse, and to give demonstration of His own sayings from their case. For behold, saith He, ye being evil trees, cannot bring forth good fruit. I do not then marvel at your talking thus: for ye were both ill nurtured, being of wicked ancestors, and ye have acquired a bad mind.
And see how carefully, and without any hold for exception, He hath expressed His accusations: in that He said not, "How can ye speak good things, being a generation of vipers? (for this latter is nothing to the former): but, "How can ye, being evil, speak good things?"
But He called them "broods of vipers," because they prided themselves on their forefathers. To signify therefore that they had no advantage thereby, He both casts them out from their relationship to Abraham, and assigns them forefathers of kindred disposition, having stripped them of that ground of illustriousness.
"For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Here again He indicates His Godhead, which knew their secrets: and that not for words only, but also for wicked thoughts, they shall suffer punishment; and that He knows it all, as God. And He saith, that it is possible even for men to know these things; for this is a natural consequence, that when wickedness is overflowing within, its words should be poured forth through the lips. So that when thou hearest a man speak wicked words, do not suppose only so much wickedness to be in him as the words display, but conjecture the fountain to be much more abundant; for that which is spoken outwardly, is the superabundance of that which is within.
See how vehemently He reprehends them. For if what they had said is so evil, and is of the very mind of the devil, consider the root and well-spring of their words, how far that must reach. And this is naturally the case; for while the tongue through shame often pours not forth all its wickedness at once, the heart having no human witness, fearlessly gives birth to whatever evils it will; for of God it hath not much regard. Since then men's sayings come to examination: and are set before all, but the heart is concealed; therefore the evils of the former grow less, while those of the latter increase. But when that within is multiplied, all that hath been awhile hidden comes forth with a violent gushing. And as persons vomiting strive at first to keep down the humors that force their way out, but, when they are overcome, cast forth much abomination; so do they that devise evil things, and speak ill of their neighbors. And what can be more barbarous than this, to overlook our soul that is more precious than all, abused by so many adulterers, and so long companying with them, even until they are sated; which will never be.
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 42Or the words, Generation of vipers, may be taken as signifying children, or imitators of the Devil, because they had wilfully spoken against good works, which is of the Devil, and thence follows, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. That man speaks out of the abundance of the heart who is not ignorant with what intention his words are uttered; and to declare his meaning more openly He adds, A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things. The treasure of the heart is the intention of the thoughts, by which the Judge judges that work which is produced, so that sometimes though the outward work that is shown seem great, yet because of the carelessness of a cold heart, they receive a little reward from the Lord.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas"O worst of men," he says, "you have not shrunk from any wickedness of vipers. So it is not surprising that you utter nothing good. For words follow the disposition of the soul. How can you speak good, when you are evil?"
FRAGMENT 70Look, He says, you who are evil trees bear evil fruit when you speak ill of Me. And I also, if I were evil, would bring forth evil fruit and not these miracles. He calls them "brood of vipers" because they boasted of Abraham. He shows that they are not of Abraham, but of ancestors worthy of their own wickedness.
Commentary on MatthewWhen you see a speaker of obscenities, know that he does not have in his heart the same quantity of evil that he speaks, but many times more. For it is the excess that spills over, and he who has a hidden treasure displays only a small part. Likewise he who speaks good has even more in his heart.
Commentary on MatthewYou brood of vipers... This is subsumed under the foregoing in various ways depending on the varying explanations. According to Augustine it is an application to the foregoing thus: It has been said, either make the tree good... But you do evil. You are an evil tree and, as such, you do evil, because you cannot say good things. According to others' explanation, he is showing the source from which this malice comes and calls the Pharisees a brood of vipers, because those who are malicious from their youth retain it more firmly; therefore, their malice is called the malice of a viper: "A young man according to his way, when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Pr 22:6). Consequently, it often happens that those with evil parents are readier for evil: "We have known the iniquities of our fathers" (Jer 12:20). Hence it is good for a man to be trained in the good. Also it is the nature of serpents to eject poison with their tongues, and evil men do likewise: "The tongue of a viper will kill him" (Jb 20:16); "They make their tongue sharp as a serpent's" (Ps 140:3). And so he says, How can you speak good? He does not say "do good," but speak, because you are the offspring of a viper, which inflicts injury with the tongue; therefore, since you are imitators of the crime of your fathers, how can you speak good? As if to say: You cannot.
He assigns the reason: first, in general; secondly, in particular (v. 35). He says, therefore: So you are unable to speak good. Why? Because you are evil. Why? Because from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, for the word is the messenger of the mind. He says, from the abundance of the heart, because, according to Chrysostom, when a person speaks from malice, it is a sign that greater malice is in the heart, for no one fears what he keeps within. Therefore, when he utters something out of malice, it is a sign that more is within, although he dares not say it. Hence he says, from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. And from the abundance of malice within the mouth speaks, and this is true of good and of evil. Hence Jeremiah (20:9): "The Lord's word is in me as a burning fire." In regard to evil it is similar, because from malice some conceive something they cannot keep within: "The spirit within me impels me" (Jb 32:18).
Commentary on MatthewA good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει ἀγαθά, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει πονηρά.
Бл҃гі́й человѣ́къ ѿ бл҃га́гѡ сокро́вища и҆зно́ситъ бл҃га̑ѧ: и҆ лꙋка́вый человѣ́къ ѿ лꙋка́вагѡ сокро́вища и҆зно́ситъ лꙋка̑ваѧ.
When he says "treasure," Christ refers to the multitude of motives that lie in the soul. It is not by nature that people are good or bad but by their own choice. He makes this plain in his remark to the Pharisees: It is possible for one and the same person at one time to become good, at another time evil, for "a good man speaks out of the abundance of his heart," and likewise for the bad.
FRAGMENT 158.10(Verse 35) A good man brings forth good treasures. And an evil man brings forth evil treasures. Either it shows the Jews themselves blaspheming the Lord, from what wicked treasure they bring forth blasphemies, or with the previous question, the opinion clings that just as a good man cannot bring forth evil things, nor can an evil man bring forth good things, so Christ cannot do evil things, and the devil cannot do good works.
Commentary on MatthewWhat He says, The good man out of the good treasure of his heart, & c. is either pointed against the Jews, that seeing they blasphemed God, what treasure in their heart must that be out of which such blasphemy proceeded; or it is connected with what had gone before, that like as a good man cannot bring forth evil things, nor an evil man good things, so Christ cannot do evil works, nor the Devil good works.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas"A good man out of his good treasure," saith He, "bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things."
For think not by any means, saith He, that it is so in respect of wickedness only, for in goodness also the same occurs: for there too the virtue within is more than the words without. By which He signified, that both they were to be accounted more wicked than their words indicated, and Himself more perfectly good than His sayings declared. And He calls it "a treasure," indicating its abundance.
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 42The good man from his good treasure brings forth good. The statement that from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks he explains in particular. The word which proceeds from a thought is as a gift from a treasure. Hence if the thought is good, the word is good; and conversely. The good treasure is knowledge of the truth and fear of the Lord: "Abundance of salvation, wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the Lord is his treasure" (Is 33:6). Likewise, an evil treasure is evil thinking; and from this treasure only evil proceeds: "Treasures of wickedness do not profit" (Pr 10:2). Note: what is said there of words is understood also of deeds. For as the thought is the wellspring of speech, so intention is of action. Therefore, if the intention is good, the action is good. Hence a Gloss: "You do according as you intend." This statement seems open to objection in regard to good. Suppose that someone wants to steal in order to give an alms: the act is evil and the intention good. Therefore... I answer that intending and willing are sometimes distinguished, namely, when in one and the same act the willing and the intention differ. Willing bears on the object wanted, but intention on the end. Willing, for example, is when I will to go to a window to see the people passing by; the latter is the intention. Hence it is necessary that willing and intending be one. Hence we can consider intention and willing in a wide sense, as in the assertion that if the willing is evil, the act is evil. Yet if it be excluded and taken in the proper sense, it is not true. But granted that intention and the act of willing are one, what then? I answer that the root of merit lies in charity, but consequently in the merit of other virtues. For merit looks at the essential reward, within which charity is considered. Thus, any work whatsoever that is performed with greater charity has more merit. But charity alone has God for object and end. Hence the merit of charity corresponds to the substantial reward, the merit of the other virtues to the accidental reward. Therefore, because charity permeates the intention, to the extent that one does something from greater charity to that extent he achieves; but in regard to accidental reward, this is not so.
Commentary on MatthewBut I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶν ρῆμα ἀργὸν ὃ ἐὰν λαλήσωσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἀποδώσουσι περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως·
Гл҃ю же ва́мъ, ꙗ҆́кѡ всѧ́ко сло́во пра́здное, є҆́же а҆́ще рекꙋ́тъ человѣ́цы, воздадѧ́тъ ѡ҆ не́мъ сло́во въ де́нь сꙋ́дный:
I admonish you together with myself that we refrain from idle speech, that we avoid speaking uselessly. Insofar as we are able to restrain our tongue, let not words flow away into the wind, since the Judge says: "Every idle word that men have spoken, they will render an account of it on the day of judgment." An idle word is one that lacks either the usefulness of righteousness or the reason of just necessity. Therefore turn idle conversations to the pursuit of edification: consider how swiftly the times of this life flee away; attend to how strictly the Judge comes.
Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 6(Hom. in Ev. vi.) Or such as lacks either rightness in itself, or reasons of just necessity;
Catena Aurea by Aquinas(Verse 36, 37.) But I tell you that every idle word that men speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. This also aligns with what was said before. And the meaning is this: If an idle word, which does not edify the listeners, is not without danger for the one who speaks it, and each person will have to give an account for their own words on the day of judgment, how much more will you, who revile the works of the Holy Spirit and say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, have to give an account for your slander! Idle speech is that which is spoken by the speaker and heard by the listener without any usefulness: if we omit serious matters and talk about frivolous things, and tell old stories. However, whoever responds with jests and breaks out in laughter and utters something shameful, they will be held guilty not of idle speech, but of a crime.
Commentary on Matthew(Verse 36, 37.) But I tell you that every idle word that men speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. This also aligns with what was said before. And the meaning is this: If an idle word, which does not edify the listeners, is not without danger for the one who speaks it, and each person will have to give an account for their own words on the day of judgment, how much more will you, who revile the works of the Holy Spirit and say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, have to give an account for your slander! Idle speech is that which is spoken by the speaker and heard by the listener without any usefulness: if we omit serious matters and talk about frivolous things, and tell old stories. However, whoever responds with jests and breaks out in laughter and utters something shameful, they will be held guilty not of idle speech, but of a crime.
Commentary on MatthewWhat He says, The good man out of the good treasure of his heart, & c. is either pointed against the Jews, that seeing they blasphemed God, what treasure in their heart must that be out of which such blasphemy proceeded; or it is connected with what had gone before, that like as a good man cannot bring forth evil things, nor an evil man good things, so Christ cannot do evil works, nor the Devil good works.
And the meaning is; If every idle word which does not edify the hearers is not without danger to him that speaks it, and if each man shall render an account of his words in the day of judgment, how much more shall you, who have spoken falsely against the works of the Holy Spirit, saying that I cast out dæmons through Beelzebub, render an account of your false charge?
being spoken without the profit of either the speaker or hearer; as if laying aside weighty matters we should speak of frivolous trifles, or relate old fables. For he that deals in buffoon jests to create laughter, or brings forth any thing shameful, he will be held guilty not of an idle, but of a sinful word.
Catena Aurea by AquinasThen again He fences them in with great terror. For think not at all, saith He, that the thing stops at this, that is, at the condemnation of the multitude; nay, for all that do wickedly in such things shall suffer the utmost punishment. And He said not, "ye," partly in order to instruct our whole race, partly to make His saying the less burdensome. "But I say unto you," this is His word, "that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
And that is idle, which is not according to the fact, which is false, which hath in it unjust accusation; and some say, that which is vain also, for instance, provoking inordinate laughter, or what is filthy, and immodest, and coarse.
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 42Then again He fences them in with great terror. For think not at all, saith He, that the thing stops at this, that is, at the condemnation of the multitude; nay, for all that do wickedly in such things shall suffer the utmost punishment. And He said not, "ye," partly in order to instruct our whole race, partly to make His saying the less burdensome. "But I say unto you," this is His word, "that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
And that is idle, which is not according to the fact, which is false, which hath in it unjust accusation; and some say, that which is vain also, for instance, provoking inordinate laughter, or what is filthy, and immodest, and coarse.
"For by thy words thou shall be justified, and by thy words thou shall be condemned."
Seest thou how far the tribunal is from invidiousness? how favorable the account required? For not upon what another hath said of thee, but from what thou hast thyself spoken, will the Judge give His sentence; which is of all things the very fairest: since surely with thee it rests, either to speak, or not to speak.
Wherefore not those that are slandered, but the slanderers, have need to be anxious and to tremble. For the former are not constrained to answer for themselves touching the evil things which are said of them, but the latter will, for the evil they have spoken; and over these impends the whole danger. So that the persons censured should be without anxiety, not being to give account of the evil that others have said; but the censurers have cause to be in anxiety, and to tremble, as being themselves to be dragged before the judgment-seat in that behalf. For this is indeed a diabolical snare, and a sin having in it no pleasure, but harm only. Yea, and such an one is laying up an evil treasure in his soul. And if he that hath an evil humor in him doth himself first reap the fruits of the malady, much more he that is treasuring up in himself what is more bitter than any bile, I mean, wickedness, will suffer the utmost evils, gathering unto himself a grievous disease. And it is evident from the things that He vomits out. For if they pain others so much, far more the soul that gives them birth.
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 42Since the beginning of many sins is human speech, and our mouth serves many evils, and it is very difficult to find a man who, for even one hour at least, keeps his mouth and his tongue from sin, he says: "I said: I will keep my ways, that I sin not with my tongue". "For by thy words", he says, "thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned". And again: "Amen I say to you, for every idle word you shall render an account in the day of judgment". Not only, he says, for that which you have spoken ill, but for what you have spoken idly, because an evil word is not idle, for it works an evil work. But an idle word is one that does neither anything good nor anything evil. If therefore in the day of judgment we shall render an account not only for evil words, but even for idle ones, who shall boast that he has a chaste heart? Or who is confident in saying: I am clean from sin?
HOMILIES ON PSALMS 39, HOMILY IThe words which here follow depend on those that went before; By thy words thou shat be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. There is no doubt but that every man shall be condemned for his evil words which he speaks; but none shall be justified for his good words, unless they proceed from his inmost heart, and from a entire purpose.
Catena Aurea by AquinasAgain, it is said that "impeachment awaits us for every vain and needless word." It follows that, from whatever the Lord keeps us, the same He admonishes us to bear patiently from another.
Of PatienceHere He strikes fear into our hearts, that we will give an account for even a careless word, that is, any lying, slanderous, indecent, or mocking word. Then He brings forward testimony from Scripture, lest He appear to be speaking His own words. "By thy words thou shalt be deemed righteous, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Job 15:6; cf. Ecclesiastes 10:12).
Commentary on MatthewI tell you... The Lord rebuked them for the gravity of their sin and their malice; here he warns them about the future judgment, which we hold by faith: "Be afraid of the sword, for anger brings the punishment of the sword; for know that there will be a judgment" (Jb 19:29); "He will make room for every act of mercy; everyone will receive in accordance with his deeds" (Sir 16:14). Again 2 Corinthians (5:10): "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body." Hence there will be an investigation, because each one will render an account of his deeds. Therefore, he also adds something about words: I say to you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter. This is said in Wisdom (1:9): "He that speaks unrighteous things will not escape notice" and that the sound of murmuring will not go unheard. Why does he say for every careless word? A word is called idle in two ways: in one way every evil word is called idle; because that is called idle which does not attain its purpose, as when a person hunts for a man and does not find him, the search is said to have been idle. But if a word is given to instruct, when it succeeds, it is not idle: "Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, that it may impart grace to those who hear" (Eph 4:29). And according to Chrysostom, it refers to the fact that they said, "by Beelzebub". That word was most pernicious and also idle. According to Jerome the former is a word that inflicts harm, and an idle one is that which does not afford any benefit. According to Gregory any word lightly spoken is called idle, unless it has a pious use or a pious need. But it is clear that they spoke a pernicious word. Why does he mention only idle? Because he wishes to argue from the lesser; because if one must render an account for an idle word, then more so for a pernicious one.
Commentary on MatthewFor by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
ἐκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου καταδικασθήσῃ.
ѿ слове́съ бо свои́хъ ѡ҆правди́шисѧ и҆ ѿ слове́съ свои́хъ ѡ҆сꙋ́дишисѧ.
"For by thy words thou shall be justified, and by thy words thou shall be condemned."
Seest thou how far the tribunal is from invidiousness? how favorable the account required? For not upon what another hath said of thee, but from what thou hast thyself spoken, will the Judge give His sentence; which is of all things the very fairest: since surely with thee it rests, either to speak, or not to speak.
Wherefore not those that are slandered, but the slanderers, have need to be anxious and to tremble. For the former are not constrained to answer for themselves touching the evil things which are said of them, but the latter will, for the evil they have spoken; and over these impends the whole danger. So that the persons censured should be without anxiety, not being to give account of the evil that others have said; but the censurers have cause to be in anxiety, and to tremble, as being themselves to be dragged before the judgment-seat in that behalf. For this is indeed a diabolical snare, and a sin having in it no pleasure, but harm only.
Let us flee therefore from this sin, and neither in words nor deeds do our neighbors wrong. For He said not, If thou slander, and summon a court of justice, but simply, If thou speak evil, though within thyself, even so shall thou suffer the utmost punishment. Though it be true which thou hast said, though thou have spoken upon conviction, even so shall vengeance come upon thee. For not according to what the other hath done, but according to what thou hast spoken, will God pass sentence; "for by thy words thou shall be condemned," saith He. Art thou not told that the Pharisee also spake the truth, and affirmed what was manifest to all men, without discovering what was hidden? Nevertheless, he paid the utmost penalty.
But if we ought not to accuse men of things which are acknowledged, much less of those which are disputed; nay, for the offender hath a judge. Do not now, I warn thee, seize upon the privilege of the Only Begotten. For Him is the throne of judgment reserved.
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 42But, however, since the conduct according to the divine rule is imperilled, not merely by deeds, but likewise by words, (for, just as it is written, "Behold the man and his deeds; " so, "Out of thy own mouth shalt thou be justified" ), we ought to remember that, even in words, also the inroad of idolatry must be foreguarded against, either from the defect of custom or of timidity.
On IdolatryIn like manner He inquires of Cain where his brother was, just as if He had not yet heard the blood of Abel crying from the ground, in order that he too might have the opportunity from the same power of the will of spontaneously denying, and to this degree aggravating, his crime; and that thus there might be supplied to us examples of confessing sins rather than of denying them: so that even then was initiated the evangelic doctrine, "By thy words thou shall be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Now, although Adam was by reason of his condition under law subject to death, yet was hope preserved to him by the Lord's saying, "Behold, Adam is become as one of us; " that is, in consequence of the future taking of the man into the divine nature.
Against Marcion Book IIIf we are called to account "for every careless word," how much more will those who have blasphemed against the Spirit of the only begotten Son receive a more bitter punishment on the day of judgment. And if, Christ says, someone merely utters a slander against someone else, that one will by no means escape judgment. If they will give an account concerning an idle word, how much more so concerning a work.
FRAGMENTS 88-89Then he gives the reason: for by your words you will be justified... In the courts of this world the innocent are sometimes punished and the wicked set free, because judgments are based on the statements of witnesses; but in God's court judgment is based on the person accusing himself, namely, on self-confession. Hence lest you suppose that you will be judged on the basis of what others say about you rather than what you say about yourself, he says, by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned: "I will condemn you out of your own mouth, you wicked servant" (Lk 19:22).
Commentary on Matthew
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐστι, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.
[Заⷱ҇ 47] И҆́же нѣ́сть со мно́ю, на мѧ̀ є҆́сть: и҆ и҆́же не собира́етъ со мно́ю, расточа́етъ.
This happens in the history of every Christian movement, beginning with the ministry of Christ Himself. At first it is welcome to all who have no special reason for opposing it: at this stage he who is not against it is for it. What men notice is its difference from those aspects of the world which they already dislike. But later on, as the real meaning of the Christian claim becomes apparent, its demand for total surrender, the sheer chasm between Nature and Supernature, men are increasingly "offended." Dislike, terror, and finally hatred succeed: none who will not give it what it asks (and it asks all) can endure it: all who are not with it are against it.
The Decline of Religion, from God in the DockAnd rightly Jesus adds, "He who is not with me is against me. And he who does not gather with me scatters." By this he meant that his work is one thing and the devil's work another. For the devil is the enemy of human well being. It is proper for the devil to scatter to utter destruction and for Christ to gather to salvation. Hence it is clear that one who is against the Lord cannot be with the Lord. Therefore, although the Lord seems to be repudiating those Pharisees who, unwilling to gather with Christ, have remained the Lord's enemies and adversaries, he speaks also of all heretics and schismatics. Drawing impious conclusions against the church or the Lord by way of unorthodox teachings or schismatic beliefs, they aim to tear asunder and ravage the incorrupt body of the church and the unity of peace and faith. They are oblivious to Solomon's words: "He who splits a log is endangered by it." Clearly those who cause separation in the church shall run the risk of eternal death.
TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 50.2.25Wherein He shows how far He is from having borrowed any power from the Devil; teaching us how great the danger to think amiss of Him, not to be with Whom, is the same as to be against Him.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas(Verses 30, 31.) Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I say to you: every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Let no one think that this is said about heretics and schismatics (although it can be understood in that way from what is said in excess), but it refers to the consequences and context of the discourse to the devil: because the works of the Savior cannot be compared to the works of Beelzebub. He desires to hold captive the souls of men; the Lord desires to set them free. He preaches idols; this one preaches the knowledge of the one God. He draws towards vices; this one calls back to virtues. How, then, can they have concord, whose actions are divided (or different)?
Commentary on MatthewBut let none think that this is said of heretics and schismatics; though we may apply it besides to such; but it is shown by the context to refer to the Devil; in that the works of the Saviour cannot be compared with the works of Beelzebub. He seeks to hold men's souls in captivity, the Lord to set them free; he preaches idols, the Lord the knowledge of the true God; he draws men to sin, the Lord calls them back to virtues. How then can these have agreement together, whose works are so opposite?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas"He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."
Behold also a fourth refutation. For what is my desire? saith He. To bring men to God, to teach virtue, to proclaim the kingdom. What, that of the devil, and the evil spirits? The contrary to these. How then should he that gathers not with me, nor is at all with me, be likely to co-operate with me? And why do I say co-operate? Nay, on the contrary, his desire is rather to scatter abroad my goods. He then who is so far from cooperating that he even scatters abroad, how should he have exhited such unanimity with me, as with me to cast out the devils?
Now it is a natural surmise that He said this not of the devil only, but Himself also of Himself, as being for His part against the devil, and scattering abroad his goods. And how, one may say, is he that is not with me against me? By this very fact, of his not gathering. But if this be true, much more he that is against him. For if he that doth not co-operate is an enemy, much more he that wages war.
But all these things He saith, to indicate His enmity against the devil, how great and unspeakable it is. For tell me, if thou must go to war with any one, he that is not willing to fight on thy side, by this very fact is he not against thee? And if elsewhere He saith, "He that is not against you is for you," it is not contrary to this. For here He signified one actually against them, but there He points to one who in part is on their side: "For they cast out devils," it is said "in Thy name."
But to me He seems here to be hinting also at the Jews, setting them on the devil's side. For they too were against Him, and were scattering what He gathered. As to the fact that He was hinting at them also, He declared it by speaking thus,
"Therefore I say unto you, that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men."
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 41Therefore He has spoiled his house, in that them whom He foresaw should be His own, He set free from the snares of the Devil, and has joined to the Church. Or in that He has divided the whole world among His Apostles and their successors to be converted. By this plain parable therefore He shows that He does not join in a deceitful working with the dæmons as they falsely accused Him, but by the might of His divinity He frees men from the dæmons.
Catena Aurea by AquinasHow, He says, could Beelzebub work with Me, when, on the contrary, he acts against Me? For I teach virtue, but he, evil. How then is he with Me? And I gather men unto salvation, but he scatters them. Christ also hints at the Pharisees, who, while He was teaching and bringing benefit to many, were dispersing the people so that they could not approach Him. He shows that in reality it is they who are demonic.
Commentary on MatthewHe who is not with me is against me. Here he presents the fourth reason, which gives vigor to all the other arguments. For someone could say: if you overcame by violence, the reasoning would hold; but you do not act by violence but by suffering. Therefore, that is not a sign that you have bound anyone. So he presents the fourth reason: Things that agree in some feature have a similar work; hence those who do similar works do not hinder one another. But I do works contrary to them. Therefore, he who is not with me is against me. First he presents the reason in general; secondly, he gives a specific example.
He says, therefore: he who is not with me... and the devil seems not to be with me, because he is contrary to my works: "What accord has Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor 6:15). That he is against him is obtained from Sirach (33:14): "Life is the opposite of death, and the sinner is the opposite of the godly"; so the opposite of man is the devil, the father of sin. But in what is he the opposite? He who does not gather with me scatters. For the Lord gathers: "He will gather the lambs in his arms, he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are young" (Is 40:11). But the devil scatters: "The wolf snatches and scatters the sheep" (Jn 10:12). But in Luke (9:50) it says: "He that is not against you is for you." But this seems contrary to what has been said. Chrysostom says that both statements are particular; hence they are not to be taken universally but in particular cases that whoever does not have my covenant is against me. Hence in Luke they are called disciples, but here devils. Or we can say that it is one way with God and another way with men. Clearly, God is the natural end toward which all things tend; therefore, whoever is not with God must be apart from him. Hence 1 Kings (18:21): "How long will you go limping with two different opinions. If the Lord is God, follow him." But it is not the same with man, because whoever is not for me is not on that account against me.
Commentary on Matthew