1 John 1

ON THE BEGINNING. — In the beginning was the Word (Jn. 1:1). What is “in the beginning”? For we also read in the ancient Books: In the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). And in the Epistle of him whose Gospel it is, and about whose “beginning” we are trying to say something, it is signified in the same sense; for he says: That which was from the beginning. (1 Jn. 1:1) The Epistle therefore and the Gospel have one and the same meaning. For it is one thing that is said in the old text, In the beginning God made heaven and earth; and another when he says, In the beginning was the Word; and, That which was from the beginning (1 Jn. 1:1). For to be in the beginning, and to be from the beginning, mean one and the same thing, in the case of that which from the beginning was what it was, and did not begin to be. For that which begins to be, was not from the beginning; and therefore it is subjected to a beginning, that is, to be the first among other things in order, because, being itself made at the beginning, it began to have others after itself, which were made after it. As we read that in the beginning God made heaven and earth: he did not say, In the beginning were heaven and earth; because when they did not yet exist, and God was disposing Himself to make the world, in the beginning, that is, among the other things which were to contribute to the construction of the world, God first made heaven and earth; because beginning is the starting point of one who undertakes something that is first in order. But that which is said, that in the beginning it was, that is, the Word, is meant to have existed before the beginning of the higher and lower creation; so that it should by no means be understood as having been made first among these things which have been created, as if it were made earlier, when God was disposing Himself to make creation. Therefore, if in the beginning it was, that is, it was before all things, it always was. And so too it was the Word. Where? With God, he says, lest it should be thought unworthy and in any way subject to a beginning, it which always was with God. For it is fitting that what was before all things with God should not be subjected to any beginning. Therefore he added: And the Word was God. Now he shows plainly that what was said above applies to the Word; for he says, The Word was God: and concerning God one must not think otherwise than that He should always be said to have been. For if He began to be, He is a creature; if He is a creature, He is not God. For whatever exists is either God or a creature; and therefore the name of God does not belong to a creature. But because He did not begin to be (He was, in fact), He is rightly said to be God. But He is said to have always been with God because He is God not from Himself, but from God. On this account His name is said to be the Word of God, as the faith of the same evangelist shows in his Revelation. For he says among other things: And His name is the Word of God (Rev. 19:13). For in order that He might not be signified as the One from whom are all things, but as the One through whom are all things, that is, not as the Father but as the Son, He is called the Word of God: so that, because God cannot be without His Word, this One who is called the Word of God may be believed to have always been with God; and because the Word is not outside Him whose Word it is, this Word which was with God may be understood as signified to be not from elsewhere, but from God; and because He is from God, He is not absurdly called God. Therefore he does not make two gods by saying that God was with God. For if there were two, they would be different in nature and not of one will. For if we men, though we are of one nature, are nevertheless of different wills, how much more, where the natures are different? and neither would God be said to be with God. For the God who was and is with God does not have from Himself that He is God; otherwise, neither would He be said to be God with God, nor would the Word of God be called God the Word; but because that which is from God does not signify any other kind of being than that which God Himself is, the Word of God is called God, so that, because He is said to be the Word of God, He should not be referred to another God. And the fact that He is called God happens for this reason, lest it should tend to the injury of God, if that which was from God were not at all called God. Therefore both the unity of God has been preserved, and the fitting honor has been rendered, since He who is God from God has not been received in His own glory, but in that of Him from whom He is God. For this reason the Gospel begins to speak of the Word before it speaks of God the Father; because questions arise not concerning God, but concerning the Word of God. No one doubts about God, but about Him who is God from God. For every tongue of those in heaven and on earth confesses one God; but it is disturbed in the mystery of the one God. It trembles when it hears the Word of God called God; for it is struck by bodily representations, because the word of a man cannot be called a man; whereas God is by nature simple, not composed of members, nor having an inside and an outside, nor a before and after, nor top and bottom; but, if it can be said, He is wholly and entirely the same in all respects, nowhere variable or unlike Himself; and His one brightness is measureless. For if fire has neither front nor back, nor inside and outside, how much more its Creator? Therefore, because everything that God is, is entirely one and simple, it does not conflict, when something that is from God is called God. Therefore, partly according to a human example, and partly not according to a human example, the Son of God who is the Word of God is God. For in the same way in which sons of men are men, the Son of God is God; but because sons of men are men by mixture, in this respect the Son of God is not God by that example; because from the simple God He is simply born. And just as our word is from us, by this example it is understood that the Word of God is from Him; but because our word is not what we ourselves are, in this respect the Word of God is not from God in the same manner; because the Word of God is a reality, not a sound that fades away. Nor, because we and God share common words, will there be one and the same explanation for us and for God in the actual effect of things. For we read, In the beginning God made heaven and earth. How did He make? Perhaps as we make our works with the hand? And further on it says: And God said, Let there be light; and there was light (Gen. 1:3). Whom do we suppose God spoke to? For He surely did not speak to man, but to Him who could make, who was also going to make man, as indeed He did. But how did He speak? Perhaps as we speak, with a bodily organ? Far from it. You see, then, that certain words are indeed shared between us and God, but they differ in their effect: for God acts in a different way than we do; and He is said to speak, but not in our manner. So also the Word of God is not a word of the kind we use, which, once it is spoken, no longer exists; that Word, however, remains, because it is such a Word that it hears, and speaks, and works. Moreover, it is not only the Word of God, but also the Power and the Wisdom of God, this is the Son of God. In respect to effect, He is called the Son of God; in respect to the speech by which God addresses us through Him, He is called the Word of God; in respect to the wisdom by which God teaches us His mystery through Him, He is called the Wisdom of God; and in respect to the operation by which God made and makes all things through Him, He is called the Power of God. These titles could fit no one except the Son of God. Precisely because He is God from God, He is said to possess all that is God’s. For by being born He obtained all things of God. It would not be fitting that the Word of God, and the Power and Wisdom of God, should be called degenerate: for this is what “God the Word, the Power, and the Wisdom” means. But Christ, because He is wholly God from the whole God, is God; and He is called the Wisdom of God, and the Power, and the Word: that is, He is God from God, and with God. Therefore it is said, This was in the beginning with God. In order to overcome the minds of unbelievers, Scripture burst forth under force, to show that Christ is God, since everywhere, for the sake of the unity of God, it intends Christ to be understood as God. Now, however, in plain words it has said that He is God, and that He has always been with God, laying open the mystery of God, lest God be thought utterly solitary. It has declared that God is not called one in order that He be considered solitary, but that, although there be two or three, yet from the one, the unity is not discriminatory, because whatever is from the one is referred back to that very one, since He is one, even though all things are said to be from God. Yet there is a difference between that which properly came forth from God and that which was created from outside at His command: that is, there is a difference between that which proceeded from His substance and that which, when it in no way existed, was created by His will. For that which proceeded from the substance of God was never subsequent to His substance; whereas that which was created began to be a substance when it was created: and therefore the Trinity alone has no beginning. Therefore, the disclosure of the mystery has diminished the merit of faith: for the more hidden that which is believed is, the greater is the reward of the believer, and the lesser the punishment of the doubter. But the disclosure of the mystery, while it has made the merits of believers lesser, has stirred up greater punishments for the unbelieving. For a clearer law makes one more guilty. The testimony of the Saviour Himself, by which He called God His own Father, would have sufficed. For which of the believers would doubt that the Son in substance is in no way different from the Father? But because the unreasonableness of heretics, by inventions of unbelief, began to assail the laws of faith by receiving the Son of God otherwise than He is proclaimed, it was added, for the sake of making this known, that He was before all things with God and is God, so as to reveal what the concept of a true Son mystically contained. By this, divine mercy appears to have provided for human weakness, by unveiling what had been reserved, as enclosed, for the merits of a stronger faith. Therefore it added, saying, All things were made through Him, so that if anyone from what had been said above still hesitated in any respect, since human understanding is narrow for grasping divine things, from this he might become capable, when he hears, All things were made through Him. Therefore he would by no means think Him to be a thing made, since he hears that all things were made through Him by God; for if He Himself were a thing made, it would not have said that all things were made through Him by God: nor indeed was He made through Himself. To reveal this more fully still, it added, And without Him, it says, was made nothing: in saying this, it excluded all controversy and earthly arguments. Although there are still those who refuse to believe, nevertheless, when it shows that nothing was made without Him, it has taught that in no way ought He to be suspected of being a creature. For how can He Himself be said to be a creature, when it is said that God made nothing without Him? If God made Him, Scripture lies. But far be it. For Scripture is faithful, and, in order to cut off error, it uses as much clarity as it can for the redemption of human beings unto salvation. Finally it subjoined, What was made in Him was life (Jn. 1:2–4): in Him, that is, in the Word, it signifies that what was made is life. As the Lord Himself also says: As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself (Jn. 5:26). It is not that the Word was without life, and afterwards life was either given or made in Him; rather, He wishes the Word itself to be understood as life. If one can say of God the Father that He Himself is one thing and has in Himself another; so also of His Son: for just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave the Son to have life in Himself. Human words are not fit to explain divine realities. Therefore what is said seems flawed, in that, while the Son of God is not a creature, that which is, is said to have been made in Him. And if it had said, “what was begotten in Him,” even so it would have seemed flawed. But to show His substantial generation, it pointed to the work made in it by such language as it could use, by which it exists, demonstrating that His generation has life in itself. For we indeed live, but we cannot give life to others, since that same life is not in our power. He, however, is said to have life in Himself precisely because He is able to give life and to create what He wills to exist and to live. For this He is said to be born, that He might be able to do all that the Father does; because He has life in Himself just as the Father has. For this is what it means that He made all things through Him and in Him: He so begot Him as to have in Himself life, through which He can make all things, not because He Himself is something other than life, but since His life can both live and create others to live, He is said to have life in Himself. For we indeed live, but we do not have life itself in us in such a way that we also give life to others. This reality the Apostle Paul also recalls among other things when he says: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature; for in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers; all things were created through him and in him” (Col. 1:15–16). Now the Gospels agree with this teaching of the two Apostles, John and Paul: for they say the same thing, that the Son of God was begotten before every creature, so that he might create spiritual powers, and the world, and the visible things that are in it. For what John said, that “what was made, in him is life,” Paul signified in the same way when he said that “in him all things in heaven and on earth were created.” And further on: “All things were created through him and in him.” “Through him” he created, because in substance he is the same God, that is, the Father in the Son; but “in him,” because he so begot the Son that he might have the power to make all things visible and invisible. This consisted in making life in him, so that he might both live, and bestow life on others for living, understanding, acting, and upon the other living beings according as he willed, as the image of God. For when he is called the image of God, this refers to both aspects: for by his express birth he possesses in himself the full likeness of the Father, and he can do whatever the Father can do, so that it is truly the Father who is seen in the Son, who is the image of the invisible God. Surely, because he called the Father invisible, he did not thereby make the Son visible, since the Son is by nature what the Father is. And since the heavenly creature is invisible, how much more its Creator? But he meant this of what is in heaven, not of what is on earth; for although the Son is invisible, yet he is seen there, that is, in the heavenly realms, by the Apostles or by others of that kind, of whom he said: “Father, I will that where I am, they also may be with me, and may see my glory” (Jn. 17:24). And elsewhere: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8); that is, the Father in the Son, God in the image; which is God in God. As the body is the image of a bodily thing, so God is the image of God: for the Father is the pattern, and the Son is the pattern taken from the pattern, which he communicates to the Holy Spirit; “For he shall take of mine,” he says (Jn. 16:14). And therefore in the Son God is seen as in his own image. For just as no one was found worthy to open the book and its seals except the Word of God (Rev. 5:4–8), so no one is worthy to see God the Father, neither by nature nor by merits, except his true Son. For there is nothing in between that could stand as an obstacle between the Father and the Son, as he himself bears witness when he says: “Neither has anyone seen the Father, except he who is from God; he has seen the Father” (Jn. 6:46). But if in the Son the Father is seen, why is it said that no one is worthy to see God, since he is seen in the Son, because the Son does not differ from the Father? He does not differ at all in substance, because he is the true Son; it differs, however, in the degree of origin [causalitatis], because all power is from the Father in the Son; and in substance the Son is not lesser, yet in authority the Father is greater, as the Lord himself testifies, saying: “If you loved me, you would indeed rejoice, because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28). Keeping this order, the Apostle Paul also says: “One God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things, and we through him” (1 Cor. 8:6): so that the first degree is “from whom are all things”; the second, “through whom are all things”; the third, “in whom are all things.” And because none of these is inferior, they are signified in the unity of God, as the Apostle says: “For from him and through him and in him are all things; to him be glory forever and ever” (Rom. 11:36).

Who is he that with hands doth handle the Word, except because "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us"? Now this Word which was made flesh that it might be handled, began to be flesh, of the Virgin Mary: but not then began the Word, for the Apostle saith, "That which was from the beginning." See whether his epistle does not bear witness to his gospel, where ye lately heard, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." Perchance, "Concerning the word of life" one may take as a sort of expression concerning Christ, not the very body of Christ which was handled with hands. See what follows: "And the Life was manifested." Christ therefore is "the word of life." And whereby manifested? For it was "from the beginning," only not manifested to men: but it was manifested to angels, who saw it and fed on it as their bread. But what saith the Scripture? "Man did eat angels' bread." Well then "the Life was manifested" in the flesh; because it exhibited in manifestation, that that which can be seen by the heart only, should be seen by the eyes also, that it might heal the hearts. For only by the heart is the Word seen: but the flesh is seen by the bodily eyes also. We had wherewith to see the flesh, but had not wherewith to see the Word: "the Word was made flesh," which we might see, that so that in us might be healed wherewith we might see the Word.

The disciples were with Jesus from the beginning, and so they could preach what they had seen and heard in his presence without any ambiguity.

That which we have seen and our hands have touched concerning the Word of life. For not only did they see the Lord with their physical eyes like the others, but they also perceived His divine power with their spiritual eyes. Especially those who saw Him transfigured on the mount, among whom was John himself. And when he says, "and our hands have touched concerning the Word of life," he refutes the madness of the Manichaeans, who deny that the Lord assumed true flesh; the apostles could not doubt the truth of this flesh, as they attested not only by seeing but also by touching; especially John himself who, accustomed to recline on His bosom at supper, touched His limbs more freely the closer he was. And even after His resurrection from the dead, their hands touched concerning the Word of life, as they understood without any doubt that He had taken on true flesh, though now incorruptible, hearing Him say: "Touch and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have" (Luke 24). It is well said, "and our hands have touched concerning the Word of life," because as they proved the truth of His resurrected flesh by touching with their hands, they more surely knew Him to be the Word of life, that is, the true God. Hence Thomas, who was specially ordered to touch Him, immediately upon touching the flesh, confessed Him to be God, saying, "My Lord and my God" (John 20).

The third certainty derives from an intellectual vision combined with bodily vision. This occurred in the minds of the apostles. What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have handled, the Word of Life. And we announce to you nothing else than what we have seen. Wherefore Thomas wanted to touch, and was told: "Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed." And the blessed Virgin Mary, the teacher of the Apostles and Evangelists, came in contact with this Word in her womb and on her lap.

And hence, although different points are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit, which concern the Lord's nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,-the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future. What marvel is it, then, that John brings forward these several things so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, "What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, that have we written." For thus he professes himself to be not only the eye-witness, but also the hearer; and besides that, the historian of all the wondrous facts concerning the Lord in their order.

"That which was from the beginning; which we have seen with our eyes; which we have heard."

Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle.

What therefore he says, "from the beginning," the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, "That which was from the beginning," he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, "In the beginning was the Word." But by the expression, "we have seen with our eyes," he signifies the Lord's presence in the flesh, "and our hands have handled," he says, "of the Word of life." He means not only His flesh, but the virtues of the Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the lowest places,-this sunbeam coming in the flesh became palpable to the disciples. It is accordingly related in traditions, that John, touching the outward body itself, sent his hand deep down into it, and that the solidity of the flesh offered no obstacle, but gave way to the hand of the disciple.

"And our hands have handled of the Word of life; "that is, He who came in the flesh became capable of being touched.

Many think that these words apply to the postresurrection appearances of Jesus and say that John is speaking of himself and the other disciples who first of all heard that the Lord had risen and afterwards saw him with their own eyes, to the point where they touched his feet, his hands and his side and felt the imprint of the nails. For even if Thomas was the only one who actually made physical contact with him, he was representative of the others, for the Savior told them all to touch him and see for themselves. But others take these words in a deeper sense, noting that they do not simply speak about touching but also about handling the "word of life which was from the beginning." Who can this refer to, other than to the one who said: "I am that I am"? Another interpretation is that we have now seen openly with our own eyes the one who was in the beginning, of whom the law and the prophets spoke, saying that he would come. He has indeed come and was seen in the flesh, and after much handling of the scriptural texts which bear witness to him, this is what we believe about the Word of life.

But the writer of the Revelation puts himself forward at once in the very beginning, for he says: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which He gave to him to show to His servants quickly; and He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bare record of the Word of God, and of his testimony, and of all things that he saw." And then he writes also an epistle, in which he says: "John to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace be unto you, and peace." The evangelist, on the other hand, has not prefixed his name even to the catholic epistle; but without any circumlocution, he has commenced at once with the mystery of the divine revelation itself in these terms: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes." And on the ground of such a revelation as that the Lord pronounced Peter blessed, when He said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

For the Gospel and the Epistle agree with each other, and both commence in the same way. For the one opens thus, "In the beginning was the Word;" while the other opens thus, "That which was from the beginning." The one says: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father." The other says the same things, with a slight alteration: "That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life: and the life was manifested." For these things are introduced by way of prelude, and in opposition, as he has shown in the subsequent parts, to those who deny that the Lord is come in the flesh. For which reason he has also been careful to add these words: "And that which we have seen we testify, and show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us: that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you."

About this epistle many have erred, supposing that it was written by the apostle John, yet if they had investigated the matter they would have seen that the thought, shape and authority of this letter are greatly inferior to the sound words of the Evangelist.

This is directed towards Jews and Greeks, who also slander our mystery as being more recent. It shows therefore that it is also ancient, because from the beginning, that is, at the same time as the conceived [ἐννοηθείσῃ] beginning. Or that it is not only by law, but also of the visible creation itself, that this is more inspiring: for the former had a beginning, but this was even before that beginning. Therefore, when the mysteries of the Greeks arose yesterday or the day before, what can anyone say? Those things that are praised in the self-indulgence of the mind have received a substance that barely withstands late, when filthiness was already prevalent among men, of which both discipline and remembrance as we decline from the better to our confusion of night. Therefore, demonstrating the magnificence of our mystery from its very antiquity, John added that this is also life, and life measured not by time-based space, but having persistence and always existing with the Father, saying things that are in accordance with what was said in his Gospel. For there it is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Jn. 1:1) However, this "was" does not designate a time-based subsistence, but is the essence of a lasting thing, and the principle, basis, and foundation of all that have come to be, without which not even these could exist. Each of them, as they are born, is said to be something determined, for example, to be an angel, to be the sun, to be the sky, and all other things. But the Son, being alone, comes to participate in all things for existence. Therefore, Paul says: "In Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 18:28) This to have heard according to the introductory doctrine, where one first receives, comes to live itself, not corporally, but perfectly knowing, after long exercise and consideration: which is also called contact with the Word of life, which said: "I am the life." (Jn. 14:6) However, this can also be said about the Word that was in the beginning: namely, that we have heard it would come through the law and the prophets. Therefore, we have seen and touched this one coming in the flesh: "for no one has ever seen God visibly." (Jn. 1:18, 1 Jn. 4:12) Nor did we hastily decide from the appearance, but after a long examination, that is, the mutual questioning of the law and prophetic testimonies concerning Him, we believed in the Word appearing in the flesh. But, what we have seen, that is, we have admired with our eyes. For Θεασθαι "to have looked upon" is to gaze with wonder and astonishment. Therefore, we have not perceived or touched what was there, for who can declare this generation? (Isa. 53:8) But what has happened: either through interactions of understanding, as has already been said, or also through the senses, as Thomas after the resurrection. (Jn. 20:26) For he was one and inseparable, the same both visible and invisible, both seized and unable to be comprehended, both touched and unable to be touched, speaking in a human manner and performing miracles as God. However, we say this because of the supreme union of the Word with the flesh. The series of words is this: 1:1-2c That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched, of the Word of Life; for the life was revealed, and we have seen it, and bear witness: And I declare to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us: therefore, what we have seen, we also declare to you. Here therefore the discourse responds where it is said. What therefore we have seen. However, the discourse was not reported as we have: first indeed because of the use of abbreviated words, then also despising the trivialities of the Greeks, and showing that our salvation is not in words, but in works, and making us more attentive in these matters, lest we should immediately find what is proposed there and become negligent. Furthermore, dealing with divine matters, he wished to conceal in obscurity those things which were more uplifting than could be accepted by profane ears, nor should they be safely spread to them. For it is not the act of a sensible man, nor of a discerning consideration, to throw what is holy to dogs, and to cast pearls before swine. (Matt. 7:6)

Concerning this more gracious touch John speaks: "...and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life."

How can you believe that what always existed took a beginning later on?

Given that this same John also said, "No one has ever seen God," how can he assure us that the living Word of life has been seen and touched? It is clear that it was in his incarnate and human form that he was visible and touchable. What was not true of him by nature became true of him in that way, for he is one and the same indivisible Word, both visible and invisible, and without diminishing in either respect he became touchable in both his divine-human nature. For he worked his miracles in his divinity and suffered for us in his humanity.

Read the testimony of John: "That which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked upon with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." False, of course, and deceptive must have been that testimony, if the witness of our eyes, and ears, and hands be by nature a lie.

But the very same apostles testify that they had both seen and "handled" Christ. Now, if Christ is Himself both the Father and the Son, how can He be both the Visible and the Invisible? In order, however, to reconcile this diversity between the Visible and the Invisible, will not some one on the other side argue that the two statements are quite correct: that He was visible indeed in the flesh, but was invisible before His appearance in the flesh; so that He who as the Father was invisible before the flesh, is the same as the Son who was visible in the flesh? If, however, He is the same who was invisible before the incarnation, how comes it that He was actually seen in ancient times before (coming in) the flesh? And by parity of reasoning, if He is the same who was visible after (coming in) the flesh, how happens it that He is now declared to be invisible by the apostles? How, I repeat, can all this be, unless it be that He is one, who anciently was visible only in mystery and enigma, and became more clearly visible by His incarnation, even the Word who was also made flesh; whilst He is another whom no man has seen at any time, being none else than the Father, even Him to whom the Word belongs? Let us, in short, examine who it is whom the apostles saw.

"That," says John, "which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." Now the Word of life became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was the "Word in the beginning with God" the Father, and not the Father with the Word.

And this species of the divine patience indeed being, as it were, at a distance, may perhaps be esteemed as among "things too high for us; " but what is that which, in a certain way, has been grasped by hand among men openly on the earth? God suffers Himself to be conceived in a mother's womb, and awaits the time for birth; and, when born, bears the delay of growing up; and, when grown up, is not eager to be recognised, but is furthermore contumelious to Himself, and is baptized by His own servant; and repels with words alone the assaults of the tempter; while from being" Lord" He becomes" Master," teaching man to escape death, having been trained to the exercise of the absolute forbearance of offended patience.

To God their beauty, to God their youth (is dedicated). With Him they live; with Him they converse; Him they "handle" by day and by night; to the Lord they assign their prayers as dowries; from Him, as oft as they desire it, they receive His approbation as dotal gifts.

Did not certain of the disciples turn back from the Lord Himself, When they were offended? Yet the rest did not therefore think that they must turn away from following Him, but because they knew that He was the Word of Life, and was come from God, they continued in His company to the very last, after He had gently inquired of them whether they also would go away.

He says this both to the Jews and to the pagans, who disparage the mystery of our salvation as something recent. The Apostle shows that it is also ancient, for it is from the beginning and contemporaneous with the beginning conceived in the mind, or that it is more ancient not only than the law, but even than the visible creation itself, for creation had a beginning, but it existed even before the very beginning. For what can anyone say about the pagan mysteries, which appeared yesterday and the day before? They, accompanied by debauchery, arose late, at a time when impurity already dwelt in people, which that debauchery serves as a crowning point and monument, and through which we descended from a good state into the darkest night. Presenting the greatness of our mystery in its comparative antiquity, the Apostle adds that it is also Life — Life not measured by a span of time, but self-existent, as always being with the Father, as it is also said in the Gospel: "and the Word was with God" (John 1:1). The word "was" signifies not a temporal existence, but the self-existent being of a known subject, the origin and foundation of everything that received being, such that without it the latter could not have come into being. Although it is said of every created being that it is — for example, there is an angel, there is a heaven, there is a sun, and so forth — yet properly and perfectly only the Son alone is, through Whose participation all things come into being. Therefore Paul also says: "in Him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28). He who previously heard about this from the initial teaching passes on to the seeing of Him, not bodily but intellectually, and not with bodily eyes but with mental ones. "Handled" is said of the Word of Life, Who said: "I am the life" (John 14:6). Perhaps it is said this way also about the Word existing in the beginning, because we heard from the law and the prophets that It would come. When It came openly with flesh, we saw It and handled It. For God, as He is in Himself, "no one has ever seen" (John 1:18). And we attached ourselves to the Word that appeared not carelessly, but, as already said, after handling, that is, after investigation in the law and the prophets we believed in the Word that appeared in the flesh. We saw and handled not what It "was" (for "who shall declare His generation?" (Isaiah 53:8)), but what It "became," and we handled It both by mental touch and at the same time by sensory touch, as, for example, Thomas did after the resurrection. For He was One and undivided, One and the Same — visible and invisible, containable and uncontainable, untouchable and tangible, speaking as a man and working miracles as God. So we speak of the Word on account of the most intimate union of God with the flesh.

"Beheld" means the same as saw with one's own eyes and marveled; for θεάσασθαι derives from θαυμάζειν and means: to look with wonder. "Handled" means the same as examined. The connection of the discourse is as follows: that which was from the beginning, which we heard, and saw, and beheld with our eyes, and which our hands handled concerning the Word of life, which was manifested, and which we saw, and bear witness to, and declare unto you, that is, the eternal life which is with the Father and was manifested to us; so then, what we saw, that we also declare unto you,

The Apostle did not proclaim in the way we do, first, for the sake of brevity of speech, then out of disregard for Hellenic empty talk, further, to show that our salvation is not in words but in deeds, and finally, to make us more attentive, so that we, finding what is set forth easy and as if self-evident, would not become distracted. Beyond this, the Theologian wished by obscurity to conceal that which is above impure hearing and with which it is unsafe to fill it; "for to give what is holy to dogs and to cast pearls before swine" (Matt. 7:6) is contrary to sound reason.

John says this with reference to the close union of the Word with the flesh. Or perhaps he says this with reference to the resurrection, considering the way in which it was made known to the apostles by the action of Thomas. That proved that Christ rose again with the same flesh in which he had been crucified.

"The Life was manifested." Christ therefore is "the word of life." And whereby manifested? For it was "from the beginning," only not manifested to men: but it was manifested to angels, who saw it and fed on it as their bread. But what saith the Scripture? "Man did eat angels' bread." Well then "the Life was manifested" in the flesh; because it exhibited in manifestation, that that which can be seen by the heart only, should be seen by the eyes also, that it might heal the hearts. For only by the heart is the Word seen: but the flesh is seen by the bodily eyes also. We had wherewith to see the flesh, but had not wherewith to see the Word: "the Word was made flesh," which we might see, that so that in us might be healed wherewith we might see the Word.

"We have seen and are witnesses." Perhaps some of the brethren who are not acquainted with the Greek do not know what the word "witnesses" is in Greek: and yet it is a term much used by all, and had in religious reverence; for what in our tongue we call "witnesses," in Greek are "martyrs." Now where is the man that has not heard of martyrs, or where the Christian in whose mouth the name of martyrs dwelleth not every day? For it was for bearing witness of that which they had seen, and bearing witness of that which they had heard from them who had seen, that, while their testimony itself displeased the men against whom it was delivered, the martyrs suffered all that they did suffer. The martyrs are God's witnesses.

And the life was manifested, etc. He refers to that life which speaks in the Gospel: "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11); which was manifested through divine miracles declared in the flesh, and the disciples present saw what they would testify to posterity with undoubted truth, when performing signs, as John himself wrote, He manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him (John 2). And because the apostle John testifies that he saw the life manifested with his co-apostles, the heretic Apelles should be confounded with his followers, who contends that the same life, that is, the Lord Savior, appeared to the world not as God in truth, but as a man in fantasy.

And we proclaim to you eternal life, etc. It was with the Father in eternal divinity, and appeared in time to the world in humanity.

"The life was manifested." For in the Gospel he thus speaks: "And what was made, in Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

"And we show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto you."

He signifies by the appellation of Father, that the Son also existed always, without beginning.

Note that there is an important difference between seeing and contemplating. For what is seen can be told to others, which is not always possible with things which are contemplated. For there are many things which may be perfectly well contemplated but which cannot be expressed in words because they are known by some ineffable understanding. In this verse it should be noticed that those who are bearing witness are not validating the life of Jesus but improving themselves by their confession.

"And we declare to you eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us." "And we declare to you the life." Therefore, what we have seen, we also declare to you, John says. What is that? That he who is eternal life has been revealed to us, and we have become witnesses of him both before his crucifixion and after his resurrection. For he was indeed nailed to the cross in the flesh, and in that same flesh he rose again.

For its salvation is endangered, not by its being ignorant of itself, but of the word of God. "The life," says He, "was manifested," not the soul.

What did they proclaim, but that eternal life has appeared to us and that we have become witnesses of it? What you gain from this proclamation is the right to share this experience with us. For the one who is in fellowship with us has fellowship with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ, and since you share in the same fellowship, we shall all have joy together, in that we have been united to God.

Those saw the Lord Himself present in the flesh, and heard words from the mouth of the Lord, and told them to us. Consequently we also have heard, but have not seen. Are we then less happy than those who saw and heard? And how does he add, "That ye also may have fellowship with us"? Those saw, we have not seen, and yet we are fellows; because we hold the faith in common. For there was one who did not believe even upon seeing, and would needs handle, and so believe, and said, "I will not believe except I thrust my fingers into the place of the nails, and touch His scars." And He did give Himself for a time to be handled by the hands of men, who always giveth Himself to be seen by the sight of the angels; and that disciple did handle, and exclaimed, "My Lord, and my God!" Because he touched the Man, he confessed the God. And the Lord, to console us who, now that He sitteth in heaven, cannot touch Him with the hand, but only reach Him with faith, said to him, "Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believe." We are here described, we designated. Then let the blessedness take place in us, of which the Lord predicted that it should take place; let us firmly hold that which we see not; because those tell us who have seen.

What we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you, etc. Blessed John clearly shows that anyone who desires to have fellowship with God must first be united with the fellowship of the Church, learn that faith, and be imbued with its sacraments, which the disciples received from the Truth dwelling in the flesh itself. Nor in any way are those less associated with God who believe through the doctrine of the apostles, than those who believed through the Lord preaching in the world himself, except insofar as the quality of faith or works distinguishes them. Hence also concerning this fellowship of the saints, which they have in the Father and the Son, the Son himself, praying to the Father, says: Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given to me, that they may be one as we are one (John XVII). And a little later: I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us (John XVII).

Our fellowship is in the unity of our faith here on earth and in the eternal dwelling place of God in heaven.

"What we have seen and heard, we also declare to you, so that you may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship is with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ." And what profit do we bring you from this announcement? Namely, that just as we have taken you as partners [κοινωνοὺς] through the words of what we have seen and heard, so you may also be partners of the Father and of his Son Jesus Christ.

Wherefore he also exhorts us to believe in the name of His (the Father's, ) Son Jesus Christ, that "our fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ." Paul, in like manner, everywhere speaks of "God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

What exactly? That the Life, being eternal, appeared to us, and we were eyewitnesses of it both before the cross and after the resurrection. For one and the same was nailed in the flesh to the cross and rose again in the same flesh. And what benefit is it to you, he says, that we proclaim this to you? This: that just as through the word we receive you as partakers of what we have seen and heard, so we have you as partakers of both the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and having received this, we who have cleaved to God can be filled with joy.

"That ye also," saith he, "may have fellowship with us." And what great matter is it to have fellowship with men? Do not despise it; see what he adds: "and our fellowship may be with God the Father, and Jesus Christ His Son. And these things," saith he, "we write unto you, that your joy may be full." Full joy he means in that fellowship, in that charity, in that unity.

And we write these things to you so that your joy may be complete. The joy of teachers is made complete when, through preaching, they lead many to the fellowship of the holy Church, and to the fellowship of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, through whom the Church is strengthened and grows. Hence also Paul says to those whom he instructed in the faith: Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind (Philippians II).

The fullness of joy comes when we are in fellowship with the apostles, as well as of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

"And we write this to you, so that your joy may be complete." However, having seized this, let us be complete with joy as if united with God. Or because while you are participants with us, we have our joy to the fullest; which the joyful sower will establish for the reapers, rejoicing in what they may enjoy from their labors.

For when we are in communion with you, we experience the greatest pleasure, similar to that which a rejoicing sower provides to the reapers at the distribution of wages, when they too rejoice that others enjoy their labors.

What is this message? It is that eternal life has appeared to us. For the Father so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, and this is what we proclaim to you—that the Word of God who has come into the world and become a man is both God and light.

Truly that Light is God Himself, for "God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all;" but He is the Light of purified minds, not of these bodily eyes. And the mind shall then be, what meanwhile it is not, able to see that light. But this the bodily eye neither now is, nor shall then be, able to see. For everything which can be seen by the bodily eye must be in some place, nor can be everywhere in its totality, but with a smaller part of itself occupies a smaller space, and with a larger part a larger space. It is not so with God, who is invisible and incorruptible, "who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen nor can see."

"God is light, and there is no darkness in Him at all." Who would dare to say that there is darkness in God? Or what is the light? Or what darkness? Lest haply he speaks of such things as pertain to these eyes of ours. "God is light." Saith some man, "The sun also is light, and the moon also is light, and a candle is light." It ought to be something far greater than these, far more excellent, and far more surpassing. How much God is distant from the creature, how much the Maker from the making, how much Wisdom from that which is made by Wisdom, far beyond all things must this light needs be. And haply we shall be near to it, if we get to know what this light is, and apply ourselves unto it, that by it we may be enlightened; because in ourselves we are darkness, and only when enlightened by it can we become light, and not be put to confusion by it, being put to confusion by ourselves. Who is he that is put to confusion by himself? He that knows himself to be a sinner. Who is he that by it is not put to confusion? He who by it is enlightened. What is it to be enlightened by it? He that now sees himself to be darkened by sins, and desires to be enlightened by it, draws near to it: whence the Psalm saith, "Draw near unto Him, and be ye enlightened; and your faces shall not be ashamed." But thou shalt not be shamed by it, if, when it shall show thee to thyself that thou art foul, thine own foulness shall displease thee, that thou mayest perceive its beauty. This it is that He would teach.

And this is the message which we have heard from him, etc. By this statement, blessed John both shows the excellence of divine purity, which we are also commanded to imitate, saying: Be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy (Leviticus XIX); and he refutes the insane doctrine of the Manicheans, who said that the nature of God was conquered and corrupted by the prince of darkness in war.

[Arguing against Pantheism — that if God is identical with the universe, evil becomes part of God and moral judgment becomes impossible. Christianity insists God is separate from creation and that some things in the world are genuinely contrary to His will.]

If you do not take the distinction between good and bad very seriously, then it is easy to say that anything you find in this world is a part of God. But, of course, if you think some things really bad, and God really good, then you cannot talk like that. You must believe that God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will. Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, 'If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realise that this also is God.' The Christian replies, 'Don't talk damned nonsense.'* For Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world—that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God 'made up out of His head' as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again.

* One listener complained of the word damned as frivolous swearing. But I mean exactly what I say—nonsense that is damned is under God's curse, and will (apart from God's grace) lead those who believe it to eternal death.

"For God," he says, "is light."

He does not express the divine essence, but wishing to declare the majesty of God, he has applied to the Divinity what is best and most excellent in the view of men. Thus also Paul, when he speaks of "light inaccessible." [1 Timothy 6:16] But John himself also in this same Epistle says, "God is love:" [1 John 4:16] pointing out the excellences of God, that He is kind and merciful; and because He is light, makes men righteous, according to the advancement of the soul, through charity. God, then, who is ineffable in respect of His substance, is light.

"And in Him is no darkness at all," - that is, no passion, no keeping up of evil respecting any one, [He] destroys no one, but gives salvation to all. Light moreover signifies, either the precepts of the Law, or faith, or doctrine. Darkness is the opposite of these things. Not as if there were another way; since there is only one way according to the divine precepts. For the work of God is unity. Duality and all else that exists, except unity, arises from perversity of life.

John wrote that the proclamation, by which it was stated that God is light, with no shadows in him at all, was made by the Savior himself to his disciples. Now he is sharing it with his readers so that they too might believe the same thing about God.

When John says that there is no darkness in the light of God, he proves that all the lights of others are stained by some blemish.

And this is the promise that we have heard from Him; and we announce to you that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. Having said this, John resumes the conversation, explaining what the announcement he heard is: and he says that this is that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. And where did John hear it? From Christ Himself, who said: "I am the light of the world (Jn. 8:12);" and: "I came as light into the world." (Jn. 13:46) Light therefore is, and darkness is not in it. Spiritual light, however, stirs the eyes of our soul to its reception, turning away from all these material things, and urging solely towards its desire with loving affection. However, darkness signifies either ignorance or sin. In God, indeed, neither ignorance nor sin can be found. For these refer to material things and the structure that is found among us. If it has been said elsewhere: "Darkness has been placed as a hiding place for Him," (Ps. 17:12) it was nonetheless said "has been placed;" not, however, "he is darkness," as it was said, "God is light." For it is one thing that is placed by Him who places. Here, then, darkness signifies ignorance, which consists in the fact that God cannot be comprehended: and this is ours, not God's. Therefore, something is placed among those things that do not belong to anyone, nor for his own sake, but for someone else that concerns him. That he also calls darkness sin is evident from what has been said by the same in the Gospel. For what does John say there? "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it (Jn. 1:5);" by calling darkness our substance, which is subject to sins, in which he was made or by which he was assumed, he did not contract impurities from it: for he did no sin, etc.

God is light, according to John. The only-begotten Son therefore is the brightness of that light, proceeding from God without separation, as brightness from light, and lightening the whole creation.

Let no one deceive you. God is light, and to those who have entered into union with him, he imparts of his own brightness to the extent that they have been purified.

Draw whatever (veil of) darkness you please over your deeds, "God is light." But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery.

Nay, but this whole world is the one house of all; in which world it is more the heathen, who is found in darkness, whom the grace of God enlightens, than the Christian, who is already in God's light. Finally, it is one "straying" which is ascribed to the ewe and the drachma: (and this is an evidence in my favour); for if the parables had been composed with a view to a Christian sinner, after the loss of his faith, a second loss and restoration of them would have been noted.

The Apostle again returns to his former discourse and explains what Gospel he heard, namely the following: God is light, and there is no darkness in Him. From whom did he hear this? From Christ Himself, Who said: "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12), and again: "I have come as a light into the world" (John 12:46). So then, He is light, and there is no darkness in Him, but a spiritual light that draws the eyes of the soul to behold Him, turning them away from everything material and arousing desire for Him alone with the most fervent love. By "darkness" he means either ignorance or sin; for in God there is neither ignorance nor sin, because ignorance and sin have their place in matter and in our disposition. And if it is said somewhere: "He made darkness His covering" (Ps. 18:12), it says that He "made" darkness, not that He "is" darkness, as it says He "is" light. For that which sets in place and that which is set in place are not the same thing. So here "darkness" signifies our ignorance about God, on account of His incomprehensibility, and this ignorance is ours, not God's. For sometimes something is attributed to one in whom it does not exist, not for his own sake, but for the sake of someone who has a relation to him. And that the Apostle calls sin darkness is evident from his Gospel saying: "and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it" (John 1:5), where by darkness he means our sinful nature, which by its inclination toward falling yields to our envious adversary the devil, who drags us into sin. So then, the Light, having united Himself with our nature, which is so easily seized, became completely unseizable by the tempter. For "He committed no sin" (Isa. 53:9). So then, when we receive you as sharers in communion with God, Who is light, and in this light, as has been shown, there can be no darkness, then we too, as sharers of the light, must not admit darkness into ourselves, lest we suffer punishment for falsehood and together with falsehood be cut off from communion with the light. Therefore, holding to communion with one another, that is, with us and with the light, we must make ourselves unconquerable by sin. But how will this be, when we have already been mired in many sins before? For no one who loves truth and strives to be truthful will dare to say that he is without sin. So then, if anyone is seized by this fear, let him not despair: for whoever has entered into communion with His Son Jesus Christ has been cleansed by His Blood, shed for us. Note that on account of the most intimate union he calls Him the Son of the Father even according to what was assumed by Him from us; for blood, without doubt, belongs to our nature, not to God. And Nestorius is clearly insane and impious when he separates the flesh from the Son and does not allow His Mother to be called the Theotokos. One must also know that the entire thought of this passage overthrows the blasphemy of the Jews as well, who said: "We know that this Man is a sinner" (John 9:24). So then, he says, if we do the works of light, then we are in communion with Him, but if we do not do them, then we are strangers to Him. And how is He not the true light and completely sinless, when He "was numbered with the transgressors" for your sake (Isa. 53:12)? So then, if we, who once cried out: "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25), shamelessly say that we have not sinned, then we "deceive ourselves," as though crucifying Christ were no sin. The Apostle did not say: we lie, but: we deceive ourselves, because deception is outside of truth. But if we acknowledge our sin and confess it, He will forgive us.

John says that if we sin we have no fellowship with God, but if we do the works of light, then we have fellowship with one another.

If "God be light, and in Him is no darkness at all, and we must have fellowship with Him," then from us also must the darkness be driven away, that there may be light created in us, for darkness cannot have fellowship with light. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie." Thou sayest thou hast fellowship with God, and thou walkest in darkness; "and God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all:" then how should there be fellowship between light and darkness? At this point therefore a man may say to himself, What shall I do? how shall I be light? I live in sins and iniquities. There steals upon him, as it were, a desperation and sadness. There is no salvation save in the fellowship of God. "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." But sins are darkness, as the Apostle saith of the devil and his angels, that they are "rulers of this darkness." He would not call them of darkness, save as rulers of sins, having lordship over the wicked.

If we say that we have fellowship with Him, etc. He names darkness, sins, heresies, and hatreds. Therefore, the mere confession of faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, to which the testimony of good works is lacking. But neither does the rectitude of works without the simplicity of faith and love profit. For whoever is besieged by darkness in any part cannot have fellowship with Him in whom no iniquities occur. For what fellowship has light with darkness? (II Cor. VI).

And how can they say that they alone know God when they do the same things as those who are loathed by the heathen because they do not do what the laws direct, that is, as the wicked and incontinent and covetous and adulterous? They ought to live good lives even while they are dwelling in an alien country, to manifest their truly kingly nature. But because they have chosen to disobey the laws, they make themselves objects of hatred both to human lawgivers and to the law of God. At any rate in Numbers the man who thrust his spear into the fornicator is evidently blessed by God. And John says in his epistle: "If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth; but if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with him, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from sin." How then are they who do these things superior to worldly men when they behave like the very worst men of this world? Those whose actions are alike are in my opinion of like nature.

The truth is light, so if we do not walk according to it, we are in the dark.

...the apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him. As also David says, prophesying His birth from a virgin, and the resurrection from the dead, "Truth has sprung out of the earth." The apostles, likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood; for a lie has no fellowship with the truth, just as darkness has none with light, but the presence of the one shuts out that of the other. Our Lord, therefore, being the truth, did not speak lies...

If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. Since therefore we are called to have fellowship with God, who is light; furthermore, in such light the darkness cannot stand, as has been demonstrated, nor can we, who are partakers of the light, thereafter receive darkness in ourselves, lest we suffer the penalties of falsehood and be separated from the fellowship of light along with falsehood. Therefore, having mutual fellowship (namely, both among ourselves and with the light), we make ourselves difficult to sin. But how will this happen to us, John says, who have previously offended in many sins? For no one who is truthful and accustomed to speaking the truth will dare to say that he is without sin. Therefore, if anyone is surrounded and occupied by this fear, let him be of good spirit, he says, for he has been purified by the blood of His Son Jesus Christ shed for us, having contracted a fellowship with Him. Therefore, observe that because of the supreme union, He also calls the Son of the Father the nature assumed from us, whose blood is undoubtedly of the assumed nature and not of God. How then, is Nestorius mad and impious, who separating the flesh of the Son does not allow His mother to be called Θεοτόκον, that is, the Mother of God? "But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light," (1 Jn. 1:7) it should be understood that the understanding of the whole sentence is the overturning of the blasphemy of the Jews (see Rev. 2:9): for they indeed said of Christ: "We know that He is a sinner." (Jn. 9:34) John says therefore: If we do the works of light, we are partakers of him; but if we do not, we are strangers to him. How then, is he not truthful, he asks, and has committed no sin, although "he was rejected by us among sinners?" (Is. 53:12) If therefore we who said, "His blood be upon us and upon our children," (Matt. 27:24) boldly say that we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves (1 Jn. 1:8) or are deceived, as if it were not a sin to crucify Christ.

See to it, brothers, that while we seem to be in God and think that we have communion with him, we should not be found excluded and separated from him, since we do not now see his light.

"If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another." Let us walk in the light, as He is in the light, that we may be able to have fellowship with Him. And what are we to do about our sins? Hear what follows, "And the blood of Jesus Christ His Son shall purge us from all sin." Great assurance hath God given! Well may we celebrate the Passover, wherein was shed the blood of the Lord, by which we are cleansed "from all sin!" Let us be assured: the "handwriting which was against us," the bond of our slavery, the devil held, but by the blood of Christ it is blotted out. "The blood," saith he, "of His Son shall purge us from all sin." What meaneth, "from all sin"? Mark: even now, in the name of Christ whom these here have now confessed, who are called infants, have all their sins been cleansed. They came in old, they went out new. How, came in old, went out new? Old men they came in, infants they went out. For the old life is old age with all its dotage, but the new life is the infancy of regeneration.

But if we walk in the light, etc. The distinction of words is to be noted, because he says that God is in the light, but that we ought to walk in the light. For the righteous walk in the light, as they advance to better things by serving with works of virtue. But divine holiness, to which it is said: "But you are the same" (Ps. CI), is rightly remembered to be in the light, because being full goodness always existing, it does not find where it may advance. To the faithful it is said: "Walk as children of light" (Eph. V). For the fruit of light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth. But God always exists as good, just, and true without any progress. If, therefore, we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another. Because it evidently gives an indication that we are advancing by walking in the path of light, if we rejoice in the bond of fraternal fellowship, with which we likewise may reach the true light. But even if we are found to do the works of light, if we seem to hold inviolable the rights of mutual love, we should not think that by our progress or industry we are able to be completely cleansed from sins. For it follows:

And the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin. For indeed, the sacrament of the Lord's passion both alleviated all past sins for us in baptism and forgives whatever we commit after baptism due to daily frailty, by the grace of the same our Redeemer. Especially when among the works of light that we perform, we humbly confess our errors to Him daily, when we receive the sacraments of His blood, when we pray for our debts to be forgiven as we forgive our debtors, when, mindful of His passion, we willingly endure each adverse thing. Remarkably, when speaking of the Lord, it is said: "And the blood of Jesus His Son"; indeed, the Son of God in the nature of divinity could not have blood; but since the same Son of God also became the Son of man, appropriately He calls the blood of the Son of God due to the unity of His person, to show that He truly assumed a body, truly shed His blood for us; and to refute the heretics who either deny that the true flesh was assumed by the Son of God or that the Lord Jesus truly suffered in the flesh which He assumed. Similar to this is what Paul says: "The Holy Spirit has made you overseers to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20).

We have a strange illusion that mere time cancels sin. I have heard others, and I have heard myself, recounting cruelties and falsehoods committed in boyhood as if they were no concern of the present speaker's, and even with laughter. But mere time does nothing either to the fact or to the guilt of a sin. The guilt is washed out not by time but by repentance and the blood of Christ: if we have repented these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble.

"And the blood of Jesus Christ His Son," he says, "cleanses us." For the doctrine of the Lord, which is very powerful, is called His blood.

The blood of animal sacrifices was enough to cleanse people from whatever particular sin they had committed, but the blood of Christ is sufficient to cleanse those who walk in love from all sin.

From the Epistle also of John they forthwith cull (a proof). It is said: "The blood of His Son purifieth us utterly from every sin." Always then, and in every form, we will sin, if always and from every sin He utterly purifies us; or else, if not always, not again after believing; and if not from sin, not again from fornication.

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.

This is how John describes the Jews who dared to say: "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children," as if they could crucify Christ without being sinners. If we say such things, we deceive ourselves.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Consequently, if thou hast confessed thyself a sinner, the truth is in thee: for the Truth itself is light. Thy life hath not yet shone in perfect brightness, because there are sins in thee; but yet thou hast already begun to be enlightened, because there is in thee the confession of sins.

If we say that we have no sin, etc. This sentence avails against the heresy of Pelagius, which claimed that all infants are born without sin and that the elect in this life can progress to such an extent as to be without sin. For even when the prophet says: "Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother bore me" (Psalm 50), we cannot be without guilt in the world, having come into the world with guilt. But the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanses us from all sin so that our debts do not hold us under the power of our enemy, because the Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, freely repaid on our behalf what He did not owe. For He who undeservedly paid the debt of death in the flesh for us, freed us from the debt of the death of the soul.

If we are beginners in the Christian life we have nothing to make the fatal flaw clear to ourselves. Does the person with a smelly breath know it smells? Or does the Club bore know he is a bore? Is there a single man or woman who believes himself or herself to be a bore or temperamentally jealous? Yet the world is pretty well sprinkled with bores and jealous people. If we are like that, everyone else will know it before we do. You ask why your friends have not told you about it. But what if they have? They may have tried again and again; but on every occasion, we thought they were being queer, that they were in a bad temper, or simply mistaken. They have tried again and again, and have probably now given it up.

What should be done about it? What is the good of my talking about the fatal flaw if one does not know about it? I think the first step is to get down to the flaws which one does know. I am speaking to Christians. Many of you, no doubt, are very far ahead of me in the Christian way. It is not for me to decide whether you should confess your sins to a priest or not (our Prayer Book leaves that free to all and demands it of none) but if you do not, you should at least make a list on a piece of paper, and make a serious act of penance about each one of them. There is something about the mere words, you know, provided you avoid two dangers, either of sensational exaggeration — trying to work things up and make melodramatic sins out of small matters — or the opposite danger of slurring things over. It is essential to use the plain, simple, old-fashioned words that you would use about anyone else. I mean words like theft, or fornication, or hatred, instead of 'I did not mean to be dishonest,' or 'I was only a boy then,' or 'I lost my temper.' I think that this steady facing of what one does know and bringing it before God, without excuses, and seriously asking for Forgiveness and Grace, and resolving as far as in one lies to do better, is the only way in which we can ever begin to know the fatal thing which is always there, and preventing us from becoming perfectly just to our wife or husband, or being a better employer or employee.

It is no good passing this over with some vague, general admission such as "Of course, I know I have my faults." It is important to realize that there is some really fatal flaw in you: something which gives the others just that same feeling of despair which their flaws give you. And it is almost certainly something you don't know about—like what the advertisements call "halitosis," which everyone notices except the person who has it. But why, you ask, don't the others tell me? Believe me, they have tried to tell you over and over again, and you just couldn't "take it." Perhaps a good deal of what you call their "nagging" or "bad temper" or "queerness" are just their attempts to make you see the truth. And even the faults you do know you don't know fully. You say, "I admit I lost my temper last night"; but the others know that you're always doing it, that you are a bad-tempered person. You say, "I admit I drank too much last Saturday"; but every one else knows that you are an habitual drunkard.

The essential act of mercy was to pardon; and pardon in its very essence involves the recognition of guilt and ill-desert in the recipient. If crime is only a disease which needs cure, not sin which deserves punishment, it cannot be pardoned. How can you pardon a man for having a gumboil or a club foot?

The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness.

Let no one deceive you, brothers. Not to know your sin is the worst kind of sin.

Let us then acknowledge, beloved brethren, the wholesome gift of the divine mercy; and let us, who cannot be without some wound of conscience, heal our wounds by the spiritual remedies for the cleansing and purging of our sins. Nor let any one so flatter himself with the notion of a pure and immaculate heart, as, in dependence on his own innocence, to think that the medicine needs not to be applied to his wounds; since it is written, "Who shall boast that he hath a clean heart, or who shall boast that he is pure from sins? " And again, in his epistle, John lays it down, and says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." But if no one can be without sin, and whoever should say that he is without fault is either proud or foolish, how needful, how kind is the divine mercy, which, knowing that there are still found some wounds in those that have been healed, even after their healing, has given wholesome remedies for the curing and healing of their wounds anew!

That no one is without filth and without sin. In Job: "For who is pure from filth? Not one; even if his life be of one day on the earth." Also in the fiftieth Psalm: "Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins hath my mother conceived me." Also in the Epistle of John: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

After this we also entreat for our sins, saying, "And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors." After the supply of food, pardon of sin is also asked for, that he who is fed by God may live in God, and that not only the present and temporal life may be provided for, but the eternal also, to which we may come if our sins are forgiven; and these the Lord calls debts, as He says in His Gospel, "I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me." And how necessarily, how providently and salutarily, are we admonished that we are sinners, since we are compelled to entreat for our sins, and while pardon is asked for from God, the soul recalls its own consciousness of sin! Lest any one should flatter himself that he is innocent, and by exalting himself should more deeply perish, he is instructed and taught that he sins daily, in that he is bidden to entreat daily for his sins. Thus, moreover, John also in his epistle warns us, and says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, the Lord is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." In his epistle he has combined both, that we should entreat for our sins, and that we should obtain pardon when we ask. Therefore he said that the Lord was faithful to forgive sins, keeping the faith of His promise; because He who taught us to pray for our debts and sins, has promised that His fatherly mercy and pardon shall follow.

Since God is light, there is no darkness in him at all, and he has nothing to do with darkness. The person who is enlightened by his light walks in the light, according to the words of the Savior himself: "While you have the light, walk in the light, lest the darkness take hold of you." Anyone who walks in the darkness of sin but claims that his mind is not darkened and that he has a relationship with God is lying.

We have grown to associate morality in a book with a kind of optimism and prettiness; according to us, a moral book is a book about moral people. But the old idea was almost exactly the opposite; a moral book was a book about immoral people. ... Telling the truth about the terrible struggle of the human soul is surely a very elementary part of the ethics of honesty. If the characters are not wicked, the book is.

Finally, it must be asked why in our Redeemer Himself, the Mediator between God and men, the Spirit appeared through a dove, but in the disciples through fire? Certainly the only-begotten Son of God is the judge of the human race. But who could endure His justice if, before gathering us through gentleness, He had wished to examine our faults through zeal for righteousness? Therefore, made man for men, He showed Himself gentle to men. He did not wish to strike sinners, but to gather them. First He wished to correct gently, so that He might have those whom He would afterward save in judgment. Therefore the Spirit ought to have appeared over Him in a dove, since He was not coming to strike sins now through zeal, but still to tolerate them through gentleness. But on the contrary, the Holy Spirit ought to have been shown over the disciples in fire, so that those who were simply men, and therefore sinners, He might kindle as spiritual servants against themselves, and the sins which God would spare through gentleness, they themselves might punish in themselves through repentance. For neither could they themselves be without sin who were clinging to the heavenly teaching, as John attests, who says: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Therefore He came in fire upon men, but appeared in a dove upon the Lord, because the sins which the Lord piously tolerates through gentleness, we ought to carefully observe through zeal for righteousness, and always burn away with the fire of repentance.

If you say that you are not a sinner but act otherwise, you are deceiving yourself.

It is pride to presume that it is easy not to sin, since the presumption itself is sin.

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 of our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. "If we confess our sins." John repeats the statement, using it more richly, so that the frequency of the produced refutation may restrain them by the degree of sin itself and invite them to confession. However, John indicated how much good arises from confession when he said: "Say your sins first, so that you may be justified." (Is. 43:26) However, it was also the custom of the Teacher of this beloved disciple to repeat the same things more frequently, first moderately, then more perfectly, wishing to make the understanding of the words more effective, and striving to instill their habit into the listeners. Indeed, John called God faithful. This means "truthful". For "Πιστός", that is, "faithful", is said not only of one to whom something is entrusted, but also of one who is confirmed in truth, who by his truthful manner causes others to become partakers of this as well. Therefore, God is called faithful in this way: just, indeed, as one who does not reject those who approach him, regardless of the sins they have committed. Therefore, he undoubtedly forgives the sins of those who run to holy baptism through repentance, whether they have sinned against him or against another. There, if we confess, John says, we shall obtain appropriate forgiveness. But if we shamelessly say that we have not sinned, we shall commit a double evil, both showing ourselves to be liars and slandering God, who surpasses all truth, with falsehood. For He Himself says through the Prophet: "They have repaid me evil for good." (Ps. 109:5) And again from John's own mouth: "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike me?" (Jn. 18:23) If, with these things being so, we still say that we have not sinned, we deny his words, which are spirit and life. (Jn. 6:64) "For the words that I speak," he says, "are spirit and life." And if we no longer have his word dwelling in us: what could be more serious?

If we confess our sins, faithful and just is He to remit them to us, and utterly purify us from every unrighteousness." Does he say "from impurity? "(No): or else, if that is so, then (He "utterly purifies" us) from "idolatry" too.

If we acknowledge our sin and confess it, he will forgive it, and not only that one but all our sins. For when a person repents and is baptized into the name of Jesus Christ, God forgives all his sins which he has committed both against himself and against heaven.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to purge us from all iniquity." Not only the past, but haply if we have contracted any from this life; because a man, so long as he bears the flesh, cannot but have some at any rate light sins. But these which we call light, do not thou make light of. If thou make light of them when thou weighest them, be afraid when thou countest them. Many light make one huge sin: many drops fill the river; many grains make the lump. And what hope is there? Before all, confession: lest any think himself righteous, and, before the eyes of God who seeth that which is, man, that was not and is, lift up the neck. Before all, then, confession; then, love: for of charity what is said? "Charity covereth a multitude of sins."

Now let us see whether he commendeth charity in regard of the sins which subsequently overtake us: because charity alone extinguisheth sins. Pride extinguisheth charity: therefore humility strengtheneth charity; charity extinguisheth sins. Humility goes along with confession, the humility by which we confess ourselves sinners: this is humility, not to say it with the tongue, as if only to avoid arrogancy, lest we should displease men if we should say that we are righteous. This do the ungodly and insane: "I know indeed that I am righteous, but what shall I say before men? If I shall call myself righteous, who will bear it, who tolerate? let my righteousness be known unto God: I however will say that I am a sinner, but only that I may not be found odious for arrogancy." Tell men what thou art, tell God what thou art. Because if thou tell not God what thou art, God condemneth what He shall find in thee. Wouldest thou not that He condemn thee? Condemn thou. Wouldest thou that He forgive? Do thou acknowledge, that thou mayest be able to say unto God, "Turn Thy face from my sins." Say also to Him those words in the same Psalm, "For I acknowledge mine iniquity." "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to purge us from all iniquity. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." If thou shalt say, I have not sinned, thou makest Him a liar, while thou wishest to make thyself true. How is it possible that God should be a liar, and man true, when the Scripture saith the contrary, "Every man a liar, God alone true"? Consequently, God true through Himself, thou true through God; because through thyself, a liar.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful, etc. Because we cannot be without sin in this life, the first hope of salvation is confession, and no one should consider themselves just or lift up their neck before the eyes of God. Then comes love, because charity covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4), which is consequently highly recommended to us with much praise in the following parts of this Epistle. Beautifully, both are suggested together, that we should both pray for our sins and obtain God's indulgence when we pray. Therefore, He is also called faithful to forgive sins, retaining the faithfulness of His promise, because He who taught us to pray for our sins and debts promised fatherly mercy and ensuing forgiveness. He also affirms Him to be just, because He justly forgives true confession. "That He may forgive us our sins," he says, "and cleanse us from all iniquity." He forgives daily and slight sins to the elect in this life, without which they cannot live on earth; He cleanses them after the dissolution of the flesh from all iniquity, bringing them into that life in which they neither wish to sin nor can. He now forgives greater temptations to those who pray, so they may not be overcome; He forgives the smallest, so they may not be injured; He then cleanses from all, so that no iniquity at all may exist among the blessed in the eternal kingdom.

After this we also entreat for our sins, saying, "And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors." After the supply of food, pardon of sin is also asked for, that he who is fed by God may live in God, and that not only the present and temporal life may be provided for, but the eternal also, to which we may come if our sins are forgiven; and these the Lord calls debts, as He says in His Gospel, "I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me." And how necessarily, how providently and salutarily, are we admonished that we are sinners, since we are compelled to entreat for our sins, and while pardon is asked for from God, the soul recalls its own consciousness of sin! Lest any one should flatter himself that he is innocent, and by exalting himself should more deeply perish, he is instructed and taught that he sins daily, in that he is bidden to entreat daily for his sins. Thus, moreover, John also in his epistle warns us, and says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, the Lord is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." In his epistle he has combined both, that we should entreat for our sins, and that we should obtain pardon when we ask. Therefore he said that the Lord was faithful to forgive sins, keeping the faith of His promise; because He who taught us to pray for our debts and sins, has promised that His fatherly mercy and pardon shall follow.

A hermit said that a man once committed a serious sin. Stricken with remorse, he went to confess to another monk. He did not tell him what he had done, but put it in the form of a question, 'If such a thought arose in someone's mind, would he be saved?' The monk, who had no discretion, answered, 'You are completely lost.' When the brother heard this, he said, 'Well, if I'm going to perish, I'll go and do it in the world.' But on his way he considered the matter and decided to tell his temptations to Silvanus, who possessed great discretion in these matters. The brother went to him and did not tell him what he had done, but again put it in the form of a question, 'If a thought like this came into someone's mind, could he be saved?' Silvanus began to speak to him with texts from Scripture, and said, 'That judgement does not only fall on people tempted to sin.' The brother perceived the force of the saying, and began to hope, and told him what he had done. When Silvanus learnt what he had done, he acted like a skilled physician and put on his soul a poultice made of texts from Scripture, showing him that repentance is available for all who in truth and in charity turn to God. After some years Silvanus met the monk who had driven the brother to despair, and told him what had happened, and said, 'That brother, who despaired because of your words, and was going back to the world, is now a bright star among the brothers.' He told him this so that we may know how perilous it is when anyone confesses thoughts or sins to someone without discretion.

If we confess our sins, faithful and just is He to remit them to us, and utterly purify us from every unrighteousness." Does he say "from impurity? "(No): or else, if that is so, then (He "utterly purifies" us) from "idolatry" too.

For see yet again: "If we say," he says, "that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." All the more fully: "Little children, these things have I written to you, lest ye sin; and if ye shall have sinned, an Advocate we have with God the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and, He is the propitiation for our sins.

The Apostle repeats his speech several times, so that through abundant and frequent reproofs he might present to them the full gravity of the transgression and incline them to confession. How great a good is born from confession can be seen from the following words: "declare thou" thy sins, "that thou mayest be justified" (Isa. 43:26); and that a teacher frequently repeats the same thing to a beginning student, first briefly, then more extensively, in order to impart clearer knowledge — this is a common practice. God, says the Apostle, "is faithful." This is the same as saying He is true; for the word "faithful" is used not only of one to whom something is entrusted, but also of one who is himself most faithful, who by his own faithfulness can make others such as well. In this sense God is faithful, and He is "righteous" in the sense that He does not drive away those who come to Him, however sinful they may be (John 6:37). Therefore, to those who through repentance have recourse to holy baptism, He undoubtedly forgives sins, even if they have sinned against Him and against others. If, he says, we confess, then we shall receive forgiveness corresponding to our confession. But if we shamelessly say that we have not sinned, then we commit a twofold evil: we show ourselves to be liars and we utter blasphemy against God. For He says through the prophet: "they rewarded me evil for good" (Ps. 35:12), and He Himself personally: "if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike me?" (John 18:23). If even after this we say that we have not sinned, then we reject His words, which are spirit and life; for it is said: "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63).

If we say that we have not sinned, we reject his word, which is spirit and life.

Who is there on earth without sin? Even a baby has contracted it from its parents.

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." If thou shalt say, I have not sinned, thou makest Him a liar, while thou wishest to make thyself true. How is it possible that God should be a liar, and man true, when the Scripture saith the contrary, "Every man a liar, God alone true"? Consequently, God true through Himself, thou true through God; because through thyself, a liar.

If we say that we have not sinned, etc. For he himself said through a man filled with his Spirit: There is no just man on earth who does good and does not sin (Ecclesiastes 7). But even through himself, he taught us that we cannot be free from sins, as he commanded us to pray thus: Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors (Matthew 6). Therefore, no one, being taught by Pelagius, should believe that he can live free from sins and debts, when he sees the apostles, being taught by the Lord, praying for their own sins. And elsewhere it is written: The just man falls seven times a day and rises again (Proverbs 24). For it is impossible for any of the saints not to sometimes fall into slight sins, which are committed through speech, thought, ignorance, forgetfulness, necessity, will, or surprise, and yet they do not cease to be just, because with the Lord's help, they quickly rise from guilt.

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." His doctrine, that is, or word is truth.

Among holy men it is impossible not to fall into those small lapses which occur because of something said, some thought, some surreptitious act. These sins are quite different from those which are called mortal, but they are not without blame or reproach.