Luke § 48ctr

But it came to pass, when the days of his assumption were accomplished, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem. By 'day of assumption,' he means the time of his passion, which drawing near, he gradually approaches Jerusalem. Let the pagans cease, therefore, to mock as if he were merely a crucified man, as the time of his crucifixion was foreseen as God, and determined to go to the place where he was to be crucified with a firm face, that is, with resolute and fearless mind.

Let then the Heathen cease to mock the Crucified, as if He were a man, who it is plain, as God, both foresaw the time of His crucifixion, and going voluntarily to be crucified, sought with stedfast face, that is, with resolute and undaunted mind, the spot where He was to be crucified.

Now it came to pass, when the days were being fulfilled, etc. After having instructed the Apostles, the prelates of the Church, in humility of mind, he here instructs them secondly in equanimity of zeal. And this section has two parts, in the first of which is introduced the occasion of disordered zeal; and in the second is added the correction of inordinate zeal, through which they are instructed in equanimity of zeal: and the second part begins at: When his disciples saw this.

The occasion of disordered zeal arose from three sources, namely from the Lord's necessity, by which he was in need of lodging; from the authority of the disciples, by which they sought lodging; and from the inhospitality of the Samaritans, by which they refused lodging.

First, therefore, is introduced the necessity of the Lord, by which he was in need of lodging, because the time of his sojourning had come: which he indicates when he says: Now it came to pass, when the days of his assumption were being fulfilled, that is, when the time of his Passion was drawing near, through which he was to be taken up into heaven after the Resurrection: whence the Psalm concerning the Resurrection is inscribed "concerning the assumption of the morning"; John 13: "Jesus, knowing that the hour had come," etc.

When the time of the passion was approaching, it was fitting to draw near to the place of suffering; and therefore he adds: And he set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem, to suffer; because it is said below in the thirteenth chapter: "It is not fitting for a Prophet to perish outside Jerusalem"; therefore he wished to go there as to a place of shame and reproach. On account of which he notably states beforehand that he set his face steadfastly, namely through constancy and divine patience, according to that passage in Ezekiel, chapter three: "Behold, I have made your face stronger than their faces and your forehead harder than their foreheads, and like adamant and like flint have I made your face." Truly steadfast was the face that not only did not flee, but even approached the reproach of death unshaken, so that it was necessary for him to pass through the land of foreigners, according to what is said below in the seventeenth chapter: "As Jesus was going to Jerusalem, he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." And so it was necessary for him to seek lodging among strangers, according to that passage in Jeremiah, chapter fourteen: "Why will you be as a sojourner in the land and as a traveler turning aside to lodge?"

It says, "When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem." This means that after he would endure his saving passion for us, the time would come when he should ascend to heaven and dwell with God the Father, so he determined to go to Jerusalem. This is, I think, the meaning of his "set his face."

When the time was near at hand in which it behoved our Lord to accomplish His life-giving Passion, and ascend up to heaven, He determines to go up to Jerusalem, as it is said, And it came to pass, &c.

And I, on the contrary, the severe rebuke of Christ on His disciples, when they were for inflicting a like visitation on that obscure village of the Samaritans. The heretic, too, may discover that this gentleness of Christ was promised by the selfsame severest Judge.

No one's table or roof did He despise: indeed, Himself ministered to the washing of the disciples' feet; not sinners, not publicans, did He repel; not with that city even which had refused to receive Him was He wroth, when even the disciples had wished that the celestial fires should be forthwith hurled on so contumelious a town.

Because it was necessary that the true Lamb should there be offered, where the typical lamb was sacrificed; but it is said, he stedfastly set his face, that is, He went not here and there traversing the villages and towns, but kept on His way straight towards Jerusalem.

Secondly, there is added the authority of the disciples, by which they were seeking lodging, when he says: And he sent messengers before his face. For it befits the great Lord to have messengers as forerunners, according to what is said in Malachi, chapter three: "Behold, I send my Angel," that is, my messenger, "who will prepare the way before your face." So also we read concerning Jacob in Genesis, chapter thirty-two, that "he sent messengers before him."

And because good messengers faithfully and swiftly carry out the command of their lord, therefore it is added: And going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him. These Samaritans were colonists placed in the cities of Samaria in place of the children of Israel who had been carried away to the Assyrians, as is said in Fourth Kings, chapter seventeen, that "the king of the Assyrians brought men from the cities of the Assyrians and placed them in the cities of Samaria in place of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria and dwelt in its cities"; and concerning these it is added afterwards in the same place, that "they were fearing the Lord, but nevertheless serving their own idols." They entered the city of these people not of their own will, since it is said in John, chapter four, that "Jews do not associate with Samaritans," but either compelled by necessity, which has no law, or by a special command of the Lord. For in the sending of the Apostles it is said in Matthew, chapter ten: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into the cities of the Samaritans"; but that is said with regard to preaching, not however with regard to seeking lodging. For in John, chapter four, concerning this city it is said that "the disciples had gone away into the city to buy food"; and they did this by the Lord's command, who was showing that no man is to be despised, but that everyone is to be loved as a neighbor, as is said below in the tenth chapter concerning the Samaritan in the parable, that "he was neighbor to him who fell among robbers."

It would be untrue, then, to affirm that our Saviour did not know what was about to happen: for as He knows all things, He knew, of course, that His messengers would not be received by the Samaritans. Of this there can be no doubt. Why, then, did He command them to precede Him? The reason of it was His custom assiduously to benefit the holy Apostles in every possible way: and for this end His practice sometimes was to put them to the proof. As for instance, He was sailing once upon the lake of Tiberias with those named above; and while so doing he fell asleep purposely: and a violent wind having risen upon the lake, a rough and unusual storm began to rage, and the boat was in danger, and the crew in alarm. For He intentionally permitted the storm and the fury of the tempest to rage against the ship, to try the faith of the disciples, and to make manifest the greatness of His power. And this, also, was the result. For they, in the littleness of their faith, said, "Master, save us, we perish." And He at once arose and shewed that He is Lord of the elements; for He rebuked the sea and the tempest, and there was an exceeding great calm. And so also on this occasion: He knew, indeed, that those who went forward to announce that He would lodge with them would not be received by the Samaritans; but He permitted them to go, that this again might be a means of benefiting the holy Apostles.

What, then, was the purpose of this occurrence? He was going up to Jerusalem, as the time of His passion was already drawing near. He was about to endure the contumelies of the Jews; He was about to be set at nought by the scribes and Pharisees; and to suffer those things which they inflicted upon Him when they proceeded to the accomplishment of all violence and wicked audacity. In order, therefore, that they might not be offended when they saw Him suffering, as understanding that He would have them also to be patient, and not to murmur greatly, even though men treat them with contumely, He, so to speak, made the contempt they met with from the Samaritans a preparatory exercise in the matter. They had not received the messengers. It was the duty of the disciples, treading in the footsteps of their Lord, to bear it patiently as becometh saints, and not to say anything of them wrathfully. But they were not yet so disposed; but being seized with too hot indignation, they would have called down fire upon them from heaven, as far as their will went. But Christ rebuked them for so speaking.

It benefited them also in another way: they were to be the instructors of the whole world, and to travel through the cities and villages, proclaiming everywhere the good tidings of salvation. Of necessity, therefore, while seeking to fulfil their mission, they must fall in with wicked men, who would reject the divine tidings, and, so to speak, not receive Jesus to lodge with them. Had Christ, therefore, praised them for wishing that fire should come down upon the Samaritans, and that so painful a torment should be inflicted upon them, they would have been similarly disposed in many other instances, and when men disregarded the sacred message, would have pronounced their condemnation, and called down fire upon them from above. And what would have been the result of such conduct? The sufferers would have been innumerable, and no longer would the disciples have been so much physicians of the sick, as torturers rather, and intolerable to men everywhere. For their own good, therefore, they were rebuked, when thus enraged beyond measure at the contumely of the Samaritans: in order that they might learn that as ministers of the divine tidings, they must rather be full of longsuffering and gentleness; not revengeful; not given to wrath, nor savagely attacking those who offend them.

And He sends messengers to make a place for Him and His companions, who when they came to the country of the Samaritans were not admitted, as it follows, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and altered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him.

But our Lord, Who knew all things before they came to pass, knowing that His messengers would not be received by the Samaritans, nevertheless commanded them to go before Him, because it was His practice to make all things conduce to the good of His disciples. Now He went up to Jerusalem as the time of His suffering drew near. In order then that they might not be offended, when they saw Him suffer, bearing in mind that they must also endure patiently when men persecute them, He ordained beforehand as a kind of prelude this refusal of the Samaritans. It was good for them also in another way. For they were to be the teachers of the world, going through towns and villages, to preach the doctrine of the Gospel, meeting sometimes with men who would not receive the sacred doctrine, allowing not that Jesus sojourned on earth with them. He therefore taught them, that in announcing the divine doctrine, they ought to be filled with patience and meekness, without bitterness, and wrath, and fierce enmity against those who had done any wrong to them.

Mark that He was unwilling to be received by those who He knew had not turned to Him with a simple heart. For if He had wished, He might have made them devout, who were undevout. But God calls those whom He thinks worthy, and whom He wills He makes religious. But why they did not receive Him the Evangelist mentions, saying, Because his face was as if he would go to Jerusalem.

And they did not receive him, because his face was set to go to Jerusalem. Because the Samaritans saw he was going to Jerusalem, they did not receive the Lord. For the Jews do not associate with Samaritans, as the Evangelist John shows.

Or the Samaritans see that our Lord is going to Jerusalem, and do not receive Him. For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, (John 4:9.) as John shows.

Thirdly is added the inhospitality of the Samaritans, by which they denied lodging, when it says: And they did not receive him, though he himself was their Lord; so that what is said in John 1 might be fulfilled: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." The inhospitality of these was similar to the inhospitality of those of Gibeah toward the Levite: it is said in Judges 19 that "they sat in the street of the city, and no one would receive them into his house." These Samaritans were not admitted by the Jews to the worship of God, and therefore they were hostile to those going to Jerusalem.

And for this reason it is added: Because his face was set toward going to Jerusalem, that is, because they clearly recognized that he was going to Jerusalem to worship God according to the Jewish rite. Whence the Samaritan woman said to him in John 4: "Lord, our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you say that Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." And between the Jews and the Samaritans there was contrariety over the place of prayer: just as also spiritually it now happens that spiritual men who worship God are mocked and despised and cast out by those who love the world. Whence Proverbs 14: "He who walks in an upright way and fears the Lord is despised by him who walks in an infamous way"; and Sirach 13: "As a wolf will have fellowship with a lamb, so the sinner with the just." Whence Wisdom 2: "The ungodly said: Let us circumvent the just man, because he is contrary to our works"; and a little later: "He is grievous to us even to behold, because his life is unlike that of others, and his ways are changed." For those who have dissimilarity of life do not easily have companionship on the way. And therefore the Samaritans, hating Jerusalem, were unwilling to show hospitality to one going to Jerusalem.

What is the meaning of what is written in the Gospel according to Luke: "And they did not receive him: because his face was going to Jerusalem" (Luke 9:53). Hastening, the Lord went to Jerusalem to fulfill the days of his assumption and to celebrate the Passover, about which he had said: "With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you, before I suffer" (Ibid. 22:15), and drink the cup, of which he said: "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11). He confirmed all his doctrine on the gallows, according to what is written: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself." (Ibid. 12:32). He set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem. For it is necessary to have steadfastness and strength for one who is hurrying spontaneously toward passion. Hence to Ezekiel, to whom God had said: Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of scorpions, and art not afraid of them: I have made thy face strong against their face (Ezekiel 2:6 and 3:9); so that if perchance the hammer of the whole earth had risen up against him, he would be like a most enduring anvil and crush the hammer, of which it is written: "How is the hammer of the whole earth broken and shattered!" (Jeremiah 50:23) And he sent messengers, that is, Angels, before his sight (Luke 9:52). For it was fitting that the Angels should minister to the Son of God. Whether he calls the Apostles Angels, because even John, the precursor of the Lord, was called an Angel (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 11:10). And when they entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him, they did not receive him, because his face was going toward Jerusalem. The Samaritans and Jews are at odds with each other in enmity, and while all nations hate them, they are raging against each other with their own fury, while both contend for possession of the Law, and they persecute one another so much that after the Jews returned from Babylon, the Samaritans always obstructed the building of the Temple. And when even they wanted to build the Temple with them, the Jews replied: It is not lawful for us and you to build the Lord's house (1 Esdr. 4). Finally, for a great injury, the Pharisees reproached the Lord: Do you not have a demon, and are you not a Samaritan? (John 8.48). And in the parable of Jerusalem descending to Jericho, the Samaritan is placed as a sign and a miracle that he did good (Luke 10): and it is written to the Samaritan woman at the well: For Samaritans do not count themselves among the Jews (John 4.9). Therefore, the Samaritans seeing the Lord go towards Jerusalem, that is, to his enemies, as they had heard from his disciples who had come to prepare lodging, recognized him to be a Jew: and, as a Jew and a stranger, and one going to his enemies, they did not want to receive him. Although, with other understanding being submitted to us, it was the will of the Lord not to be received by the Samaritans, because he hastened to go to Jerusalem, where he was to suffer and shed his blood, so that, occupied with Samaritan hospitality and the teaching of that nation, he might not delay the day of suffering to which he had come. Hence he says in another place: "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). And he commanded the Apostles: "Do not enter the city of Samaria" (Ibid. 10:5), wishing to remove all occasion of Jewish persecution, so that they might not afterwards say, "We have crucified him," because he had joined himself to our enemies and adversaries. Therefore his face was set towards Jerusalem. And accordingly, by another interpretation, the Samaritans did not receive him: for he was hastening to enter Jerusalem. But that they did not receive him, was of the Lord's will. Finally, the Apostles, versed in the Law, in which they knew only justice- an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth- seek to avenge the injury, and to imitate Elijah, at whose word two captains of fifty soldiers were consumed by fire: and they say to the Lord: Wilt thou, we say, that fire should come down from heaven, and consume them? (Luke 9:51). Beautifully, they say, Wilt thou, we say: for even Elijah had said: If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven upon thee (2 Kings 1:10). Therefore, for the effectiveness of the speech of the Apostles, it is the will of the Lord. For if He had not commanded it, the Apostles would speak in vain, asking that fire descend upon them, and in other ways. If fire descended from heaven to the injury of Elijah's servants, and consumed the Jews and not the Samaritans, how much more should the flame rage against the impious Samaritans, to the contempt of the Son of God? The Lord, who had come not to judge but to save, not in power but in humility, not in the glory of the Father but in the lowliness of man, rebukes them because they have not remembered His doctrine and the goodness of the Gospel, in which He said: 'If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also' (Matt. 5:39) and 'Love your enemies' (Luke 6:35).

But if one understands that they did not receive Him for this reason, because He had determined to go to Jerusalem, an excuse is found for them, who did not receive Him. But we must say, that in the words of the Evangelist, And they did not receive him, is implied that He did not go into Samaria, but afterwards as if some one had asked St. Luke, he explained in these words, why they did not receive Him. And He went not to them, i. e. not that He was unable, but that He did not wish to go there, but rather to Jerusalem.

For they knew both that when Phineas had slain the idolaters it was counted to him for righteousness; (Numb. 25:8, Ps. 107:31) and that at the prayer of Elijah fire came down from heaven, that the injuries of the prophet might be avenged. (2 Kings 1:10, 12.)

But let him be avenged who fears. He who fears not, seeks not vengeance. At the same time the merits of the Prophets are likewise shown to have been in the Apostles, seeing that they claim to themselves the right of obtaining the same power of which the Prophet was thought worthy; and fitly do they claim that at their command fire should come down from heaven, for they were the sons of thunder.

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.

For holy men who well knew that that death which detaches the soul from the body was not to be feared, still because of their feelings who feared it, punished some sins with death, that both the living might be struck with a wholesome dread, and those who were punished with death might receive harm not from death itself but from sin, which would be increased were they to live.

When the disciples had seen, etc. Having set forth the occasion of disordered zeal, he adds the correction of disordered zeal. Concerning which three things are introduced by the Evangelist, namely reprehensible indignation, reasonable rebuke, and memorable instruction. The first was in the spirit of the disciples, the second was in the word of the Lord, the third was in the Lord's deed.

First, therefore, as regards the blameworthy indignation in the mind of the disciples, it is said: But when his disciples James and John had seen: had seen, I say, the cruelty of that city, such that they could say that word of the Psalm: "I saw iniquity and contradiction in the city"; and again: "I was zealous on account of the wicked, seeing the peace of sinners." Whence they were moved with indignation, because they saw the Lord, whose majesty they had seen on the mountain with Moses and Elijah, thus despised on earth. — On account of which it is added: They said: Lord, do you wish that we command fire to descend from heaven and consume them? In this is shown the fury of indignation by which they were moved against those people, so that they wished to destroy them from the earth. Now these two especially said this because they were great zealots for the honor of the Lord: whence there could be said of them that word of Romans 10: "I bear them witness that they have indeed a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge"; just as the two sons of Jacob, moved by zeal for the injury done to them, destroyed the city of the Shechemites, as is said in Genesis 34.

Or they said this because they themselves had been with the Lord on the mountain, where they had come to know his majesty and had seen the companionship of Elijah: and therefore they wished to inflict a similar vengeance, according to what is said in 4 Kings 1, that "Elijah said: If I am a man of God, let fire descend from heaven and devour you and your fifty." And it was done so.

[Responding to the question "In the past the church used various kinds of compulsion in attempts to force a particular brand of Christianity on the community. Given sufficient power, is there not a danger of this sort of thing happening again?"]

Yes, I hear nasty rumors coming from Spain. Persecution is a temptation to which all men are exposed. I had a postcard signed "M. D." saying that anyone who expressed and published his belief in the Virgin Birth should be stripped and flogged. That shows you how easily persecution of Christians by the non-Christians might come back. Of course, they wouldn't call it persecution: they'd call it "compulsory reeducation of the ideologically unfit," or something like that. But, of course, I have to admit that Christians themselves have been persecutors in the past. It was worse of them, because they ought to have known better: they weren't worse in any other way. I detest every kind of religious compulsion.

But as yet they were not so, nay, being stirred up with fervid zeal, they wished to bring down fire from heaven upon them. It follows, And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, will thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, &c.

They thought it much juster that the Samaritans should perish for not admitting our Lord, than the fifty soldiers who tried to thrust down Elijah.