Chapter XIX.—Objections from the Revelation and the First Epistle of St. John Refuted.

But how far (are we to treat) of Paul; since even John appears to give some secret countenance to the opposite side? as if in the Apocalypse he has manifestly assigned to fornication the auxiliary aid of repentance, where, to the angel of the Thyatirenes, the Spirit sends a message that He “hath against him that he kept (in communion) the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophet, and teacheth,231    Or, “saith and teacheth that she is a prophet.” and seduceth my servants unto fornicating and eating of idol sacrifice.  And I gave her bounteously a space of time, that she might enter upon repentance; nor is she willing to enter upon it on the count of fornication.  Behold, I will give her into a bed, and her adulterers with herself into greatest pressure, unless they shall have repented of her works.”232    Rev. ii. 18, 20–22.  I am content with the fact that, between apostles, there is a common agreement in rules of faith and of discipline.  For, “Whether (it be) I,” says (Paul), “or they, thus we preach.”233    1 Cor. xv. 11.  Accordingly, it is material to the interest of the whole sacrament to believe nothing conceded by John, which has been flatly refused by Paul.  This harmony of the Holy Spirit whoever observes, shall by Him be conducted into His meanings.  For (the angel of the Thyatirene Church) was secretly introducing into the Church, and urging justly to repentance, an heretical woman, who had taken upon herself to teach what she had learnt from the Nicolaitans.  For who has a doubt that an heretic, deceived by (a spurious baptismal) rite, upon discovering his mischance, and expiating it by repentance, both attains pardon and is restored to the bosom of the Church?  Whence even among us, as being on a par with an heathen, nay even more than heathen, an heretic likewise, (such an one) is purged through the baptism of truth from each character,234    i.e., of heathen and heretic. and admitted (to the Church).  Or else, if you are certain that that woman had, after a living faith, subsequently expired, and turned heretic, in order that you may claim pardon as the result of repentance, not as it were for an heretical, but as it were for a believing, sinner:  let her, I grant, repent; but with the view of ceasing from adultery, not however in the prospect of restoration (to Church-fellowship) as well.  For this will be a repentance which we, too, acknowledge to be due much more (than you do); but which we reserve, for pardon, to God.235    See the end of the foregoing chapter.

In short, this Apocalypse, in its later passages, has assigned “the infamous and fornicators,” as well as “the cowardly, and unbelieving, and murderers, and sorcerers, and idolaters,” who have been guilty of any such crime while professing the faith, to “the lake of fire,”236    Rev. xxi. 8. without any conditional condemnation.  For it will not appear to savour of (a bearing upon) heathens, since it has (just) pronounced with regard to believers, “They who shall have conquered shall have this inheritance; and I will be to them a God, and they to me for sons;” and so has subjoined:  “But to the cowardly, and unbelieving, and infamous, and fornicators, and murderers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, (shall be) a share in the lake of fire and sulphur, which (lake) is the second death.”  Thus, too, again:  “Blessed they who act according to the precepts, that they may have power over the tree of life and over the gates, for entering into the holy city.  Dogs, sorcerers, fornicators, murderers, out!”237    Rev. xxii. 14, 15.—of course, such as do not act according to the precepts; for to be sent out is the portion of those who have been within.  Moreover, “What have I to do to judge them who are without?”238    1 Cor. v. 12 ad init. had preceded (the sentences now in question).

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.”239    1 John i. 7 ad fin.  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.  But what is the point whence (John) has started?  He had predicated “God” to be “Light,” and that “darkness is not in Him,” and that “we lie if we say that we have communion with Him, and walk in darkness.”240    Vers. 5, 6.  “If, however,” he says, “we walk in the light, we shall have communion with Him, and the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord purifieth us utterly from every sin.”241    Ver. 8, incorrectly.  Walking, then, in the light, do we sin? and, sinning in the light, shall we be utterly purified?  By no means.  For he who sins is not in the light, but in darkness.  Whence, too, he points out the mode in which we shall be utterly purified from sin—(by) “walking in the light,” in which sin cannot be committed.  Accordingly, the sense in which he says we “are utterly purified” is, not in so far as we sin, but in so far as we do not sin.  For, “walking in the light,” but not having communion with darkness, we shall act as they that are “utterly purified;” sin not being quite laid down, but not being wittingly committed.  For this is the virtue of the Lord’s blood, that such as it has already purified from sin, and thenceforward has set “in the light,” it renders thenceforward pure, if they shall continue to persevere walking in the light.  “But he subjoins,” you say, “If we say that we have not sin, we are seducing ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, faithful and just is He to remit them to us, and utterly purify us from every unrighteousness.”242    1 John i. 8, 9.  Does he say “from impurity?”  (No):  or else, if that is so, then (He “utterly purifies” us) from “idolatry” too.  But there is a difference in the sense.  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.”243    1 John i. 9.  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.”244    1 John ii. 1, 2.  “According to these words,” you say, “it will be admitted both that we sin, and that we have pardon.”  What, then, will become (of your theory), when, proceeding (with the Epistle), I find something different?  For he affirms that we do not sin at all; and to this end he treats at large, that he may make no such concession; setting forth that sins have been once for all deleted by Christ, not subsequently to obtain pardon; in which statement the sense requires us (to apply the statement) to an admonition to chastity.  “Every one,” he says, “who hath this hope, maketh himself chaste, because He too is chaste.  Every one who doeth sin, doeth withal iniquity;245    Iniquitatem =ἀνομίαν. and sin is iniquity.246    Iniquitas; ἀνομία ="lawlessness.”  And ye know that He hath been manifested to take away sins”—henceforth, of course, to be no more incurred, if it is true, (as it is,) that he subjoins, “Every one who abideth in Him sinneth not; every one who sinneth neither hath seen nor knoweth Him.  Little children, let none seduce you.  Every one who doeth righteousness is righteous, as He withal is righteous.  He who doeth sin is of the devil, inasmuch as the devil sinneth from the beginning.  For unto this end was manifested the Son of God, to undo the works of the devil:”  for He has “undone” them withal, by setting man free through baptism, the “handwriting of death” having been “made a gift of” to him:247    See Col. ii. 13, 14.  and accordingly, “he who is being born of God doeth not sin, because the seed of God abideth in him; and he cannot sin, because he hath been born of God.  Herein are manifest the sons of God and the sons of the devil.”248    1 John iii. 3–10.  Wherein? except it be (thus):  the former by not sinning, from the time that they were born from God; the latter by sinning, because they are from the devil, just as if they never were born from God?  But if he says, “He who is not righteous is not of God,”249    1 John iii. 10. how shall he who is not modest again become (a son) of God, who has already ceased to be so?

“It is therefore nearly equivalent to saying that John has forgotten himself; asserting, in the former part of his Epistle, that we are not without sin, but now prescribing that we do not sin at all:  and in the one case flattering us somewhat with hope of pardon, but in the other asserting with all stringency, that whoever may have sinned are no sons of God.”  But away with (the thought):  for not even we ourselves forget the distinction between sins, which was the starting-point of our digression.  And (a right distinction it was); for John has here sanctioned it; in that there are some sins of daily committal, to which we all are liable:  for who will be free from the accident of either being angry unjustly, and retaining his anger beyond sunset;250    Eph. iv. 26. or else even using manual violence or else carelessly speaking evil; or else rashly swearing; or else forfeiting his plighted word or else lying, from bashfulness or “necessity?”  In businesses, in official duties, in trade, in food, in sight, in hearing, by how great temptations are we plied!  So that, if there were no pardon for such sins as these, salvation would be unattainable to any.  Of these, then, there will be pardon, through the successful Suppliant of the Father, Christ.  But there are, too, the contraries of these; as the graver and destructive ones, such as are incapable of pardon—murder, idolatry, fraud, apostasy, blasphemy; (and), of course, too, adultery and fornication; and if there be any other “violation of the temple of God.”  For these Christ will no more be the successful Pleader:  these will not at all be incurred by one who has been born of God, who will cease to be the son of God if he do incur them.

Thus John’s rule of diversity will be established; arranging as he does a distinction of sins, while he now admits and now denies that the sons of God sin.  For (in making these assertions) he was looking forward to the final clause of his letter, and for that (final clause) he was laying his preliminary bases; intending to say, in the end, more manifestly:  “If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall make request, and the Lord shall give life to him who sinneth not unto death.  For there is a sin unto death:  not concerning that do I say that one should make request.”251    1 John v. 16.  But Tertullian has rendered αἰτεῖν and ἐρωτᾶν by the one word postulare.  See Trench, N. T. Synonyms, pp. 169–173. ed. 4, 1858.  He, too, (as I have been), was mindful that Jeremiah had been prohibited by God to deprecate (Him) on behalf of a people which was committing mortal sins.  “Every unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin unto death.252    So Oehler; but it appears that a “non” must have been omitted.  But we know that every one who hath been born of God sinneth not”253    Vers. 17, 18.—to wit, the sin which is unto death.  Thus there is no course left for you, but either to deny that adultery and fornication are mortal sins; or else to confess them irremissible, for which it is not permitted even to make successful intercession.

CAPUT XIX.

Sed quonam usque de Paulo, quando etiam Joannes nescio quid diversae parti supplaudere videatur? quasi in Apocalypsi manifeste fornicationi posuerit poenitentiae auxilium, ubi ad angelum Thyatirenorum spiritus mandat habere se adversus eum, quod teneret mulierem Jezabel, quae se propheten dicit, et docet atque seducit servos meos ad fornicandum et edendum de idolothytis. Et largitus sum illi temporis spatium, 1017C ut poenitentiam iniret, nec vult eam inire nomine fornicationis. Ecce dabo eam in lectum, et moechos ejus cum ipsa in maximam pressuram, nisi poenitentiam egerint operum ejus (Apoc. II, 20-22). Bene autem quod Apostolis et fidei et disciplinae regulis convenit. Sive enim ego, inquit, sive illi, sic praedicamus (II Cor., XV, 11) Totius itaque sacramenti interest nihil credere ab Joanne concessum, quod a Paulo sit denegatum. Hanc aequalitatem Spiritus Sancti qui observaverit, ab ipso deducetur in sensus ejus. Haereticam enim foeminam, quae quod didicerat a Nicolaitis docere susceperat, 1018A in Ecclesiam latenter introducebat, et merito ad poenitentiam urgebat. Cui enim dubium est haereticum institutione deceptum, cognito postmodum casu et poenitentia expiato, et veniam consequi, et in Ecclesiam redigi? Unde et apud nos ut ethnico par, imo et super ethnicum haereticus etiam per baptisma veritatis utroque homine purgatus admittitur. Aut si certus es mulierem illam, post fidem vivam, in haeresin postea exspirasse, ut non quasi haereticae, sed quasi fideli peccatrici, veniam ex poenitentia vindices , sane agat poenitentiam, sed in finem moechiae, non tamen et restitutionem consecutura. Haec enim erit poenitentia, quam et nos deberi quidem agnoscimus multo magis, sed de venia Deo reservamus. Denique ea Apocalypsis in posterioribus 1018B propudiosos et fornicatores, sicut timidos et incredulos et homicidas et veneficos et idololatras, qui tale quid in fide fuerint , in stagnum ignis sine ulla conditionali damnatione decrevit. Non enim de ethnicis videbitur sapere cum de fidelibus pronuntiarit: Qui vicerint, haereditate habebunt ista , et ero illis Deus, et illi mihi in filios; et ita subjunxerit: Timidis autem et incredulis et propudiosis et fornicatoribus et homicidis et veneficis et idololatris particula in stagno ignis et sulphuris, quod est mors secunda (Apoc., XXI, 78). Sic et rursus: Beati qui ex praeceptis agunt, ut in lignum vitae habeant potestatem, et in portas ad introeundum in sanctam civitatem. Canis, veneficus, fornicator, homicida, foras (Apoc., XXII, 14, 15); utique qui non ex praeceptis agant: illorum est 1018C enim foras dari qui intus fuerunt. Caeterum, quid mihi eos qui foris sunt judicare (I Cor., V, 12)? praecesserat. De epistola quoque Joannis carpunt statim. Dictum est: Sanguis Filii ejus emundat nos ab omni delicto (I Joan. I, 7). Semper ergo et omnifariam delinquemus, si semper et ab omni delicto emundat nos ille; aut si non semper, non etiam post fidem; et si non ab omni delicto, non etiam a fornicatione. Unde autem exorsus est? Lumen praedixerat Deum, et tenebras non esse in illo, et mentiri nos si dicamus nos communionem habere cum eo, et in tenebris 1019A incedamus. Si vero, inquit, in lumine incedamus, communionem cum eo habebimus, et sanguis Jesu Christi Domini nostri emundat nos ab omni delicto (Ibid., 5, sqq.). Ergo in lumine incedentes delinquimus, et in lumine delinquentes emundabimur? Nullo pacto. Qui enim delinquit, non in lumine est, sed in tenebris. Unde et ostendit quomodo emundabimur a delicto, in lumine incedentes, in quo delictum agi non potest, adeo sic emundari nos ait, non qua delinquamus, sed qua non delinquamus. Incedentes enim in lumine, tenebris vero non communicantes, emundati agemus, non deposito, sed non admisso delicto. Haec est enim vis Dominici sanguinis, ut quos jam delicto mundarit, et exinde in lumine constituerit, mundos exinde praestet, si in lumine incedere perseveraverint. Sed subjicit, 1019B inquis: Si dicamus nos delictum non habere, seducimus nosmetipsos, et veritas non est in nobis. Si confitemur delicta nostra, fidelis et justus est ut dimittat ea nobis, et emundet nos ab omni injustitia (Ibid., 8, 9): numquid ab immunditia? Aut si ita est, ergo et ab idololatria. Sed aliud in sensu est. Ecce enim et rursus: Si dicamus, ait, nos non deliquisse, mendacem facimus illum, et sermo ejus non est in nobis (Ibid. 10). Eo amplius: Filioli, haec scripsi vobis, ne delinquatis; et si deliqueritis, advocatum habemus apud Deum Patrem Jesum Christum justum, et ipse placatio est pro delictis nostris (I Joan., II, 1, 2). Secundum haec, inquis, et delinquere nos et veniam habere constabit. Quid ergo fiet, cum procedens aliud invenio? negat enim nos omnino delinquere, et in hoc plurimum 1019C tractat, ut nihil tale concedat, proponens semel a Christo delicta deleta, non habitura postea veniam: in quo nos sensus ad admonitionem castimoniae demandat. Omnis, inquit, qui habet spem istam, castificat semetipsum, quia et ille castus est. Omnis qui facit delictum, et iniquitatem facit, et delictum est iniquitas. Et scitis quod ille manifestatus sit, ut auferat delicta; utique hactenus admittenda; siquidem subjungit: Omnis qui manet in illo, non delinquit: omnis qui delinquit, neque vidit, neque cognovit eum. Filioli, nemo vos seducat: omnis qui facit justitiam, justus est, sicut et ille justus est. Qui facit delictum, ex diabolo est, quoniam diabolus a primordio delinquit. In hoc enim manifestatus est filius Dei, ut solvat opera diaboli. Nam et solvit, liberans hominem per lavacrum, donato 1019D chirographo mortis. Et ideo omnis qui ex Deo nascitur, non facit delictum, quia semen Dei manet in illo; et non potest delinquere, quia ex Deo natus est. In hoc manifesti sunt filii Dei et filii diaboli (I Joan., III, 3, 10). In quo, nisi illi non delinquendo, ex quo de Deo 1020A nati sunt; isti delinquendo, quia de diabolo sunt; perinde atque si nunquam sint ex Deo nati? Quod si dicit: Qui non est justus, ex Deo non est, qui non padicus, quomodo rursus ex Deo fiet, qui jam esse desiit? Juxta est igitur ut excidisse sibi dicamus Joannem in prima quidem Epistola (I, 8) negantem nos sine delicto esse, nunc vero praescribentem non delinquere omnino: et illic quidem aliud de venia blandientem, hic vero districte negantem filios Dei quicumque deliquerint. Sed absit. Nam nec ipsi excidimus a qua digressi sumus distinctione delictorum. Et hic enim illam Joannes commendavit, quod sint quaedam delicta quotidianae incursionis, quibus omnes simus objecti. Cui enim non accidit, aut irasci inique, et ultra solis occasum; aut et manum immittere, 1020B aut facile maledicere, aut temere jurare, aut fidem pacti destruere; aut verecundia aut necessitate mentiri? in negotiis, in officiis, in quaestu, in victu, in visu, in auditu quanta tentamur, ut si nulla sit venia istorum, nemini salus competat! Horum ergo erit venia per exoratorem Patris Christum. Sunt autem et contraria istis, ut graviora et exitiosa, quae veniam non capiant, homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, utique et moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi Dei. Horum ultra exorator non erit Christus; haec non admittet omnino qui natus ex Deo fuerit, non futurus Dei filius, si admiserit. Ita Joanni ratio constabit diversitatis, distinctionem delictorum disponenti , cum delinquere filios Dei nunc adnuit, nunc abnuit. Prospiciebat 1020C enim clausulam literarum suarum, et illi praestruebat hos sensus, dicturus in fine manifestius: Si quis scit fratrem suum delinquere delictum non ad mortem, postulabit, et dabit ei vitam Dominus, qui non ad mortem delinquit. Est enim delictum ad mortem? non de eo dico ut quis postulet (I Joan., V, 16). Meminerat et ipse Hieremiam prohibitum a Deo deprecari pro populo mortalia delinquente (Hier., VII, 16, XI, 14, XIV, 11). Omnis injustitia delictum est, et est delictum ad mortem. Scimus autem quod omnis qui ex Deo natus sit, non delinquit (I Joan., V, 17, 18); scilicet delictum quod ad mortem est. Ita nihil jam superest, quam aut neges moechiam et fornicationem mortalia esse delicta, aut irremissibilia fatearis, pro quibus nec orari permittitur.