{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026828408919313436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01127497860774148, 'mean_word_length': 4.824538258575198, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Repentance and forgiveness: Classical and patristic perspectives on a reformation theme

for human coexistence in a fallible world. The early church Fathers reveal a basic continuity in expression of repentance between Christianity and the classical world, as the church sometimes resorted to prevailing cultural mechanisms for reconciliation. These included a common evaluation of the past and the public commitment to a different way of life. Christianity emphasised the vertical dimension of repentance, as it insisted on God as an involved party who was transgressed against by any form of horizontal human sin. This went far beyond the occasional provocation of individual gods by arrogance but was personal and relational in character. The church integrated the practice of repentance and conversion through special days and seasons, as well as by an emphasis on the Holy Scriptures as the divine standard for human living. Although formats differed, the theological notions show a spiritual agreement and consistency. For repentance to qualify for forgiveness, a baptised Christian required conviction of sin, reconciliation through God’s appointed means, and a proven new course of behaviour that complied with divine standards.

The common denominator of these Christian traditions is that for repentance to qualify for forgiveness, a baptised Christian required conviction of sin, confession with the aim of forgiveness (absolution) and a proven new course of behaviour. That this shows a remarkable continuity with the medieval practice of the Western Church, as well as the early church in the context of its classical civilisation, will be considered hereafter.

Private confession in the Middle Ages
Gregorius the Great (c. AD 540-604) marks the start of a development in the Western Church, which would eventually lead to a compulsory private oral confession to a priest. Gregory used the practice of monastic life as a template for pastoral care in regular congregations. With a view to the rapidly approaching end of the world, Gregory tells the priests to confront parishioners with their sins and to make amends for specific transgressions. In due course, this leaves the impression of priests as mediators of forgiveness: 'das Mittelalter wird daraus die Folgerung ziehen, daß die Kirche die Buße als Sakrament verwaltet; es tut damit Gregor keine Gewalt an' [The Middle Ages would draw the conclusion from this that the Church administers penance as a sacrament; which doesn't do injustice to Gregory] (Andresen 2011:495).
Still, this was not yet the case with Gregory, nor his intention. Repentance was not equalled with penance; it was a much broader concept. The priests did not hand out ecclesiastical punishment but had to stimulate inner and outward penitence. Through a combination of sorrow, pain, and love for God, sin would lose its stranglehold on the believer: 'Für Gregor sind die Strafen aber nicht Kirchenstrafen im Sinne der mittelalterlichen Bußpraxis, sondern er meint, daβ man unter Tränen die bösen Taten sich vor Augen halten soll' [For Gregory, however, these punishments are not church punishments in the sense of medieval penitential practice, but he means to say that one should be continually mindful of one's evil deeds and tearfully regret those] (Andresen 2011:476-479).
The institutionalised private confessional practice before a priest, is a phenomenon that belongs to the late medieval and early modern church. Recent publications acknowledge this. The careful reader of a New history of penance (Brill 2008), for instance, searches in vain for a chapter on the early church. Admittedly, the aim of this publication was creative rather than judicial, but only two chapters cover the early Middle Ages and late antiquity (Firey 2008:97-148), and even then, these chapters serve to create an understanding for later developments, largely depending on descriptions of monastic life rather than on congregational data. Still, intriguing questions are put, such as whether ecclesiastical penance and forgiveness should be regarded as a form of social manipulation (Firey 2008:3).
Otherwise, the new history of penance only concerns the medieval-Ages and post-Tridentine church. This is understandable, because the church, even in late antiquity, did not have a uniform system, but knew a rich variety (Meens 2014:15). Even detailed studies on the situation in Rome in the 6th century are inconclusive in this regard: 'Historians of Rome must always take caution, that they do not mistake the exceptional for the normal' (Uhalde 2010:10). Later sources from the early medieval period, from AD 600 to 1200, show a lack of uniformity (Meens 2014:2). Where they do provide information, it is clear that this is a far cry from the days of the Contra-Reformation (Meens 2014:10), a later development also shared by Vatican II, when the Catholic Church had come to consider herself as the exclusive mediator of reconciliation with God. Neufeld (1986) explains: [I]n der Buße geht es um Versöhnung nicht als privates und isoliertes Ereignis, sondern als unverzichtbar kirchlich vermitteltes Geschehen. Die Kirche selbst ist 'Kirche der Sünder', und der Sünder ist zu seinem Heil an und in die kirchliche Gemeinschaft verwiesen. Indem er sich mit ihr versöhnt, hat sich Gott mit ihm versöhnt.
[Repentance is not about reconciliation as a private and isolated event, but as an event that is indispensably mediated by the church. The church itself is 'the church of sinners', and the sinner is referred to and in the church community for his salvation. By being reconciled to her, God has been reconciled with him]. (p. 61, [author's own translation]) The process of ecclesiastical penance and forgiveness was complicated by another development in the Western Church, namely the medieval distinction between deadly and daily sin, with a more pragmatic than exegetical reference to 1 John 5:16-17. This was combined with the notion of purgatory, where unconfessed daily sins were cleansed by fire until the believer was ready for his heavenly abode. The Eastern Church did not distinguish between venial and mortal sin in principle, as all sin separated from God and conscientious persistence with any evil was considered fatal. After Vatican II, Western thinking integrated concepts from modern psychology to define mortal sin. Where a literal transgression of the Ten Commandments used to qualify for deadly peril for the soul, the present Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994:455) also requires full knowledge and complete concurrence of the will. This leaves a certain amount of vagueness, whether fallible human beings can act with full knowledge; and is it even possible to have a 100% commitment of the will?
Although not everyone regards the fourth Lateran Council (AD 1215) as central to the development of the medieval practice of confession, the decrees of this Council nonetheless indicate the church's stance at the time; or, at least, what the church authorities considered desirable by that time, even if ideal and reality often do not coincide in history.
The canones of Lateran IV, for instance, are quite strict on the professional behaviour of bishops. If a bishop twice appointed a bad priest, he lost his right to appoint any (canon 30). 1 Lateran IV also dealt decisively with simony, bribery and substandard salaries for clergy. That the church did not implement the council's rules is clear from Chaucer's Canterbury tales to Erasmus's Lof der zotheid; from the sighs of Pope Adrian to the royal commissions into clergy abuse in the 21st century, which largely centred on the serial appointments of wrong priests. Had canon 30 of Lateran IV been taken seriously in recent history, many bishops would have lost their authority to appoint clergy.
If the council's rules were not followed regarding bishops, it is unlikely that the situation concerning repentance and forgiveness was any better. Nonetheless, canon 21 requires that parishioners confess their sins to their local priest and attend the Holy Eucharist at least once a year. Garcia (2007) translates this stipulation clearly: Any believer of both sexes must -when he has reached the years of distinction -confess his sins with his own priest (proprio sacerdoti) at least once a year, do penance as required and piously receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least with Pascha, 1.The canons of Lateran IV (also all ecumenical councils referred to in this article). unless he should abstain from reception for a season, for sensible reasons and advised by his own priest. Otherwise he must be barred from church for the remainder of his life and be denied a Christian burial when he dies. This wholesome decision must be announced often in the churches, so that no one can excuse himself on the basis of blindness and pretence of ignorance. If someone, however, has good reason to confess his sins to a priest from elsewhere, he must first ask and receive permission from his own priest, because otherwise this (other) one won't be able to absolve or bind. 2 (p. 20-21) To protect the faithful, the punishment for priestly indiscretion was severe: Who dares to reveal a sin that was admitted to him in confession, must according to our decree be removed from priestly service, and also banished to a strict monastery to do eternal penance, as Garcia (2022:20-21) translates it. 3 The above makes it clear that confession and penance were a private affair in the first instance. This is evident from the rule that if a confessor revealed anything spoken during confession, he was to be removed from the world and locked up in a monastery for the rest of his natural life. This essentially private character of repentance marks a discontinuity with earlier periods. In contrast, the classical world and the Patristic Church very much required public admission of sin and repentance that was visible to all.

Repentance and forgiveness in the classical world
Repentance and forgiveness are phenomena of all times and are not exclusively Christian in nature. The ancient lawmakers among the Hindus and later commentaries defined repentance as a deed of self-inflicted penance. This had the power to burn up bad karma, even with the potential of building up a healthy reserve of good karma. Either in this life or the next, it would help the subject to progress towards the Nirwana (Hadley 2001:155). In some ancient cultures a public show of repentance was not frowned upon, as if someone who did penance was in some way less worthy than other people. Among the Sikhs penance, 'tanakhah', functions as a practical way to restore a person and to make him acceptable to society again. (Hadley 2001:20-21) Repentance and forgiveness have a relational setting and are relevant in every community where humans live together. These notions were as relevant in ancient India as they were to  Konstan 2008:243). Aristotle supposes that in general one is less inclined to be angry if offenders admit that they were wrong and regret their actions (Retorica 1380a: καὶ τοῖς ὁμολογοῦσι καὶ μεταμελομένοις). [And to those who agree that they were wrong and are sorry.] The philosopher insists that this shared evaluation of events (ὁμολογοῦσι) is paramount, and that those who inflicted pain must be truly sorry (μεταμελομένοις). When those offended observe this attitude in the perpetrators, their wrath will likely fade. Without admission and regret, wrath does not give away and there is no basis for a functional relationship or anything that resembles forgiveness in the Christian sense, that the early church came to appreciate. Aristotle gives an example from the experience of slavery in his day. When slaves are cheeky and deny their obvious guilt, their master will only become angrier, but if they honestly admit their wrongdoing and suffer the penalty, their master's wrath will disappear, and their relations will be normal again.
It should therefore be noticed that Aristotle uses veritas as an unspoken compass for activities that concern the restoration of relationships. The acknowledgment of the truth facilitates a common judgement and prepares offenders to suffer the consequences of their actions. With Lucius Annaeus Seneca, one finds a similar approach. Clemency might be bestowed in situations where punishment would not do any good, or if there were mitigating circumstances (De Clementia 2.7.1-3). Mercy was possible in such circumstances, but forgiveness was out of the question. 4 This approach to repentance and forgiveness is rather far removed from prevailing Western concepts of the 21st century. 'Today, the idea of forgiveness is understood to entail the voluntary surrender of anger and the desire for retribution precisely when anger is deserved' (Konstan 2008:244). In other words, forgiveness is no longer dependent on a restored relationship on the basis of truth and regret, but often operates as a one-sided decision of a victim to give up anger and resentment, without any indication of sorrow and new behaviour on the part of the offender. Influential segments of contemporary Christianity contribute to this new approach, by teaching that it is one's duty to forgive right, left and centre those who don't want forgiveness (see Braun 2008). As if the judicial murders of Jesus and St Stephen should set the standard for every situation, also when offenders are very much aware of what they are doing, and don't regret their actions at all.
Aristotle clearly had a very different perspective on this, as had the early Church. That is not to say that his classical views agreed with Judeo-Christian views in every respect. His perspective lacked the vertical depth of the early Christians. Horizontally, the most noticeable difference was that his compass of truth gravitates towards a sense of honour. For this reason, it is perfectly acceptable to use personal vengeance as a legitimate tool to overcome anger. Apostolic Christianity had a rather different take on this: no personal revenge, but trusting God for retribution1 (e.g. Rm 12:19. Put in a more positive way, for the Greek philosopher a hunger for righteousness could also be satisfied by retaliation or retribution. Aristotle uses τιμωρία, as he demands payment or punishment from offenders (Retorica 1378a). Anger is relational and so is the solution, so it is necessary that 'the person who is provoked to wrath always directs his anger against specific persons'. 5 As in ancient Indian thinking, the classical concepts of repentance and forgiveness are aimed at rehabilitation. By means of admission of wrongdoing and by penance, offenders became acceptable again to society and in their own eyes (Kaster 2005:82). This feeling could also take the form of communal regret. One finds this with the Greek historian Polybius, who describes the Roman invasion of Greece in the second century BC. He ascribes the total desolation to the irresponsibility of the Greek leaders and blames their lack of wisdom (Hist. 3.39.9). Many Greeks committed suicide, but Polybius also narrates how they started to accuse one another of treason and an anti-Roman attitude, while others met the Romans, confessed their treason and asked them what penance they should perform. Their aim in this was to achieve acceptability in the eyes of the new government and in their own eyes as members of the new society.
Classical thinking on repentance, paenitentia, is often focused on the consequences of someone's behaviour. More than once, regret does not concern the action as such, but the adverse consequences. This is a phenomenon of all ages. Christian repentance and forgiveness, on the other hand, focused on personal wrongdoing. Kaster (2005), writing on Tertullian, marks this as the most important distinction between paenitentia [deeds of repentance or penance] in early Christianity and that of pre-Christian Rome: For Tertullian, writing on the subject late in the second century of our era, it is only what we would call 'remorse' that corresponds to true paenitentia, a change of heart that leads one to seek purgation and forgiveness for sins -for offenses, which above all offend against God as the form and source of all good. But, as Tertullian was pleased to point out, with complete accuracy if not perfect charity, that is not the paenitentia of pre-Christian Rome. (p. 81) As the classical world progressed into the Christian era, Christian concepts of personal sorrow were also integrated into Roman law (Kubiak 2016:403).

Repentance and forgiveness in the early Church
There are several aspects that need to be considered in relation to repentance and forgiveness in the early Church. From a later historical perspective, it is tempting to focus on the admission and readmission of baptised sinners to the communion of the Church. Although this is certainly part of the story, such an approach would be rather limited, as it fails to offer a spiritual and historical context. For that reason, it will be helpful to consider related practices and concepts, as well as the narrower practice of repentance and forgiveness in the context of Church discipline: • The early Christians set aside days and seasons to encourage personal repentance and conversion of life and thinking. • The Apostolic Church used the book of Psalms as 'the' prayer book provided by the Holy Spirit, both in the liturgy and private devotions. Repentance and forgiveness are recurring themes in these songs. By singing and reciting the Psalms, Christians expressed sorrow over sin and their commitment to a new way of life that was marked by keeping God's commandments. Not only the Psalms, but also the intensive use of Scripture by the Church Fathers in general, encouraged the idea that all human behaviour should be measured against God's standards, as a mutually agreed compass for the evaluation of human thoughts and actions. God's law brought sin to light and provoked repentance as well as the desire for forgiveness (cf. Rm 7:7-9; Gl 3:10). • Readmission to the Holy Eucharist and Christian fellowship after public repentance.

Seasons of repentance
Setting priorities includes the scheduling of time to do it, otherwise there is no real interest or commitment.
As repentance and conversion were serious issues for the early Church, Christians set aside special seasons as a community to focus on conviction and confession of sin, with a view to acquiring God's forgiveness. The time and length of these seasons varied from region to region but were generally concentrated in the week or weeks before Easter, with a natural focus on the human and personal sin which had necessitated Jesus's suffering and atoning death (2 Cor 5:19). Over time, Good Friday developed into the Day of Atonement for the New Testament Church, blending the spiritual concepts of the Passover liberation from the power of Egypt with the communal cleansing of Yom Kippur (Lv 16).
The very early Church lacked a focus on fasting as a ritual.
Fasting from food and drink functioned as a means subservient to spiritual goals. The Shepherd of Hermas describes this tellingly (III Simultude 5.3). For him the aim is to be on one's guard against wrong words and desires, to fast from wrongdoing as it were. Fasting from food and drink other than water was used to show that one meant business.
In the early Church, fasting did not imply total abstention from food, but a restriction to sober meals of water and bread, as Christians focused on contrition and conversion. The 'bread and water punishment', particularly in military discipline, is reminiscent of this, promoting a moral compass and a new way of life.
Hermas recommends that Christians use the money they save on luxury foods as a donation to a widow, an orphan, or someone else in difficult material circumstances. In this way repentance is used positively to encourage a new and healing way of life. Later, St Cyprian would write on this extensively, using the giving of alms pastorally in the restoration process of lapsed Christians (Dunn 2004:735).
In his book on fasting (De ieiunio adversus psychicos 3.1-3), Tertullian makes a connection between fasting and the type of sin that Adam and Eve committed in the Garden of Eden, which led to the spiritual fall of mankind. To his mind the stomach deserved some punishment, as all other sins flowed from this initial one. Although Tertullian does not say so, it is a beautiful biblical thought that God uses a meal to reinforce the New covenant and the restoration of humanity in Christ. However, Tertullian was not the person to contemplate food positively, and particularly not by the time he wrote De Ieiunio. By then he had become a Montanist and considered the regular Catholic Church as far too lenient in many respects.
As early as the second century, Christians also set aside special days for repentance, perhaps as a weekly occurrence, but certainly in the period leading up to Easter.  (Lake 1977:305-307). The present text, however, makes fasting compulsory for both the person receiving baptism and the minister who officiates: 7.4 And before the baptism, let them fast, both the baptizer as the one who is baptized, as well as others who are able, but command the person who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days.
On the weekly fast, the Didache says: 8.1 And don't let your fasting coincide with that of the hypocrites, because they fast on the second (Monday) and fifth (Thursday) after the Sabbath. You, however, must fast on the fourth (Wednesday) and preparation (Friday). 7 This injunction impresses as legalistic and anti-Jewish, as if hypocrisy is defined by the day on which fasting takes place, instead of by a person's attitude and intent! It seems that the author of the present text of the Didache was not troubled by exegetical considerations when he alludes to Jesus's words on relating to fasting in the Gospels. According to the Didache author or redactor, hypocrisy is prevented by reciting the Lord's Prayer three times a day (8.2 τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας οὕτω προσεύχεσθε), and if one takes care to fast on two other days than the Jews do. This breathes a completely different spirit 6.Eusebius (1932), H.E. 5.24.12: γὰρ μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐστὶν ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας. οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται μίαν ἡμέραν δεῖν αὐτοὺς νηστεύειν, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ καὶ πλείονας: οἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσιν τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. These 40 hours may have been inspired by spiritual symbolism: the 40 days of Jesus's temptation in the desert and the wandering years of the people of Israel before they were admitted in the Promised Land.
than the Gospels and Jesus's words taken in context. When Jesus addresses prayer and fasting (e.g. in the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 6), sincerity before God is paramount. Christ specifically rejects public display and a repetition of words, but for the Didache these very things constitute the right approach: repetition of words and observance of fasting days that are seen to be different from the days that the Jews keep.
There is an obvious discrepancy between the Didache, and the form of Apostolic Christianity handed down to us through the Gospels.
This agrees well with later phases in the development of Christianity However, because the right exercise of self-discipline is not merely discipline of the flesh, but much more a cleansing of the mind, we wish that your observance will be so perfect that as you cut off enjoyment that belongs to carnal desires, you will likewise banish errors that emerge from sentiments of the soul. Because he whose heart is not polluted by unbelief, prepares himself with real and mental cleansing for the Paschal feast, on which all the spiritual sacraments of our religion coincide. Because, as the Apostle says: 'Everything that is not from faith is sin'. (Rm 14:23) 10 Leo the Great is concerned with a repentance that includes a reformation of thought and a changed way of life. For him both are the result of faith, a focus of trust in God. In the Quadragesima sermones this is not mere theory, but repentance requires a converted way of life, which includes a changed attitude towards one's neighbour: Having put our trust in such great promises (see Col 3:1-4), dearly beloved, be heavenly minded, not in your spiritual expectation only, but also in your walk of life. And although at all times purity of mind and body should be our goal, particularly now in these forty days of fasting, you must take care to let your piety act out in works, not only in the distribution of alms, which are a good way to indicate spiritual improvement, but also in forgiving trespasses and being merciful towards them that are accused of wrongdoing; so that God's requirement relating to people would not obstruct your prayers. Because if we agree with the teachings of the Lord: Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors (Matt. 6:12), we want to fulfil with our whole heart 9. Athanasius did himself not use the episode of Jesus in the desert to argue his case for a 40-day fast but preferred to use Old Testament saints as examples (Brakke 1995:188

Scripture and prayer
While the previous section on fasting and seasons of repentance focused on the early Church setting aside periods for this as to priority, it is also important to develop an understanding for how these Christians reached out to God. What did they pray, and what was the standard for the evaluation of their behaviour, and motivated them to do penance?
Perhaps the single most important feature of the liturgical and private devotional life of early Christians in relation to repentance, is the book of Psalms. The Fathers considered this as the Holy Spirit's Psaltery, which provided words to reach out to God, also in situations where the believer couldn't find any himself. In the Psalms, human behaviour is measured against the standards of God's law, which encourages self-reflection and evaluation.
The seven penitential Psalms (6,32,38,51,102,130,and 143;LXX: 6,31,37,50,101,129,and 142) were particularly appropriate for this. These songs centre on personal confession of sin, contriteness of heart and seeking forgiveness in the presence of God. Throughout the history of the church these Psalms would prove indispensable in theological reflection on repentance and forgiveness. In the Middle-Ages it was from these seven penitential psalms that the church derived the seven deadly sins (Waltke, Houston & Moore 2010:580): Psalm 6 against unjustified wrath (ira), Psalm 32 against arrogance (superbia), Psalm 38 against gluttony and excess (gula), Psalm 51 against lust (luxuria), Psalm 102 against greed (avaritia), Psalm 130 against envy (invidia) and Psalm 143 against sloth (acedia).
In the Psalms, repentance and fasting coincide with the believer reaching out to God in prayer and supplication. The early Church used fasting and sorrow as vehicles or means, not as goals in themselves, but as ways to support their reaching out to God and to their neighbour. With the money that was saved by fasting, the believers reached out to their fellow humans, and with the words of the Psalms they approached the Lord. As the prayer book of the Israel of God, they would also leave an imprint on the regular liturgy and life of the monasteries alike. Using the words of the Holy Spirit, while seeking God's forgiveness and restoration, Christians gave voice to their personal admission of guilt and feelings of repentance and sorrow. Important to consider, is that previous centuries, including the epoch of the early Church, also knew communal expressions of repentance, something that our society has almost lost completely (Waltke, Houston & Moore 2014:2).
Despite the lack of availability of printed Bibles, early Christian experience was shaped by the Scriptures in an extraordinary way. Some early patristic letters are literally compilations of Scripture quotations (Zuiddam 2015 All these prayers are reflective of a world that is far removed from 21st century experience. Mary's song is -both in vocabulary and spiritual thought -a spontaneous expression of a Jewish girl. Two thousand years later, however, these words reflect a theological content and phraseology immersed in Holy Scripture, that is far beyond today's teenager and most adults. The early Church, on the other hand, lived and breathed biblical vocabulary and contents in personal recital and public prayers. In this way, the mirror of God's Word stimulated believers to repentance and spiritual restoration.

Repentance and excommunication
The early Church provided regular opportunities for reflection by means of special days and periods of fasting, as well as weekly and daily reflections on Scripture and biblical prayer, all stimuli for repentance and conversion of life. The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150) shows that this starts with the individual expressing sorrow and asking forgiveness as part of an ongoing relationship with God. This book points to the crucial role of faith as the power of God, to overcome sin and to experience answered prayers for spiritual improvement (Man ix. 10-11).
The Shepherd of Hermas also addresses the question of how to get a merciful God, if one has trespassed after the cleansing of sin in Holy Baptism (Mand.Iv.ii. 3-4). He suggests that this is possible through repentance, as Christ opens and closes the kingdom of heaven. However, if one continues to commit the same sin, repentance becomes shallow and sorrow loses its moral strength. Other Fathers like Clement of Alexandria preserved similar sentiments (Stromata 2.13). Lapsed Christians may approach God, not for cheap solutions, but with heartfelt prayer, honest confession of sins and a changed life. Someone who keeps repenting of the same sin, which he continues to commit, does not differ much from unbelievers, except that, in Clement's view, he may be more conscious of his sin. The combination of purposeful sinning and continued asking for forgiveness, has for Clement no place in genuine Christianity.
Although these sentiments were shared by many, others like Tertullian (as well as movements like the Montanists and Donatists), disliked the idea of 'cheap grace' and continued to question whether there is still forgiveness with God if a baptised Christian commits grave sins. Perhaps it was possible for king David to get away with murder and adultery in Old Testament days, but there was a profound sense that this was not acceptable in the New Testament era after Pentecost. It only took a white lie to seal the verdict of the death penalty for Ananias and Sapphira (Ac 5:1-11).
This leads to the consideration of repentance and forgiveness in the context of excommunication. The possibility of and requirements for readmission of repentant sinners into the church, is a recurring theme in patristic literature.
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1.13.5) describes an episode in France when quite a few women became enchanted by the prophet Marcus, who also practised magic and brewed love potions. Several sisters in the faith fell for his charms and tricks. Irenaeus mentions how a deacon admitted Marcus into his home and how the 'prophet' abused this hospitality by running away with the deacon's wife, who was a stunning beauty. 11 After the brethren in the congregation went to great length convincing her to come back, she publicly confessed her sin by weeping and display of regret. She wanted everyone to know that she distanced herself from her former actions and from the spiritual and bodily pollution by this magician. 12 In this story, Christian repentance is combined with the way in which classical society expressed sorrow and regret. Irenaeus's tale shares several similarities with Homer's Helen of Troy. Irenaeus calls the deacon's wife, who is not mentioned by name, a speciosa, an impressive beauty. Helen, daughter of Zeus, shared these qualities. The stories also agree in the public rejection of their former actions and in ascribing these to someone else tempting and ensnaring them. Helen regards herself as a victim of Aphrodite. When Odysseus slew the Trojans with his long bronze sword: the other Trojan women cried with sorrow, but my heart rejoiced, because my heart was already set to return home, in hindsight regretting the blindness of the senses which Aphrodite had caused, when she pushed me to that place, away from the land of my fathers, turning my back on my own child, bridal chamber and also my husband, who lacked nothing in intellect or looks. 13 The deacon's spouse, similarly, refers to Marcus as the cause of her troubles: 'the pollution which happened through this magician'. Both women went through a period when they were in the power of -yes, their will was taken over bysomeone else. This no longer being the case, they do not leave any misunderstanding that they distance themselves from that past and fully reject everything associated with this period. Readmittance in classical society happened along these lines. Even a queen like Helena may openly share this with an unknown guest at court (Telemachus), without harming her position or standing. On the contrary, the common denominator among penitents from every part of Irenaeus distinguishes among three categories of lapsed Christians (Adv. Haer. 1.13.7). Firstly, people who sear their conscience (cf. 2 Tm 3:6); then others, who repent and publicly confess their sins (cf. Ac 19:18-20); 14 and thirdly, people who are kept back from doing so by shame. As a result of this shame, the last group ends up between a rock and a hard place. Irenaeus accuses them of being more ashamed of public confession than of the sins they have committed. Effectually, they prefer the perdition of their soul to public embarrassment in the eyes of men (cf. Lk 12:5). Irenaeus reasons that this leads to a state of spiritual despair in some, while others cannot be bothered with public penance and become apostates. If there is no option to return, they might as well go all the way. Irenaeus affirms the general view that reconciliation with Christ and his Church is possible. This, however, requires repentance, public confession and a new way of life.
Tertullian probably is the first early Christian writer who orders his thinking on repentance systematically. As would be the case with Cyprian later, in Tertullian's reflections readmission to the Christian community plays a central role.
Holy Baptism is the door to the church, but once a person has entered, but lapsed, it is impossible to repeat this and reopen the door by a second baptism. While this door is closed to lapsed Christians, God provided a different one for Christian sinners: the way of repentance and conversion, a lifeboat for shipwrecked believers (Joyce 1941:22).
Traditionally two phases are recognised in Tertullian's views on repentance and forgiveness: a Catholic and a Montanist 14. Notably, the public confession described in Acts 19:18-20, which includes book burning, is characterised as an activity of the Word of God: 'In this way the Word of the Lord grew with might and took over' (Ac 19:20).

one. His initial way of thinking is evident in De Paenitentia.
Repentance is regarded as personal contriteness of heart and conversion of life, in the biblical sense of μετανοέω, not as submitting to deeds of penance ordered by a priest. 15 Tertullian does not use the word priest once in his treatise on paenitentia.
Repentance is especially required, because God commands Christians to repent from their sin (De Paen. cap. 4 Indeed, when you seek forgiveness for adulterers and fornicators with a martyr, you admit yourself that such sins may only be resolved by their own martyrdom, you who suppose that this is possible by that of someone else. 18 It should perhaps be mentioned that Tertullian's words do not consider the departed saints in heaven of medieval theology, but the invocation of still living martyrs on earth, who suffered and testified to their faith in times of persecution. St Cyprian speaks about martyrs in a similar way, as believers who suffered for Christ. These martyrs could still be alive, suffering in jail or penitential labour, like many Christians in North Africa who were condemned to work in the mines. The church considered such people martyrs and provided them with food (cf. McGowan 2003:455-476). This practice of consulting living martyrs is the early beginning of the development of the doctrine of works of supererogation, which would lay the basis for the later teachings on indulgences, which would in their turn provoke the Protestant Reformation of 1517. On close inspection, many topics in the history of the Church share a connection with repentance and forgiveness, as reconciliation with God concerns the heart of Christianity. Cyprian, like Tertullian, did not support this idea of supererogation by martyrs as a spiritual right (De Lapsis 17). He cautions against self-deception by trusting in the intercession of others as a basis for forgiveness, as sin is in the first place committed against God. Therefore, only God can forgive sins. Cyprian allows that God may consider what faithful witnesses or priests ask regarding the offender, but this is in no way a right that believers may count upon (De Lapsis 36). Cyprian argues that servants cannot sign away debts with their Master for clients because of their own good deeds and moral credit. Those contributions are minuscule in comparison with the offence against God anyway, so passing these on as an indulgence for the benefit of others, is a futile attempt. Lapsed Christians need to take personal responsibility and themselves cry out for mercy to the Lord. Even martyrs are bound by the Law of God and his will (De Lapsis 18).
Maledictus homo qui spem habet in hominem, 'cursed is the man who puts his hope on a human person', are the parting words of the African bishop on the subject (see Jr 17:5).
For Cyprian, faith is much more than agreement or acknowledgement of historical events. It includes sorrowful awareness of sin, and an expectancy which reaches out to God in prayer, and to one's neighbour with a converted way of life. Where those are present, God's readiness to forgive should not be doubted. If the church denies this spiritual reality, for example in the case of agonising grief over an abortion, apart from being a form of false witness, this has the potential to do great spiritual damage (McAreavey 1993:235).

Final observations
While the practice of repentance and forgiveness was embedded in similar concepts in classical culture, early Christianity added a profound and personal vertical dimension to these concepts.
In this way, the church paved the way for repentance as an integrated way of life. This was encouraged by setting aside special days and seasons for believers to devote to confession of sins, repentance and conversion. A central role in this regard was played by the Holy Scriptures, particularly the penitential Psalms.
As a rule, the early Church forgave and readmitted repentant sinners. It should be noted that when repentance and conversion where obvious, readmission was not a matter of years either, and granted liberally. St Cyprian testifies to this as he concludes his treatise on lapsed Christians (De Lapsis 36): If someone makes things right with God in this way: if he repents from his ways, if he is ashamed of his sins, then will he receive even more strength and faith from the pain of his very fall; heard and assisted by God, he shall make glad the congregation whom he disappointed not that long ago; and not only will he be surprised by God's forgiveness, but even with a crown. 19