After all have ripened together, shall come the Day of Judgement, which is the harvest of souls. Then there shall sit the Judge, the Son of God, who recognises what is His own and what is the other's. His it shall be to choose what He may gather in His barn, and what deliver over to the burning----whom He shall condemn to torments that know no end, and upon whom He may bestow the rewards which He has promised.
Let us recognise that we all are men; let no one usurp to himself the power of Judgement that belongs to God. For if any Bishop were to claim it all for himself, pray, what will there be for Christ to do in Judgement? It should be enough for a man not to be guilty of sins of his own, without wishing to be judge of the sins of another. |283
So it is our declaration [not only] that we do not reject you, [but even that for the sake of Peace we would not have rejected your fathers, if it had come to pass in their day that unity was accomplished]. For it would be a sin for us Bishops to do now, that which was not done by the Apostles, who were not permitted either to separate seeds or to pluck up the tares from the wheat.
III. The Donatists might have appealed to the example of the Apostle Peter to ask pardon for themselves.
But even if the Catholic Church should hesitate about receiving you, ought you not to have striven to attain the pattern of unity ? But you have shrunk from bringing forward the examples to be found in the Gospel, as for instance what has been written concerning the person of the most blessed Peter, where we may read a description of the way in which unity is to be retained or procured. Without doubt it is evil to do anything against a prohibition, but it is worse not to have unity when you may. We see that this unity was preferred to punishment by Christ Himself, who chose that all His disciples should be in unity rather than punish a sin against Himself. For, as He did |284 not wish to be denied, He declared that whosoever should deny Him before men him would He deny before His Father, [but He did not declare that He would punish one who should give up any Scripture, since it is more serious to deny Him who spoke, than to give up the words which He has spoken]. And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest. So from |285 this example it is given us to understand that for the sake of unity sins should be buried, since the most blessed Apostle Paul says that charity can cover a multitude of sins:
'Bear your burdens together,'
he says; and in another place:
'Charity is high-souled, charity is kind, charity envieth not, charity is not puffed up, charity seeketh not the things that are her own.' |286
And he has said well. For he had seen all these things in the other Apostles, who for the sake of unity, through charity, would not withdraw from the communion of Peter----of the man, that is to say, who had denied Christ. But if their love of innocence had been greater than the gain of peace and unity, they would have said that they ought not to hold communion with Peter, who had denied his Master and the Son of God, the Lord. They might, as has been said, not have held communion with the most blessed Peter; it would have been possible for them to quote against him the words of Christ, who had declared that He would deny before His Father whosoever should have denied Him before men. We ought industriously to pay attention to the inward meaning of this. Whilst I say a few words concerning it, may the blessed Saint Peter himself pardon me, if I mention that which we read and know that he did. I hesitate to say that so great holiness as his has sinned, but he himself proved this fact, when he grieved bitterly and wept copiously, since he would neither have grieved nor wept, had he not committed any offence. Now the Head of the Apostles might surely have so governed himself, as to have done nothing, on account of which |287 he should grieve. But many faults are seen in this one case of his, for this reason, that it might be shown that for the sake of unity all things should be reserved for God. And I know not whether in any other man this kind of sin could be of such weight, as was clearly the case in blessed Peter. For whoever during some persecution perchance denied the Son of God, will be seen, when compared with blessed Peter, to have sinned more lightly, if he denied Him whom he had not seen, if he denied Him whom he had not recognised, if he denied Him to whom he had made no promise, if he denied but once. For in blessed Peter this kind of sin was broadened out ----in the first place, when Christ asked of all, whom did men say that He was, one said 'Elias,' another said 'the Prophet'; then we read that Christ said:
'Whom do you say that I am?'
and Peter said to Him:
'Thou art the Son of the Living God' ----
on account of which recognition he deserved to be praised by Christ, [because this he had said through the prompting of God the Father ]. Behold, when the others did not recognise the Son of God, He was recognised by Peter alone.
In the second place, when Christ said on the eve of His Passion: |288
'Behold I am bound, and you all flee,'
when the others kept silence, he alone promised that he would not go back. Out of His Foreknowledge, the Son of God said:
'O Peter, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.'
Something else was added to the weight of his sin----a promise, which he would not fulfil. After Christ was brought into the house of Caiaphas, out of so great a number no one was questioned----to fill up the measure of his transgression ---- save blessed Peter. When questioned, at first he denies; when questioned, he denies a second time; thirdly, he said that he knew Christ not at all; and the cock crew, not to mark the time by his crowing, but that blessed Peter might recognise how he had sinned. At last he grieved bitterly and wept copiously.
Behold (as we have said above), when the others did not recognise he alone recognised, when the others made no promises he alone promised, when the others did not deny once he alone denied and that three times, but yet, for the sake of unity, he was not to be separated from the number of the Apostles. From which we understand that all things were ordered by the Providence of the Saviour, that Peter should receive the Keys. The way of malice was stopped up, that the Apostles might not conceive in their minds that they were free to judge, and condemn with severity, him who had denied Christ. So many guiltless ones |289 are standing upright, and the sinner receives the Keys, that the work of unity might receive its pattern. It was provided that the sinner should open for the guiltless, lest the guiltless might close [the gates] against sinners, and thus the unity which is necessary could not be.
If you had mentioned these things, and asked for communion, how could the Catholic Church, our Mother, have hesitated to receive you in her Bosom, since it is certain that you are not Betrayers, but the sons of Betrayers?
IV. That Eccles. x, 1 should be referred to Donatists rather than to Catholics.
Now some of your party in their desire to point us out to their people as worthy of contempt, mix up in their discourses that which was said by the Prophet Solomon concerning 'the flies that are soon to die':
'Flies that are soon to die banish the sweetness of oil,'
and call us 'flies that are soon to die.' That liquid which is seasoned by the Name of Christ, and, after |290 it has been seasoned is called Chrism, they call 'Oil.' Before consecration it is still by nature simple oil; it becomes sweet, when it is seasoned from the Name of Christ.
There are then three things, of which the Prophet Solomon has made mention---- the oil, the sweetness and the flies that are soon to die which destroy the sweetness. These three things have their places in due order. In the first place is the oil, in the second is the sweetness that has been produced, in the third the dying flies which banish the sweetness. Let then whoever amongst you brings forward such an argument prove why he calls us 'flies that are soon to die.' You think that you have the power of consecration which gives its sweetness to the oil----you have then both the oil and its sweetness. Do we 'banish' your oil, so that you may with reason call us 'flies which are soon to die'? That which is yours remains with you. And if anyone passes over from you to us, he is left by us, as he was sent away by you. So how can |291 you say that we are 'flies soon to die, which corrupt the sweetness of the oil,' when, [coming] after you, we do no such deed?