Again if you say that the sweetness of the oil can be corrupted by us, either we can effect something, and give sweetness to the oil, or if, as you maintain, we are not able to effect anything, then the oil still remains such as it was by nature. How then do you say that we are 'flies soon to die, which corrupt the sweetness of the oil'?
Accordingly, the oil, before it is consecrated by us, is such as it was by nature. After it has been consecrated, it is able to receive sweetness from the Name of Christ. How can we by the same action both consecrate and corrupt?
It follows that, if the oil be sweet of its own nature, there is nothing more left for men to effect, when it is consecrated in the Name of Christ.
The same workman cannot at the same time make two things which are repugnant and opposite to each other.
When we, in your absence, consecrate, we do not corrupt. But if we do corrupt, who had before us consecrated anything for us to corrupt? Wherefore ----that the saying of the Prophet (if it be such) may not remain without application----understand that you are the flies that are soon to die. For you have |292 banished what it had not by nature, but by consecration, since we read that what is sweet is not capable of corruption by nature, for oil is simple and has its own one and distinctive name. Once it has been consecrated it is called Chrism, in which there is the sweetness which, having shut out the hardness of sins, softens the outward skin of the conscience, which renews a gentle mind, which prepares a habitation for the Holy Spirit, so that He may be hither invited and, after bitterness has been put to flight, may deign here gladly to dwell. This is the sweetness of the oil which flies that are soon to die are able to corrupt. If we were to banish the oil which you had consecrated, with reason might you call us flies that are soon to die, but so long as we preserve that which you have anointed even as we find it, we cannot be flies that are soon to die; but whilst you, driven by the storms of jealousy, falling, as it were, [like flies] into the oil, banish (by rebaptising) the sweetness of that oil, which has been consecrated in the Name of Christ----from which good morals should be seasoned, and the light of the mind be enkindled to a health-giving and true understanding----you are banishing the reality in which was the oil and sweetness.
But how have we been able to corrupt a sweetness, which no man before us produced by consecration? You have led men astray. You have rebaptised. |293 You have anointed a second time. Oh for shame! To your own destruction have you----like flies, which destroy even whilst they are dying----banished that which had been consecrated in the Name of Christ. Now, sin which has no pardon is death. It has been written that:
'he who shall have sinned against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven unto him, either in this world or in the world to come.'
Wherefore, inasmuch as you untruly call us flies, and hasten to annul all that we have done, and say that we ought to be rejected or despised, claiming sanctity for yourselves alone, you put forward your innocence, as the ground for promising that you can forgive the sins of others. You see therefore that it was not of us, as you argue, but of yourselves that the most blessed Apostle Paul has said:
'There shall be men, lovers of themselves, covetous, praising themselves, proud, blasphemers, not obeying |294 parents, ungrateful, wicked; not guarding peace, without affection, detractors, not gentle, without kindness, and the rest.'
V. That the Donatists and not the Catholics resembled Jamnes and Mambres.
Now, to turn to the fact that you have thought fit to take upon yourself the character of Moses, who, as the Apostle Paul tells us, was opposed by Jamnes and Mambres ----if this be so, what is the truth, that may be found with you, which the Catholic Church opposes?
Or, what is there with us which you can prove to be a lie? Is it that we are in one communion with the whole world? Will you be able to prove that this is a lie? Is it that we keep and defend the true and one Creed? Will you be able to prove that this is a lie? Will you be able to prove that the Chair of Peter is a lie----and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were granted him by Christ, with which we are in communion? |295
In the very passage of Scripture which you have mentioned, consider the order of the actions of the persons themselves, and pay attention as to which was the first. Yes, surely, Jamnes and Mambres who by their false artifices strove to fight against Moses and the truth, are in the second place. Moses, whose miracles they attempted in vain to impugn, was before them.
As Moses is the first, so also is the Catholic Church; the first. As Jamnes and Mambres fought against and opposed Moses, so also do you in rebellion fight against the true Catholic Church. Why, then, is it that you have wished to change names between yourselves and us excepting that thou mightest prove thyself on a level with thy colleagues? For there are some of your party, who, having forgotten, or being |296 ignorant of past times, say against us things which belong of right to those men who, having already fallen away from the Catholic Church, consecrated Majorinus----that is to say to the authors of Schism and Betrayal. Because they still preserved Peace, before they banished unity,----well-pleasing to God----they were the light of the world, and with reason were they termed the salt of the earth. So long as they taught Peace, they were still called the sons of Peace. Before they were puffed up, they were blessed in their poverty of spirit, and were part of the savour. Whilst they were meek, they were blessed----they were part of the savour. Whilst they were just, they were blessed----they were part of the savour. Whilst they were sons of Peace, they were blessed----they were the whole of the savour. After they bestowed the riches of error upon their breath and lungs and made the schism, they were seen to be cruel and without mercy; whilst they impiously tore asunder the members of the Church following after wickedness, they held the Kingdom of God in contempt, and, dividing the Church, were unwilling to be in Peace, they became salt that has been spoiled, from which nothing could be seasoned to please God with its sweetness. And since your first leaders were thus wicked, some of your colleagues |297 argue in a wrong-headed way, so that they say that those were foolish, who, quitting the Schism, having, however late, recognised the truth and their Mother the Catholic Church, followed after Peace. Some of your party think that these men made a mistake; they consider that, as it were having lost their savour, they departed from wisdom. From which it is clear that you all make the same mistake in your application of names. For you have compared both Jamnes and Mambres to peace-loving Catholics, and yourselves, who are schismatics, you have compared to Moses----something very far removed from the truth. And some of your foolish colleagues have thought well to pass judgement on the wise, so as to say that the lovers of Peace have become fools and have refused to understand that their own fathers have, through their dissension, lose their savour . |298
Pseudo-Optatus, Passage A (see p. 276, l. 21 ).
If at that time they had thought it right, for the sake of Peace, to enter into unity, even they would not have been repelled by the Church, since in their case dire straits made excuse for the will. For not any of them had been voluntarily Betrayers; otherwise, this sin of theirs might have been likened to other transgressions.
Whatever God has willed not to be done, He has forbidden by His Mouth----even as He has said:
'Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery,'
and the rest. He might have also forbidden what was done by your fathers. But since that which the mind does is one thing, whereas that which circumstances bring about is quite another, whatever is within the power of man to effect is fit matter for prohibition, but whatever evil deeds are brought about through necessity may not be blamed with much violence. Therefore wilful sins receive punishment, those done through necessity receive pardon.
The murderer, who is not compelled to his crime by any man, is free to do the deed; he is also free to leave it undone; the adulterer, who is compelled by no one from outside, can commit adultery or not, as he chooses. Similarly with other matters of like nature, where free choice exists.
Accordingly, when those things are done, which have been forbidden, they are destined for judgement; when things which have not been forbidden are done through some sort of necessity, perchance He who was unwilling |299 to forbid them, may deign easily to pardon. So with regard to this crime which might have been brought against your fathers as a deadly offence----if at that time they had been exposed, or brought to judgement concerning it, they might have come to their own rescue by alleging more than one example. For we read that in the first times the Tables of the Law were broken, also that Books were given up or cut and burned, but that no one was condemned.
If (as I have just said) your fathers' deeds had then been laid bare----if they could have been brought to judgement----without doubt they might have pleaded that they had done no more than was done by Moses the Lawgiver. Although necessity and free will have no resemblance, but are contrary to one another, [yet] since (so far as the legal name is concerned) there was the same case for your fathers as for Moses, your fathers might have said that they, through necessity, did what Moses had of his free will done first. In his indignation with the people, he did not consider that God had written with His own finger----and what has been written in heaven is more than what has been written on earth----nor did he reflect that what the Finger of God has written is not the same as that which has been written with a pen made by the hand of a man. Moses carried what he had received in the Cloud, and your fathers gave up what they had made for payment. With reason, then, might your fathers have defended themselves, arguing that it was not a deadly offence, if anyone of them had done, when |300 terrified by an excessive fear, what Moses had done through anger. Neither do we read that the Lord was wroth with Moses, nor that He avenged those broken Tables which He had written with His own Hand, nor that Moses was termed a sinner or punished. The Law came from God in the same way that water comes from a fountain, or that fruit is cut from a tree without injury to its root. That which has been used is not lost, provided that it is safely preserved in its source. Similarly, Moses was not condemned after he had scattered and broken to pieces the Tables of the Law. And subsequently he was called back, went up Mount Sinai, was permitted to speak with God, and received a second time the Law now renewed, as has been disclosed by the title of the book, which in Greek is called Deuteronomy. You see that in the Law that which had been preserved safe in its Source was not lost. But lest anyone should suppose that Moses had merit in a certain boldness with God due to his converse with Him, and that it was for this cause that God was not displeased with him, and that, this being so, it was fitting for friendship always to demand and receive its |301 reward and fruit----why then was he afterwards punished for another offence? Was it not to show that what he had done in his wrath was a venial offence? The Law was safe in God, even after it, together with the Tables of Stone, had been broken by man; whereas [on the other occasion] through not rendering that reverence which was due from man, Moses deserved the penalty of dying in the midst of his journey, so that he entered not into the Land of Promise ----from which it is clear that something, which, as in the present example, could escape without punishment, cannot be looked upon as a very great sin.
If this had been pleaded by your fathers, who could have refused them communion? And again, if they had put forward instances, which followed afterwards, in which we read of what happened when the renewed Law was kept in the Ark, and the people of Israel were conquered in battle. The Law, which by the advice of the people was borne in the Ark against the enemy, could not be guarded by the priests themselves and by the rest of the children of Israel, but far from being carried away [in safety] was given up to the enemy. When the Law had been given up, those who had urged its being brought forward fled away in panic, and we do not read that they suffered any punishment in consequence. If this example had been alleged by your fathers, who would have been able to repel them from his communion? Again, (what would have happened) if your leaders had not kept silence concerning those cases in which we read that Baruch gave up to Judin the Scribe the book of the |302 Law which he had received from the lips of Jeremiah the Prophet, and that the king's chief men commanded both Baruch himself, who had received the book, and Jeremiah, through whom God had spoken, to escape and lie hid? Jeremiah dictated, Baruch surrendered----both fled. The book was brought to Joachim the king. Now the king, in consequence of the coldness of the season, had a brazier burning before him----so, as he was not pleased to hear the book recited by Judin the Scribe, he at once tore it up into small fragments and consigned it to the flames. And God was wroth neither with Jeremiah who fled, nor with Baruch who fled with him and surrendered the book. For if God had been wroth with them, He would have spoken to some other Prophet. He did not speak to any other, but to Jeremiah himself, for thus do we read:
'The Word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, after the King burned the chapter of the book and the words, which Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah. God said to Jeremiah: " Take to thyself another paper and write all thy words, which were formerly written in the book, that was burned by Joachim, king of Judah."'
So we see that neither was God wroth, nor did the book which had been burned perish, nor was Baruch punished, nor was Jeremiah disowned by God. From this it is clear that something, which no punishment ever followed, was at no time a serious fault. If your fathers had alleged these examples, who could have rejected them from communion? So when God saw that the Tables of the Law had been broken by Moses, and that the Ark had been abandoned to its foes, and that the book of the Law, after it had been given up by Baruch, was both cut up and burned, He showed His Providence and promised |303 that He would write the Law henceforward neither on Tables nor in Books, but in the very inward parts of man ----that is, on the mind and heart of each believer, even as He had written it in the heart of Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the other Patriarchs, who, without the Law, certainly lived according to the Law. This is proved by the blessed Apostle Paul, when he says: