Against the Donatists — Book 7

Against the Donatists · Optatus of Milevis · the golden age of the Fathers · part 10 of 10

Against the Donatists — Book 7

I. That the Donatists can be received back into the Communion of the Church more easily than could have been their fathers who were guilty of Betrayal. II. That good and evil will be found in the Church of God, and must be borne with to the Day of III. The Donatists might have appealed to the example of the Apostle Peter to ask pardon for themselves. IV. That Eccles. x, 1 should be referred to Donatists rather than to Catholics. V. That the Donatists and not the Catholics resembled Jamnes and Mambres. Pseudo-Optatus, Passage A (see p. 276, l. 21). Pseudo-Optatus Passage B (see p. 279, line 3). Pseudo-Optatus, Passage C (see p. 279, 1. 16). In this last Book it is shown that the Children of the Betrayers, whose Names were given in the First Book, may now, for the Sake of Unity, be received back into the I. That the Donatists can be received back into the Communion of the Church more easily than could have been their fathers who were guilty of Betrayal. Having shown up the Betrayers and having pointed out the holy Church----having refuted the calumnies which you were wont to utter against us, and having exposed your sins----which have merited to be chidden by God---1 and your repetition of the Sacraments, and your gratuitous claims and your violence, we ought now to finish our answers and statements ; but, since I perceive that, though the wood of malice has been cut down by the axes of truth, challenges are still sprouting forth from you or from your friends, in which, as I hear, you maintain that, in consequence of your being known as the children of Betrayers, you ought not to be invited to the communion of unity ----to this let me say a few words in reply.

It is most true that the Catholic Church was sufficient for herself with her countless peoples in all countries ; she was sufficient for herself also in Africa, although here she is but in few places. But God was not pleased with your separation, for the members of one body had been torn asunder, and, against the Will of God, you, who are our brothers, wandered away from your brethren. Sentence had been passed at home upon your fathers, that they who ought to have been expelled in consequence of their confession of Betrayal, should go forth of their own accord. No [formal] judgement was pronounced, yet the effect of the sentence was obtained. They should have been cast off after the Betrayal, to which they owned in the Council in Numidia. But, not to give an opportunity for the display of their malice, the severity of judgement was refrained from, and your ancestors of their own accord made their plans, in consequence of their guilt, to cover up their crime and depart with the appearance of pride----when they should have grieved and blushed for shame. For if at that time they had thought it right, for the sake of Peace, to enter into unity, {Passage A is found here in the manuscripts} and had come to the Catholic Church of their own accord----unlike you, who are known to have been drawn by the Will of God to return whence you had wandered (though you are wandering still)----if, as I have said, they had come of their own accord to the Catholic Church, perhaps our fathers would have hesitated about receiving them, because they had been Betrayers; but we have cause for rejoicing, that none guilty of Betrayal have lived down to our times.

So to-day we find quite a new state of affairs, since we have to deal, not with them, but with you. Although it appears that a stain has passed from them to you by inheritance, nevertheless you cannot on this ground be held guilty together with your fathers, according to the Judgement of God, who has spoken by Ezekiel the prophet, saying: 'The soul of the father is Mine, and Mine is the soul of the son. The soul that sinneth, shall be punished alone.' And this was proved even in ancient times----at the very beginning of the world, in that his father's sin did not belong to Seth, the son of Adam. And that no one might say that in another place it was written by the Lord that He would 'punish the sins of the fathers even unto the fourth generation' ---16 ----these are undoubtedly both words of God, but both do not refer to one people. The first was said through Moses to a definite set of men, the second through Ezekiel to a different class. God, since He knew that the Jews would declare to Pontius Pilate: 'His Blood be upon us, and upon our children,' in His foreknowledge saw that what they would say, was, in comparison with the greatness of their sin, but little, and threatened the Jews themselves, in order that their crime might be expiated by adequate penalties, saying that He would punish the offences of the fathers even to the fourth generation.

So this word belongs in a particular way to the Jews, and to them alone; but the other, in which God has deigned to promise not to punish in sons any sins of their fathers, nor in fathers any faults perchance committed by their sons, belongs to Christians. {Passage B is found here in the manuscripts} Your fathers, who are proved to have done these things in the days of Unity, have fallen away from the number of the living, leaving you as it were an inherited stain, which God has already washed away by His Providence, when He made a distinction (as we have said above) between fathers and their sons. Accordingly, since Betrayal is a sin, your fathers must see to it, as to what answer they may make in the Judgement of God; but your sin it cannot be, since you are living in other times. II. That good and evil will be found in the Church of God, and must be borne with to the Day of Judgement. So it is that for long past we have desired to receive you into our Communion, because it was not you that sinned at that time, but your fathers. {Passage C is found here in the manuscripts} Nor ought any man to judge concerning another man, as though he were himself wholly without sin, since it has been written in the Gospel that Christ says: 'Judge not, that you be not judged.'

And this above all, because it will not be possible to find one who is absolutely holy. For should any such there be, who are unable to sin, they are guilty of lying in the Lord's Prayer, if without reason they beg for pardon and say to God the Father: 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us.' So the Apostle John both shows the consciences of all men and discloses his own with these words: 'If we shall say that we have not sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us,' ---a saying the reason of which we have explained more clearly in our Fourth Book. But grant that there are some who have been made perfect with complete sanctity, it is not lawful for them to be without brethren, whom they are taught not to repel by the precepts of the Gospel, wherein we find described a field----that is the whole world, in which is the Church and Christ the Sower, who gives wholesome precepts. On the other hand there is an evil man----that is the Devil, who sows cruel sins not in the light, but in the darkness. Different kinds of seeds come to birth in one field. Similarly, in the Church there is not a mass of souls all alike. The field receives good seeds or bad----the seeds are different.

But there is One Creator of all souls----one Lord of the field. There are Two who sow seeds where the tares are born, but the field has one Lord, the Lord God Himself. His is the earth; His are the good seeds; His is also the rain. Accordingly, we have consented to receive in unity you, who have been drawn [to the Catholic Church], for we are not free either to separate or to reject even sinners who have been born with us in one field [and] have received nourishment from one water ----that is from the one Baptism; even as the Apostles were not free to separate the tares from the wheat (since separation is impossible without destruction ), lest, whilst pulling up what ought to be pulled up, that which ought not to be, should be, trodden down. In like manner Christ has commanded that both His own seeds, and those which belong to the other, should grow in His field throughout the entire world, in which there is the One Church. 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. 45 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 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 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 57 seeketh not the things that are her own.'

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 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: 'Behold I am bound, and you all flee,' when the others kept silence, he alone promised that he would not go back.

of God said: Out of His Foreknowledge, the Son '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 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 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 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 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? 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 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. 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 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 111 Kingdom of Heaven, which were granted him by Christ, with which we are in communion? 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 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 121 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 123 124 savour . 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 to forbid them, may deign easily to pardon. So with regard to this crime 127 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 131 in the first times the Tables of the Law were broken, that no one was condemned. also that Books were given up or cut and burned, but 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 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 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 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 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: 'Written not with ink, but by the Spirit of the Living God, not on Tables of Stone, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart.' After the Law had been broken by Moses, and abandoned by the children of Israel to their enemies, and torn up and burned (when offered by Baruch to Joachim the king)----before the Christian times in which later on God would write in a better way----God pointed out a law through the Prophet, when He said: 'For this is My Covenant, which I will provide for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah, and after those days, saith the Lord, I will give My Laws and will write them in their heart and in their minds.' This He promised long ago and has last of all fulfilled in Christian times. Therefore the Book is now in the second place; in the second place are the parchments. If God wrote the Law there, where it could not be betrayed ----so that your fathers, who had already believed in the Trinity, although they gave up the books, gave up neither their own hearts nor minds, in which God, according to His Promise, had already written His Law---on what ground, my brother Parmenian, have you said that the Law was completely burned by the Betrayers?

Behold, neither has it been completely burned, nor has it been wholly taken away, so long as it both remains in the hearts of the Faithful, and thousands of books are everywhere read aloud. From these considerations it is evident that you have, though in ignorance, taken on you to accuse your fathers in vain. If, therefore, it would have been impossible to repel even your fathers from communion, had they at the time of Unity brought forward so many examples which might have been reasonably alleged, how much more impossible is it to reject you, who are certainly not Betrayers, but the sons of Betrayers; since a distinction has to be made between both the persons and the names of fathers and sons, and where the sin has not been shared, there the same judgement cannot be passed? Although if they had been brought into unity, etc. and had come to the Catholic Church of their own accord .... Pseudo-Optatus Passage B (see p. 279, line 3). Nor would he have visited upon the fathers any offences perchance committed by the sons. Since, therefore, the Law was renewed in the times of Moses without any man being punished, and the Ark of the Covenant was freely restored by the enemy, and at God's command a second book was written by Jeremiah, why is it thought that your fathers alone committed a deadly sin, when they did something, on account of which, in so many instances, no one was condemned?

For if the Law was given for this purpose, that men should be taught, not that the Law itself should be as it were worshipped in the place of God, then, after your fathers' sin, though individuals lost their volumes under the pressure of fear, yet the mass of the Faithful suffered no loss. For the Law, which had been necessary, still has its force amongst the teachers of the people and the worshippers of God. The libraries are filled with books. Nothing is wanting to the Church. In different places the divine praises are everywhere proclaimed. The mouths of the lectors keep not silence. The hands of all are full of volumes [of Scripture]. Nothing is lacking to the people who wish to be taught----although the law would not seem to have been written more for the sake of teaching, than for that of the judgement to come, in order that the sinner may know what may befall him, should he not live rightly. Thus has it been written, and thus do we read, that 'the Law has not been given for the just,' because 'every just man is himself a law unto himself.' And in another place the blessed Apostle Paul also says that the Law does not make men just, but itself loves justice. It is results which are always looked for in all those things that produce results.

The Law, which produces results, is not needed, when the result is obtained in a quicker way. It was not said to Abraham: 'Believe,' but he believed of his own accord ----so in him the result of the Law was made complete without the Law. We do not read: 'Abraham heard the Law and believed,' but we do read: 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for justice.' And in the earliest times the Patriarch Noah did nothing by which he might become just, yet he as a just man was chosen to build the Ark, in which during the Deluge he might navigate the waters with success. It were a long task to go through all the cases individually of all who, without the Law, were found to be just. If these things had been pleaded by your fathers, who would then have rejected them from his communion? Again, [what would have happened] if they had asserted that what the Apostle says of those who are outside the Law ought not to be passed over in silence? 'the nations, that know not the Law, do the things that belong to the Law, for they have the Law written in their hearts.' For many are known to have sinned with the Law, and many to have lived well without the Law. The Law and Man are two things, but they cannot be on an equality, for Man was not made for the Law, but the Law was given for the sake of men.

I do not see that injury has anywhere been done to God, so long as the source of the Law remains with Him. After the Scripture has been given up----so it is said----by your fathers, it wants for nothing, all the members of the Law are sound----are safe, and are read aloud. There is, for those who desire to teach and to be taught, nothing less than there was of the Law. Was it then necessary for man to be slain rather than that any Scripture should be given up? Again, men have not been slain, yet all the Scriptures are here without diminution. The Law and God are not one and the same thing. If they had had to die for God, who can both raise up the dead and give reward, [well and good]; but a book that has not been surrendered cannot do even the second of these two things. Therefore, necessity shackles [a man's] own strength of will. We often see that carelessness is as disastrous as necessity. For if the parchments or the books, in which the canonical 189 Scripture is contained, must be kept totally unimpaired, why are not some careless people condemned? There is no wide gulf between giving up and placing in a bad situation, or treating badly. One man has placed the book in a house, which has been burned down in a fire.

Let him be condemned, who carelessly placed the book in that house, if another is to be condemned who through fear gave up the book that he knew would be demanded of him. Let them also be condemned, who placed neglected parchments, or books, where they might be gnawed by little household animals (that is by mice) in such a way that they could not be read. Let him be condemned, as well, who has placed them in a part of the house, where, in consequence of too great abundance of rain, water has dropped through the eaves from the roof, so that all the writing has been washed away by the wet, and can no longer be read. Let those too be condemned, who have been rash enough to entrust themselves, together with the books of the Law, to the hungry waves of the sea, and in their eagerness to save their lives, when in the water, have let the Scriptures slip from their hands. Accordingly if the Scripture be the same always, and, if he who has not been able to save it, is guilty----then, one has given it up to the waves, another has abandoned it to rodents, another has carelessly allowed it to be spoiled by the dropping water, and yet another, terrified by the fear of death, has, as man, given it to man. If all have done the same thing, why is one chosen out to be condemned----and this, even though the fault of the Betrayer is lighter than is that of him who has been careless?

He who placed it in the way of mice, or left it under the dropping water, with his will was careless, whilst he who lost it in the river, sinned through rashness. He who through the fear of death gave anything up, gave it as a man to a man. It was whole whilst with the giver, it remained whole in the hands of the receiver. If he who received it, gave it up to the flames, this is the sin of the one who burned it, not of him who surrendered it. If these things had been urged by your fathers, how could we have rejected them from our communion? Or if again they had thought well to refer to the times of King Antiochus, when all the Jews were compelled to surrender their Books to be burned, and the whole of the Scripture was given up so completely that not a letter remained in any one book? Not one of the Jews was then condemned, nor was any sentence pronounced against any Jew either by God or by some angel, because the sin was his who commanded and threatened, not the people's who surrendered with fearfulness and sorrow. And in order that this Antiochus should do no injury to His people in these early days, God immediately provided for one man Esdras, who was called a Reader at the time, to dictate the whole as it had been before, to the minutest point.

In this way the tyrant Antiochus was not able to enjoy the fruit of his wickedness, since (with the exception of the Seven Brothers and one old man who refused to eat swine's flesh) he killed no Jew, and yet the Law could not be destroyed. In the same way your fathers too in their day were not killed, and yet all the books of the Law of the Lord are read aloud everywhere. If, as I have urged above, your fathers had pointed out these things, who would not have received them into his communion without fear, since, as has been said, their sin was a sin of necessity, not of the will ? Your fathers, who are proved, ....etc. Pseudo-Optatus, Passage C (see p. 279, 1. 16). . . . for if one who has sinned, as did your ancestors, comes to the Church to plead the necessity of his case, first of all let him be received, and then sheltered in the kindly bosom of Mother Church. Nor ought any man, etc.