Charity is long-suffering, charity is kind, charity does not envy, charity is not puffed up, does not seek the things that are its own. And he said well. For he had seen all these things in the rest of the apostles, who, for the good of unity, through charity were unwilling to withdraw from the communion of Peter—of him, that is, who had denied Christ. But if love of innocence were greater than the usefulness of peace and unity, they would say that they ought not to communicate with Peter, who had denied his master and the Lord, the Son of God. They could refuse to communicate, as has been said above, with the most blessed Peter; they could recite against him the words of Christ, who had promised that He would deny before the Father him who had denied Him in the presence of men. To which pattern attention ought to be diligently paid;
and while I recall a few things concerning it, may the blessedness of holy Peter himself grant pardon, if I seem to recall that which is agreed to have been done and is read. I hesitate to say that so great a holiness sinned, but he himself proves this deed, who both grieved bitterly and wept abundantly—who would neither grieve nor weep, if no offense had intervened. Surely the head of the apostles could have so governed himself that he would incur nothing to grieve over; but for this reason in this one charge of his many errors are seen, that it might be shown that for the good of unity all things ought to be preserved for God. And I know not whether in another this kind of sin could be of so great weight as it is manifest to have been in blessed Peter.
For whoever perhaps in some persecution denied the Son of God will seem, in comparison with blessed Peter, to have transgressed more lightly, if he denied Him whom he had not seen, if he denied Him whom he had not recognized, if he denied Him to whom he had promised nothing, if he denied once. For in blessed Peter this kind of sin was enlarged: first, that when Christ asked all whom men said that He was, one said Elijah, another said a prophet; then Christ is read to have said: Whom do you say that I am? And Peter said to Him: You are the Son of the living God. For which acknowledgment he deserved to be praised by Him, that he had said this by the prompting of God the Father. Behold, while the rest did not recognize the Son of God, Peter alone recognized Him. Then, on the day of the passion, when Christ said:
Behold, I am seized, and you will all flee, while the rest were silent, Peter alone promised that he would not withdraw. Out of foreknowledge the Son of God said: Peter, before the cock crows, you will deny Me three times. Another thing was added to the weight of the sin, namely the promise which he was not going to fulfill. After Christ had been led into the house of Caiaphas, to fill up the measure of the offense, of so great a number no other is questioned except blessed Peter. Questioned the first time, he denies; questioned again, he denies; the third time he said that he did not know Christ at all; and the cock crowed, not that it might mark the times by its crowing, but that blessed Peter might recognize that he had sinned. Finally he grieved bitterly and wept abundantly.
Behold, as has been said above, while the rest did not recognize, he alone recognized; while the rest did not promise, he alone promised; while the rest did not deny even once, he alone denied three times—and yet, for the good of unity, he did not deserve to be separated from the number of the apostles. Whence it is understood that all things were ordered by the providence of the Savior, that he himself should receive the keys, and the way of malice was barred, lest the apostles should conceive in their minds a license of judging and despise after their kinds him who had denied Christ. So many innocent men stand, and the sinner receives the keys, that the business of unity might be formed. It was provided that the sinner should open to the innocent, lest the innocent should shut against sinners, and the unity which is necessary should not be able to exist.
If you, desiring to communicate, had recalled these things, when would the Catholic Church hesitate to receive you in her pious bosom, since it is agreed that you are not betrayers, but sons of betrayers? For some of you, wishing to show us as worthy of contempt to your peoples, mingle even this into their treatises, what was said by Solomon the prophet: dying flies destroy the sweetness of the oil—and they call us dying flies, and they name as oil that liquid which is compounded from the name of Christ, which, after it has been compounded, is named chrism. Before it is made, it is still oil, simple by nature; it becomes sweet, when it is compounded from the name of Christ. Therefore there are three things which Solomon the prophet named:
the oil, the sweetness, and the dying flies that destroy the sweetness. These three things have their places in order: in the first place is the oil, in the second the sweetness from the compounding, in the third the dying flies destroying the sweetness. Whoever among you is such a commentator, let him prove how he calls us dying flies. If you think the compounding is among you which gives sweetness to the oil, then the oil and the sweetness are among you. Do we destroy your oil, that you should deservedly call us dying flies? What is yours is among you. And if anyone has made a passage from you to us, he is so preserved by us as he is dismissed by you.
How do you say that we are dying flies corrupting the sweetness of the oil, since after you we do no such thing? Either, if you say that by us the sweetness of the oil can be corrupted, then we too can do something and give sweetness to the oil; or if we, as you wish, can do nothing, then the oil has remained such as it was born; how do you say that we are dying flies corrupting the sweetness of the oil? Therefore the oil, before it is compounded by us, is such as it was born; once compounded, it can receive sweetness from the name of Christ. How can we by one act both compound and corrupt? It remains that, if the oil be sweet of itself, what is done by men is idle, if by a man it is compounded in the name of Christ.
The same workman cannot do two repugnant and contrary things at once. If we compound it in your absence, we do not corrupt it. If we corrupt it, who before us had compounded that which we should corrupt? Therefore, lest the saying of the prophet be idle, if it is so, understand that you are the dying flies. For you have exterminated, not what was born, but what was compounded; for the sweetness is read to be able to be corrupted not by nature. For the oil is simple and has its own one and proper name; once compounded, it is now called chrism, in which there is a sweetness that softens the skin of the conscience, when the hardness of sins is shut out, that renews the soul made gentle, that prepares a seat for the Holy Spirit, that, invited there, with harshness driven away, He may deign willingly to dwell.
This is the sweetness of the oil, which the dying flies can corrupt. If we exterminated from you the compounded oil, you could deservedly call us dying flies. But while we preserve what was anointed by you such as we receive it, we cannot be dying flies. But while you, driven by the storms of envy, fall as it were into the oil, you, in rebaptism, exterminate the sweetness of that oil which was compounded in the name of Christ, whence morals might be seasoned, whence the light of the mind might be kindled to a saving and true understanding. You exterminate the thing where the oil and the sweetness were. How could we corrupt a sweetness which before us was compounded by no one?
You have seduced men, you have rebaptized them, you have anointed them again. Alas for the grief! Not without your own death have you exterminated what had been compounded from the name of Christ, after the manner of flies, which, perishing, exterminate. For sin is death, the sin which has no indulgence. It is written, that he who shall sin against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in that to come. Therefore, since you both falsely call us flies, and hasten to dissolve all that is done by us, and say that we are to be held in contempt or despised, claiming holiness for yourselves alone, you set forth your own innocence, that you may promise that you can grant the sins of others. You see therefore that the most blessed Apostle Paul spoke, not concerning us, as you argue, but concerning you:
There shall be, he says, men loving themselves, covetous, boastful of themselves, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, not keeping peace, without affection, slanderers, harsh, without kindness, and the rest. For what kind of thing is this, that of your own choice you wished to impose upon Moses the role against whom the Apostle Paul recalls that Jannes and Jambres resisted? If it is so, what truth can be found among you, which the Catholic Church seems to oppose, or what falsehood among us will you be able to prove? To be in one communion with the whole world—can you prove this to be a falsehood? To retain and defend the true and only creed—can you prove this to be a falsehood?
The chair of Peter and the keys of the kingdom of heaven granted by Christ, where our fellowship is—can you prove this to be a falsehood? In the very passage which you have recalled, among those very persons, consider the order of things and attend to who was first. Surely Jannes and Jambres are in the second place, who wished to fight against Moses and the truth with false arts. And Moses had gone before, whose mighty deeds they tried in vain to assail. As Moses is first, so also the Catholic Church is first; as Jannes and Jambres, resisting, opposed him, so also you, rebels, war against the true Catholic Church. What is it then, that you wished to change the names both for us and for you, except that you might make yourself equal to your associates?
For there are some of you who, forgetful or ignorant of past times, say against us things that pertain to those who, long ago having fallen from the Catholic Church, ordained Majorinus—those, namely, who were the authors of schism and of betrayal. While they still retained peace, before they exterminated the unity pleasing to God, they were the light of the world and were deservedly called the salt of the earth. While they taught peace, they were still called peacemakers; before they were puffed up, they were blessed for poverty of spirit, they were part of the seasoning; they were blessed while they were meek, they were part of the seasoning; they were blessed while they were just, they were part of the seasoning; blessed while they were peacemakers, they were the whole seasoning.
But after they gave the riches of error to their spirit and to their lungs, and, making a schism, were found harsh and less merciful, while impiously they divided the members of the Church and, pursuing injustice, held the kingdom of God in disdain, and, by dividing the Church, were unwilling to be peacemakers, they themselves became salt that had lost its savor, by which nothing might be seasoned that would have pleased God with sweetness. And although this evil pertains to your leaders, by certain of your associates it is argued otherwise, so that they say that those were foolish who acknowledged the truth, even though late, and, withdrawing from schism, having recognized their mother the Catholic Church, followed peace. These some of you think to have erred; these they reckon to have departed, as it were besotted, from wisdom.
Whence it appears that you all err in the same way in transferring names, since you too compared Jannes and Jambres to the peaceful Catholics, and yourselves schismatics to Moses, which is alien from the truth. And some of your associates wished to judge the wise as foolish, so as to say that the peacemakers had been made fools, and they were unwilling to understand that their forefathers had been besotted by dissension. Now your malice slips down to that point, that you say that Macarius, after those deeds, ought not to have been mixed in communion, but rather to have been kept away from by the Catholic bishops. First, of communion there is one name, but there are diverse modes: it is one thing for a bishop to communicate with a bishop, and another for a layman to communicate with a bishop.
It would then be grave, if Macarius had done what he is said to have done by his own will; for those who commit such a deed are punished by public courts and by Roman laws. For he is a murderer who, with no necessity compelling, no command, no authority, but driven by frenzy, has done of his own will what the laws forbid. But what Macarius is said to have done, he did at your provocation; nor was he a bishop, nor did he engage in episcopal office, nor did he lay his hand upon anyone, nor did he offer sacrifice. Wherefore, since it is established that he was a stranger to the acts of bishops, no bishop seems to be polluted by him, who, being one who did not offer with the bishops, did what he did.
It remains for you to say that he communicated with the people — and it is established that he did say something to the people, but for the sake of making some matter known, not however of expounding, which belongs to bishops. For he spoke plainly, if indeed he was able to say anything. The episcopal address, on the contrary, is proved by all to be clothed with sanctity, namely with a twofold greeting. For a bishop does not begin to say anything to the people unless he has first greeted the people in the name of God. The endings are like the beginnings. Every address in the church is begun with the name of God and ended with the name of the same God. Which of you dares to say that Macarius greeted the people after the manner of bishops?
Therefore, since he neither greeted before he said anything, nor dared to greet after he had spoken, nor laid on his hand, nor offered sacrifice to God by the episcopal rite, what is it that you say — that the episcopal college could have been polluted — when you see Macarius to be a stranger to every office of bishops? Here, with the footprint of truth trodden down, your envy seems again to lift its head. For you say that he ought not even to have communicated among the laity. Yet it is established that he was, as the Apostle Paul proves, a minister of the will of God. And what wonder, if even pagan judges have deserved to be reckoned ministers of the will of God, the Apostle saying: «Not without cause does the judge bear the sword»? For he is a minister of the will of God.
For Macarius too was seen to have been a judge in his own jurisdiction. But if he was not a judge in that which he did, then according to the Roman laws he ought to have been punished by the judges. Or if you say that even so he ought not to have communicated, we nevertheless do not see why one ought to be excluded who did such a deed as was done by Moses, whom, after twenty-three thousand men had been slain, God did not spurn by exclusion, but again invited that He might speak with him. We do not see that he ought to have been excluded who did what Phinehas did — whom I mentioned a little before — who from God Himself deserved to be praised for a slaying. Still less does it seem to us that he ought to have been excluded by whom that was done which was done by the prophet Elijah, who slew so many false prophets.
For we have already proved above that those too were false prophets. But to pass over these examples, let us also say what you say — that Macarius was guilty: but if he was, since the accuser is silent, it was not lawful for us to exclude him. For it is written that no one is to be condemned before his case has been examined. Tell us, who accused him and was not heard. Tell us — did Macarius confess his fault and our sentence keep silent? For we are, such as we are, judges in the church, which you yourselves do not deny, since you contend that we ought to have been strict judges. For we cannot do what God did not do, who in His own judgment deigned to separate the persons; nor did He will the same one to be accuser and judge.
For no one can in one case at the same moment bear two persons, so as to be both accuser and judge in the same trial. This God did not do even through His omnipotence: that He might show us the form of judging, He taught that the accused ought not to be condemned without an accuser, nor that he should be the accuser who is to be the judge in that case. In short, in the very beginnings of the ages, while the birth of men was being renewed, while his brother Abel had been slain by Cain, it is read: «And God called Cain and asked him where his brother was»; he, doubling his sin, as if he could make God ignorant, said that he did not know. And when could the Lord, beneath whose eyes and countenance are all things that are done, be ignorant of anything?
And yet God does not judge without an accuser, and He questions, surely, about what He already knew. And you wish that we should have excluded one whom we did not see doing anything evil and who had no accuser. I see in this place what your envy mutters. For you say that what was done was not hidden from us. We confess that we heard, but it would have been a sin to condemn one whom no one dared to accuse. But if you say that the deed was not hidden from us, say to God — why did He question, who had seen the parricide? Nor ought we to have done that which God was unwilling to do, who was unwilling to pronounce sentence except upon the accused. Produce the accuser; otherwise the sentence could not be just, unless the very one who was to judge should accuse. Therefore He says:
«Behold, the blood of your brother cries out to me from the ground.» Wherefore you also, since you can in no way prove that Macarius was accused before us by anyone, cannot condemn our judgment.