If there is none, save One, who has redeemed the souls of all believers, what means it that you say 'Redeem your souls '? What kind of thing is this that you say to Christian men----even to clerics----'Be ye Christians'? And you dare to say to each one, as though you expected a miracle :
'Gaius Seius, or Gaia Seia, art thou still a pagan man or woman?'
You call him, who has acknowledged that he has been converted to God, a pagan----him you call a pagan, who has been washed by us or by you neither in our name, nor in yours, but in the Name of Christ (for some there are who have been baptised by you, and |172 have afterwards passed over to our Communion)----him you call a pagan, who before the altar has prayed to God the Father through His Son. For whoever has believed, has believed in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, yet him you call a pagan after his Profession of Faith!
If----which God forbid----any Christian should fall away, he may be called a sinner; a pagan he cannot be a second time.
But all these things you wish to be held of no account. And if he, whom you deceive, listens to you, then his consent alone, and the stretching forth of your hand, and a few words spoken by you are enough in your sight to make a Christian out of a Christian, and he seems to you to be a Christian who has done what you want, rather than the man whom Faith has drawn [to Baptism].
XII. A calumny that had been brought against Macarius.
And if anyone should be rather slow in giving adhesion to your deceitful words, you have no lack of arguments, with which you may with some ease persuade men, even against their will, to do what you like----telling them that it has been heard from the lips of your old Bishops that he who partook or |173 received of the sacrifice of unity as it drew near, partook of a sacrilegious sacrifice. We do not deny that this was said by some, who, as is certain, afterwards offered, with complete security, that sacrifice from which shortly before they had held back the people. But one consideration made them speak in this fashion, quite another consideration determined their action.
For with regard to those who are reported to have said these things, they were led thus to speak by a false rumour which had filled their ears, and those of all the people. For it was said that Paul and Macarius would come at that time, to be present at the sacrifice, and that, when the altars were set in festal array, they would bring out an image, which they would first place upon the altar, and that then in this way was the sacrifice to be offered.
As soon as their ears heard this, not only were their minds disquieted, but everyone's tongue was stirred up to use these words, so that all who had heard the story cried out:
'He who partakes of this, partakes of a sacrilege.' And rightly would this have been said, if any corresponding truth had attached to such a tale.
But when the above-mentioned officers arrived, nothing was seen of that, concerning which a little before lying reports had been spread. Christian eyes saw nothing to shock them, their sight afforded no proof of those things which had upset their hearing.
No stain was beheld, and the solemn rite was observed after the accustomed manner. When they saw that in the divine sacrifices nothing was changed, or added or taken away, the Peace which God has praised was pleasing to men of good will.
On this account none of those ought to be blamed who from your body has made his way to Peace. They who had been disturbed by an unfortunate story were strengthened by the simple and pure truth. And let it not be said that he [who came from you to Unity] of the bitter has made the sweet, or that of the sweet he has made the bitter.
The bitterness, which was proclaimed by falsehood, remained and continued in the breast of [mere] opinion; the truth which was seen with the eyes, having its own sweetness in itself, was separated from the boundaries of a false opinion. So neither was that which is sweet made out of bitterness, nor was that |175 which is bitter made out of sweetness. For what was seen was something else and quite different, and the report had been very far from the actual facts.
So, you perceive that you have brought forward your abusive accusation unjustly, making up a story, at your own pleasure, of whatever you liked, to tear in pieces Macarius and Taurinus. You have lost that, which you were quite clever enough to have seen, whilst hatred has led astray your senses, and closed the avenues of your understanding.
APPENDIX TO BOOK III.
XIII. In what way and why Macarius was admitted to Communion.
Now your malice has come to such a pitch that you say that Macarius after these events ought not to have been admitted to Communion, but rather should have been repelled by Catholic Bishops. In the first place, communion has only one name, but various modes. A Bishop is in communion with a Bishop in one way and a layman is in communion with a Bishop in another way. |176
Secondly, it would be a grave matter if Macarius had done that which he is said to have done, of his own will, since those who act thus are punished by the public courts and the Roman laws. For that man is a murderer who, compelled by no necessity, by no one's commands, by no superior authority, but, driven on by rage, of his own will, does what the laws forbid. But it was in consequence of your appeal that Macarius did what he is said to have done.
He was not a Bishop, and did not discharge the duties of a Bishop. Neither did he lay hands on anyone, nor did he offer sacrifice. Wherefore, as it is clear that he had nothing to do with the functions of Bishops, no Bishop was polluted by reason of one who did not offer sacrifice with Bishops. Nothing remains for you but to urge that he communicated with the people, and, indeed, it is certain that he spoke amongst the people, but only to press some point, not to preach----which belongs to Bishops. For he spoke, if he was able to speak at all, stripped of any authority. On the other hand, a Bishop's discourse is approved by all, being adorned with sanctity, that is to say, with a twofold salutation. For a Bishop does not commence to say anything to the people without first saluting the people in the name of God. As he begins, so does he end. Every sermon in the church is begun by the name of God and with the name of God is also ended. |177 Which of you will dare to say that Macarius saluted the people after the manner of Bishops? Therefore, since he neither saluted before he spoke, nor ventured to salute after having spoken, nor laid his hand on anyone, nor offered sacrifice to God with episcopal rite, how can you say that the College of Bishops can have been polluted, although you see that Macarius had nothing to do with any episcopal duty?
Your malice, having been in this point trodden under foot by the footprints of truth, is seen again to raise its head. For you say that he ought not even to have communicated amongst laymen. Yet it is certain that he was (as the Apostle Paul shows) a minister of the Will of God, and what wonder, if even the pagan judges should be considered ministers of the Will of God, according to the Apostle who says:
'The judge does not bear the sword without reason, for he is a minister of the Will of God.'
So, too, Macarius was a judge in his own person. And if he did not act judicially, he ought, by the laws of Rome, to have been punished by the judges. Or, if you say that even so Macarius should not have been admitted to communion, still we do not see that he ought to have been repelled, who acted in the same kind of manner as did Moses, whom God did not reject after twenty-three thousand men had been killed, but called him to speak with Him a second time. We do not see that he ought to have been repelled, who did the same thing as did Phineas (whom I have mentioned above), and then deserved to receive Divine praise. It does not seem to us that he ought to have been repelled, who did that which was done by Elias the prophet, when he slew so many false prophets. (For that they too were false teachers we have proved above.) |178
XIV. That even if Macarius was guilty, he ought not to have been repelled from Communion.
But were we to keep silence concerning these examples and admit with you that Macarius was guilty----even so, he ought not to have been repelled by us in the absence of an accuser. For it has been written that no man should be condemned before his case has been heard.