Library › St Optatus of Milevis › Against the Donatists
Against the Donatists
St Optatus of Milevis, tr. Vassall-Phillips, 1917
Book 3, 13. In What Way and Why Macarius Was Admitted to Communion
Appendix to Book III1
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.
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 appeal2 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.3 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. 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,4 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.5 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.6 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.7 (For that they too were false teachers we have proved above.)
Notes
- These two chapters are given both by Ziwsa and Du Pin as the last two chapters (vi and vii) of Book VII, but are evidently an appendix (written later) to Book III. (cf. p. 271).
- vobis provocantibus, sc. to the Emperor (see iii, 1).
- non tandem tractandi, quod est Episcoporum. We learn from St. Jerome and from St. Possidius in his life of St. Augustine that in the churches of Africa priests were not permitted to preach in the presence of a Bishop. But Casaubon has no difficulty in showing that Baronius was mistaken in thinking that this custom ----which St. Augustine tells us (Ep. lxxvii) was abolished in his lifetime----was ever universal, or that priests were anywhere forbidden to preach excepting when a Bishop was present. Still preaching the Word of God has always been regarded in the Catholic Church as per se the duty of a Bishop, only per accidens that of a priest.
- Rom. xiii, 4.
- Cf. Ex. xxxii, 28.
- Cf. Num. xxv, 11.
- Cf. 3 Kings xviii, 40.