Dogmatic Polemic with Donatism (2)

By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya

It was necessary to provide a scientific and theological explanation and justification for the Church’s teaching on the relationship between the Sacraments and the Church. This task was undertaken by those Church writers destined to conduct polemics with Donatism. In this polemic, the dogmatic foundations of Orthodox practice in the fourth century were clarified, while at the same time, certain points of the dogmatic teaching on the Church in general were more clearly expressed. First of all, the teaching on the Church of Optatus of Milevius is noteworthy; he already presented almost all the points of the Orthodox teaching on the Church, which were later put forward in polemics with the Donatists. Optatus wrote a rather extensive work in seven books, known under the title “De schismate donatistarum,” in which he polemicizes with the Donatist bishop Parmenian, the successor of Donatus. In his polemic against the Donatists, Optatus, in demonstrating the truth of the Church, clearly and definitely introduces for the first time as his main argument the idea of ​​the necessity for the true Church to be universal in the sense of its external extension. Heretics and schismatics cannot have a Church, for then it would not be universal. If the Donatists had a Church, it would have been limited to only a part of Africa, confined to a corner (in angulo parvae regionis). The Church would not have existed where the Donatists did not exist. There would have been no Church in Spain, Gaul, Italy, Pannonia and Dacia, Mysia, Thrace, Achaia, Macedonia, and throughout Greece; there would have been no Church in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, Cilicia, the Syrian borders, Armenia, all of Egypt and Mesopotamia, and countless islands and provinces that can hardly be enumerated. This contradicts the concept of the catholicity of the Church.37 Such a limitation of the universal Church is contrary to the will of God. Jesus Christ received all nations as an inheritance and all the ends of the earth as a possession (see Psalm 29). The whole earth with all its peoples was promised to Christ. The Donatists destroy this promise, confining the entire breadth of kingdoms as if in a prison.38 “Let the Son,” exclaims Optatus, “possess the promised, let the Father fulfill the promise! Why do you set boundaries (meta)? Why do you draw borders?”39 Holy Scripture and elsewhere speak of the true Church being spread to all the ends of the earth. Of the Savior Himself it is written: He will rule from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8). God gives Christ all countries without exception, but the Donatists unfairly reduce what the Father has given, conceding to Christ only a part of Africa and depriving Him of the entire universe given to Him by the Father. 40 Psalm 96 says: Sing to the Lord a new song. To show that this applies not to the Donatists, but to the Church, which is everywhere, it is added: Sing to the Lord, all the earth… declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples (Psalm 96:1, 3). Declare, it says, among the nations, not just in the part of Africa where the Donatists are. Declare among all peoples—no one is excluded. But the Donatists alone want to be everything without being spread throughout the entire world. If only the Donatists constitute the Church, then the whole earth must be silent. The Donatists must praise the name of the Lord with everyone, and if they do not want to be with everyone, let them alone remain silent. 41 Thus Optatus proves that the Catholic Church is the one that is spread throughout the world. 42 Optatus often applies this yardstick to the Donatist community. Parmenian called the Church paradise. “This is true,” says Optatus, “but the Lord’s paradise must be extended in length and breadth, while the Donatists are rejected by the Christian peoples of the East and North, and even many provinces of the West and countless islands. They stand alone against all these peoples, obstinate, and have no communion with them. 43 If you do not like us, what did Antioch or Arabia do to you? 44 The Donatists contradict themselves when they offer prayers for the one catholic Church: their Church is not catholic 45. Therefore, the true Church is that which is contained throughout the whole world (quae continetur toto orbe terrarum)”46.

To this argument, Optatus adds another, long familiar to us, which can be called a reference to the apostolic origins of the Church. In his work, we again encounter a list of Roman bishops up to his contemporary Siricius, with which both the Africans and the entire world agree (cum quo nobiscum totus orbis commercio formatarum, in una communionis societate concordat). And, just like Irenaeus and Tertullian, Optatus exclaims: “You who wish to appropriate the Holy Church, present the origin (originem reddite) of your see!”47.

But the Donatists considered the Church false because it did not satisfy the requirement of holiness by communing with the traditionalists. Optatus focuses his attention on elucidating the doctrine of the holiness of the Church. He speaks first of all about the relative holiness of man in general, citing the words of the Apostle John: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). It is natural for a Christian to desire what is good and to strive for it; but it is not given to man to be perfect, so there always remains room for God’s help (restet aliquid Deo, ubi deficienti succurrat), because only the Son of God, Christ, is perfect. All people are half perfect (semiperfecti). And Christ the Savior did not give perfection, but only promised it. Donatists cannot demand perfect holiness; they themselves are not without sin, and their teaching is not truth, but a deception. Why do Donatists ask for the remission of sins in the Lord’s Prayer if they are holy? Optatus cites the Lord’s parable of the publican and the Pharisee, spoken of those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and humiliated others (cf. Luke 18:19–14). The Donatists are like the Pharisee (quales et vos videmus); he is their teacher. But better are sins with humility than innocence with pride. Moreover, the Donatists have no shortage of grave sins. 48 Throughout Optatus’s work, the shortcomings and various, very dark, aspects of the Donatists’ moral life are frequently discussed. In the somewhat later seventh book of his work, Optatus, in order to depict the earthly state of the Church, uses the Lord’s parable, long used in church literature, about a field in which tares grow among the wheat, and this will continue until the Day of Judgment. The Lord did not allow the apostles to uproot the tares, and therefore the Donatists have no right to do so either. 49 The sin of apostasy or the betrayal of sacred books is not so great as to completely destroy the sanctity of the Church; the presence of traditors in the Church cannot be considered sufficient grounds for denying its sanctity or for separating from it. Even the Apostle Peter denied Christ, and yet the other apostles did not remove him from their midst. During persecution, Christians denied the Lord, whom they had not seen. Peter even denied it three times, yet the Savior entrusted him with the keys; the other apostles, innocent themselves, could have closed the doors of repentance to the fallen one. Optatus echoes Cyprian’s argument that apostasy, as a forced sin, is not as grave as voluntary sins such as murder or fornication. This is especially true of the betrayal of sacred books. Even Moses broke the tablets of the law, and yet the Lord did not become merciful to Moses. The Old Testament contains an example of the surrender of a sacred book: Baruch surrendered the book of the prophet Jeremiah, written under God’s inspiration (see Jer. 36:27), and yet God was not angered, and Baruch was not punished. The surrender of the books did not harm the Church, since the Holy Scriptures remained. Is it really better for a man to be killed than for books to be surrendered? But the people remained unharmed, and there is no shortage of books. Books of the law and God are not the same thing. One can die for God; He is powerful both to raise from the dead and to bestow a reward, but a book that is not surrendered can do neither.

However, the Donatists attached such importance to the sin of apostasy that a bishop tainted by this sin could, in their opinion, impart no grace, and the Sacraments administered by him were invalid. Therefore, the Donatists baptized the Catholics who came to them. Outside the Donatist community, grace and the Sacraments are absent; heretics and schismatics are completely equal in this regard. True, this position was also defended, as we have seen, by St. Cyprian, but there is also a dogmatic difference. St. Cyprian based the lack of grace among those outside the Church precisely on their contradiction and hostility toward the Church. The Donatists deny grace in the Church because it contains traditionalists even among the hierarchy, and therefore it is not holy. Optatus, refuting these points of Donatist teaching in detail, expounds his concept of the sanctity of the Church, which would not be contradicted by the presence of those who have gravely sinned, even among the hierarchy. Donatists deny baptism performed by a traditionalist and place the validity of the sacrament inextricably linked with the person of its performer. But such a criterion for the validity of the sacrament cannot be accepted. Optatus establishes historically that at the beginning of Donatism, there were also traditionalist bishops. 53 Therefore, the validity of all baptism must be denied. If a traditionalist cannot baptize, then neither can Donatists, since it has been proven that the founders of Donatism were traditionalists. In general, if baptism performed by a sinner is invalid, then there is no baptism at all, because, according to the testimony of the word of God, all are sinners; 54 even Donatists, guilty of many grave crimes, are not excluded. 55 To support their position that the Sacrament is invalid without the sanctity of the person performing it, the Donatists cited several passages of Holy Scripture: for example, “Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head” (Psalm 140:5). They also attributed the words of the prophet Jeremiah regarding the waterless springs (see Jeremiah 2:13) to the church hierarchy. Optatus examines these passages of Holy Scripture in detail, arguing that they cannot have the meaning ascribed to them by the Donatists. 56 On the contrary, these words speak against the Donatists themselves. 57 In contrast to the Donatists, Optatus expresses and substantiates the doctrine of the independence of the sanctifying power of the Sacraments from the moral qualities of those performing them. The validity of baptism depends neither on place nor on persons, but on the Trinity—such is Optatus’s general position. 58 According to the Donatists, the name of the Holy Trinity is meaningless where there is no worthy celebrant of the Sacrament. Optatus teaches otherwise. God, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, acts even where there is no human personality. In the Book of Genesis, we read that the waters brought forth every living soul, and this, of course, is due to the action of the Holy Trinity. There was no fourth, and there were no Donatists. If, Optatus ironically says, the Trinity can do nothing without you, then return the fish to their original state (in originem); drown even the flying birds in the waters, if the Trinity can do nothing in your absence. Christ said that he who has been washed has no need to be washed again, for he is clean (see John 13:10). He spoke of that baptism which receives its power from the Trinity, not of the baptism of Jews or heretics, who defile when they wash, but of the holy water which flows from the springs of the three names. The Lord Himself taught this, saying, “Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. Matthew 28:19). He spoke once, thereby forbidding the repetition of baptism, and He spoke of the object, not of the person. For if there had been any difference, He would have said, “Whoever has once been well washed,” but since He did not add the word “well,” He showed that what is done in the name of the Trinity is good. 61 Examining the Sacrament of Baptism in detail, Optatus reasons as follows. Three parties participate in the Sacrament of Baptism: the Holy Trinity, the believer (the one being baptized), and the one performing the baptism. Each of these parties has a different significance. The first two are necessary, the third only seemingly necessary (quasi necessariam). The first place belongs to the Holy Trinity, without which baptism itself is impossible; next comes the faith of the baptized; the person of the baptizer is already something extraneous (vicina), not having equal significance. The Holy Trinity and faith remain always and unchangeable and always retain their power. The person of the baptizer cannot have equal significance for the very reason that it alone is changeable. Considering themselves saints, the Donatists do not hesitate to contrast their pride with the Trinity; but the person of the baptizer is changeable, while the Holy Trinity is immutable; some baptize today, others tomorrow. The sacrament cannot depend on the person of its baptizer, because it cannot be changeable (sacramenta mutari non possunt). Therefore, all who baptize are only baptizers, not administrators, not lords (operarios ease, non dominos). And further Optatus decisively expresses his most important position: “The sacraments are holy in themselves, and not from people” 63 .

The Donatists, linking the power of the Sacrament with the person of its celebrant, argued in refutation of the Catholics’ opinion and to prove the invalidity of baptism administered by their hierarchy: “How can anyone give what he himself does not have?” This argument, which we also encountered in St. Cyprian, Optatus examines and refutes in detail. The giver is the Lord. God purifies someone. No one can wash away the impurities and vices of the soul (mentis) except God, Who is also the Creator of the soul. If you,” he says to the Donatists, “think that purification (lavacrum) belongs to you, then tell me what kind of soul it is that is washed by the body, or what form it has, or in what part of man it dwells. Man does not know this. Therefore, how do you think you are washing, when you do not know what that which you are washing is? It is God who makes clean, not man. He himself said through the prophet Isaiah: Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow (Isaiah 1:18). If God has promised so, then why do you wish to give what you cannot promise, nor give, nor have? God promised to make sins atonement himself, not through man.64 If the Donatists claim that all the gifts in the Sacraments are bestowed by the celebrant, then it follows that those being baptized are immersed in the name of the one baptizing. But this is not what the Apostle Paul says (see 1 Corinthians 1:13).65 The Donatists maintained that the gift of baptism belongs to the giver, not the recipient. This is true if we understand God as the giver, but we cannot consider man as the giver. Optatus presents such a case. Donatists, who consider themselves saints, baptize an unbeliever. Catholics, whom the Donatists call sinners, baptize a believer. The question arises: which of the two baptized persons receives the grace of God? Certainly, the one who believes. Just as a dyer (artifex purpurae) cannot say that he paints independently of precious dyes, with the mere touch of his hands, so the baptizer cannot communicate anything without the Holy Trinity. Anyone who baptizes in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit fulfills the work of the apostles. For even the apostles were commanded that the performance of the Sacrament (opus) would be [from them], and the sanctification – of the Trinity. And they immersed not in their own name, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Consequently, it is the name that sanctifies, not the performance of the Sacrament. If the Church is a vineyard, then men are the tenants and the consecrated are the cultivators. Thus, indeed, the Apostle Paul ascribes everything to God, not to men (see 1 Cor. 3:7). The celebrant of the Sacrament must not appropriate to himself what belongs to God. This would be unjust. The significance of the celebrant is very limited. He is only a servant. Grace is given not to those who command, but to those who shepherd. The Apostle humbly calls others servants along with himself. Lest anyone think that all their trust should be placed in the apostles or bishops alone, Paul said: Who is Paul? Who is Apollos? These are only the ministers of Him in whom you have believed (1 Cor. 3:5). All representatives of the hierarchy have not lordship, but service (non dominium, sed ministerium). Grace is given by God Himself according to the faith of the recipient. Optatus reveals the significance of faith and its necessity for receiving grace in his interpretation of the miracle of Christ’s healing of the bleeding woman (cf. Matt. 9:20–22; Luke 8:43–48) and the servant of the Capernaum centurion (cf. Matt. 8:5–13). 68

Thus, at baptism, when the Holy Trinity harmonizes with faith, the one born for the ages is spiritually reborn for God. The father of men is God, the mother is the Holy Church, and the celebrant of the sacrament (operarius), being human, appropriates nothing to himself, as the Donatists do. 69 The Church possesses the sanctifying gifts of the Spirit independently of the dignity of hierarchical persons, and these persons are only servants of the Church in the distribution of her gifts of grace. 70 The Church possesses these gifts together, because they are inseparable from one another. 71 Thus, Optatus approaches his definition of the holiness of the Church. The Donatists, out of pride, ascribe to themselves a special holiness (speciales sanotitatem), and on this holiness they base the holiness of the Church itself.72 This, as Optatus has already shown, extremely shaky principle of the Donatists was not shared by ecclesiastical writers. The sacraments do not depend on the person of the priest: they are holy in themselves. Likewise, the holiness of the Church does not depend on the holiness of its members; on the contrary, the members themselves receive holiness from the Church. The Church is one, and its holiness lies in the sacraments, and not in the pride of individuals.73 These last brief words decisively express the formula for the holiness of the Church, the absence of which gave rise to many perplexities and errors in the Church of earlier centuries. The question constantly arose: how to reconcile the holiness of the Church with the inevitable moral shortcomings of its members? The requirement for holiness of life could always be only relative. When the very holiness of the Church was conditioned solely by this requirement, the inadequacy of this solution was obvious. From the very beginning, the Church accepted into its fellowship even those who had sinned gravely, recognizing its task as the education of humanity. A number of rigorists accused it of violating holiness, until finally, in the fourth century, the Church’s teaching on the holiness of the Church was formulated, according to which the sinfulness of Church members has absolutely no bearing on the holiness of the Church itself. This teaching is the dogmatic result of the struggle against Donatism.74

* * *

Notes:

34.Ibid. 95.

35.The time of writing of this work is given by Harnack: Optatus. Herzog’s RE 3. Bd. XIV. S. 413–414. A detailed account of the controversy between Optatus and Parmenian is given by Ferdinand Ribbeck: “Donatus and Augustinus oder erste entscheidende Kampf zwischen Separatismus und Kirche.” Elberfeld, 1857. S. 160–191.

36.De schism. donat. II, 1. CSEL 26. P. 32–33.

37.quod sit rationabilis et ubique diffusa?” CSEL 26. pp. 33,12–14.

38.Ibid. II, 1: “Ut quid tale infringitis promissum, ut a vobis mittatur quasi in quemdam carcerem latitudo regnorum?” CSEL 26, pp. 33,19–21.

39.Ibid. II, 1. P. 33.22–24.

40.Ibid. II, 1: “O vestra ingrata et stulta praesumptio! Christus vos cum ceteris in societatem regni caelestis invitat et coheredes sitis hortatur, et vos cum in hereditate sibi a patre concessa fraudare laboratis, dum Africae partem conceditis et totum terrarum orbem, qui ei a patre donatus est, denegatis.” P. 34.12–16.

41.Ibid. II, 1: “Etiam vos ipsi laudate cum omnibus aut, quia noluistis esse cum omnibus, soli conticescite.” P. 35–36.

42.Ibid. II, 2: “Eam esse ecclesiam catholicam, quae est intoto terrarum orbe diffusa.” P. 36, 4–5. Cfr.: Historia Carthaginensis collationis. Migne, P.L. T. 11. Col. 1480A.

43.Ibid. II, 11. P. 47.

44. Ibid. II, 12.P.47, 18–19.

45.Ibid. II, 12: “Unicuique vestrum dicat deus: quid offers pro tota, qui non es in tota?” P. 47.

46.Ibid. II, 13, pp. 47, 22–23.

47.De schism. donat. II, 2–3, pp. 36–37. Cfr.: Hist. Carthag. Col. Migne, PL. T. 11. Col. 1481C-D. Cfr.: Praef. Balduini. PL T. 11. Col. 1120B-C.

48.Ibid. II, 20, pp. 55–57. Further (p. 21) Optatus lists the crimes of the Donatists, which are so grave that “in comparatione operis vestri latronum levior videtur immanitas. P. 58, 13–14. A parallel to II, 20 is VII, 2, where the same thoughts are repeated. R. 168–170.

49.Ibid. VII, 2. R. 169–170.

50.Ibid. VII, 3. R. 171–173. Cfr.: IV, 4. R. 106, 16 sqq.

51.PL. T. 11. Col. 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102 passim. It should be noted, however, that the editors do not consider the last arguments to be Optatus’s. See Col. 1097C–1098A. Carolus Ziwsa omits them entirely in his edition.

52.De schism. donat. II, 9: “Dixisti enim, quod, si sacerdos in peccato sit, solae possint dotes operari.” CSEL 26. p. 45.

53.Ibid. I, 13. P. 15–16. Cfr.: I. 28. P. 30–31.

54.Ibid. I, 5. P. 8.11 sqq.

55.For a detailed proof of this, see: De schism. donat. IV, 5–8. R. 104–114.

56.De schism. donat. IV, 7.9. P. 112–116.

57.Ibid. IV, 9. P. 117.

58.Ibid. V, 1: “Aqua sola et vera ilia est, quae non de loco, non de persona sed de trinitate condita est.” P. 120, 20–22.

59.Ibid. V, 2: “Dicilis enim trinitatem pro nihilo haberi, ubi non interfuerit vestra praesentia.” P. 122, 3–4.

60.Ibid. V, 2. P. 122.

61.Ibid. V, 3. P. 124, 12–125, 5.

62.Ibid. V, 4. P. 126–127. Cfr.: V, 7. P. 133 sqq.; V, 3: “Nos docuimus caeleste munus unicuique credenti a trinitate conferri, non ab homine.” P. 122.22–23.

63.Ibid. V, 4: “Sacramenta per se esse sancta, non per homines.” P. 127.16.

64.Ibid. V, 4. P. 128, 8–129,1.

65.Ibid. V, 6. P. 132–133.

66.This is how Optatus alone reads this verse: “Ministri ejus, in quem credidistis.” Some Latin codices read: “Ministri ejus cui.” – Tischendorf. Novum Testamentum graece8, II. P. 471. The Greek text has a slightly different meaning: “Διάκονοι, δι’ ὧν ἐπιστεύσατε.”

67.De schism. donat V, 7. R. 133–137 passim. And the conclusion: “Vides ergo iam, frater Parmeniane, ex tribus speciebus supra memoratis illam primo tripartitam esse inmotam, invic-tam et inmutabilem, operantis vero temporariam esse personam.” P. 137, 4–7.

68.Ibid. V, 8. P. 137–138.

69.Ibid. II, 10. P. 46, 5–10.

70.Ibid. II, 9: “Hujus sanctae ecclesiae est constituta persona et hanc esse catholicam, quae sit in toto orbe terrarum diffusa, cujus membra et nos inter alios sumus, cujus dotes apud illam ubique sunt.” P. 45, 17–20.

71.Ibid. II, 5: “Quos constat ita sibi connexas et individuas esse, ut intellegatur unam ab altera separari non posse.” P. 42.11–12.

72.Ibid. II, 1. P. 32–33.

73.Ibid. II, 1: “Ecclesia una est, cujus sanctitas de sacramentis colligitur, non de superbia personarum ponderatur: ergo hanc unam columbam et dilectam sponsam suam Christus appellat.” P. 32, 9–10. Wed. remarks Α Harnack’ä Optatus. RE 3. Bd. 14. S. 415; Dogmengeschichte4, III. S. 45.

74.Vgl.: Harnack Α Dogmengeschichte4, III. S. 41.

Source in Russian: Troitsky, V.A. The Question of the Church in the Dogmatic Polemics with Donatism. / Theological Herald, 1912, Vol. 3, No. 9, pp. 247–271. (2nd pagination)

 (to be continued)