Dogmatic Polemic with Donatism (3)

By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya

By placing the validity of baptism in particularly close connection with the confession of the Holy Trinity, Optatus was thereby forced to recognize the validity of schismatic baptism, which was in complete agreement with established Church practice. Optatus completely agrees with his opponent that the Church is one, the bride of the one Christ, but he strongly protests against the conflation of heretics and schismatics, for there is a great difference between them. The heretics have rejected the truth and distorted the very symbol of faith (falsaverunt symbolum): one says there are two Gods, another wants to recognize the Father in the person of the Son, and so on. Therefore, the Church’s sacraments are alien to heretics; they have neither the sacraments nor the other gifts of the Church; their baptism is false; the impure cannot make the pure. Schismatics are quite different. They have much in common with the Church, and most importantly, they share the same faith. They have preserved much because they left the Church. Therefore, the schismatic sacraments cannot be denied, even though schismatics are outside the one universal Church. The conditions of complete union with the Church are unity of faith, one true Creed, and unanimity.84 Schismatics lack the latter. Schism, having destroyed the bonds of peace, is born of differences of opinion, nourished by malice, envy, and strife, and is strengthened, so that when, leaving the universal mother, the disobedient (impii) children go forth and separate themselves from the root of Mother Church, cut off by the scythe of envy, rebellious, they depart, wandering; and they can do nothing new or different from what they have already learned from their mother.85 Optatus treats the Donatists with great leniency. From the very beginning of his work, he calls Parmenian a brother and justifies this action. Citing Isaiah 66:5, he says that one cannot help but call those brothers who cannot help but be brothers. They are brothers, even if they are unkind. For Ham, although he mocked his father’s nakedness, was nevertheless a brother to the innocent Shem and Japheth. 86 And the schismatics, despite their unity of confession with the Church, are brothers to the members of the latter. 87 The separation of the Donatists from the Church is not a complete falling away from it. 88 They even seem to constitute the Church, only not the catholic one. 89 But at the same time, Optatus quite clearly says that they do not belong to the Church, that they are outside it, 90 that they only usurp the name of the Church. 91 Optatus asserts that schism is a great and grave sin, along with betrayal, even summum malum. 92 Schism is repugnant to God; it brings Him inconsolable tears. He who refused to remain with his brothers in the Church, following the heretics, went out like the Antichrist. Optatus is inclined to deny the true life of grace among the Donatists: he compares them to branches broken from a tree, to the cut branches of a vine; they are a stream separated from its source. 96

One cannot help but notice a certain instability and incompleteness in Optatus’s final arguments. At one point, he considers schismatics to have left the Church, to be outside the Church, at another he says that their separation is not a complete apostasy. And then the question arises: if the Sacraments are valid even in schismatic societies, is salvation not possible outside the Church, even in enmity to it? Or perhaps, even with the validity of the Sacraments outside the Church, salvation is only possible in the Church? But then why don’t the Sacraments, despite their validity, bring benefit outside the Church? Optatus has no answer to all these questions. His clear and definite judgments on the sanctity of the Sacraments, regardless of who administers them, were adopted by St. Augustine, who also answered all the questions posed.

The new concept of the Church’s holiness reached its full development, justification, and revelation in theological literature with the greatest of Western church writers—Blessed Augustine.

Blessed Augustine97 was the most prominent champion of Donatism: he fought verbally, speaking in public debates, and wrote numerous works refuting Donatism. There was almost no event in the history of the relationship between the Church and Donatism that was not reflected in Augustine’s numerous theological works. He never failed to immediately refute any work by contemporary or even deceased Donatist authors. Augustine engaged in personal polemics with Donatist bishops, addressing them with letters, receiving refutations of his works in return, and then responding with entire books. Finally, [he] briefly presented the main ideas of his polemics in popular language and even in verse to facilitate their assimilation.98

Sometimes, the rather extensive writings of Blessed Augustine, directed against the Donatists, are filled with dogmatic judgments about the Church and are distinguished by an overwhelming abundance of argumentation.99 But since Blessed Augustine had to conduct polemics with different people on the same issues, it is quite understandable that his writings contain constant, almost literal, repetitions of the same thoughts and the same arguments. We will attempt to present Blessed Augustine’s dogmatic teaching on the Church in its most important points, leaving aside the details of his argumentation.100

In refutation of the Donatists’ opinion that only their society represents the true Church, Blessed Augustine, like Optatus, says that the indispensable sign of the true Church is its ecumenical character. The Donatists also called their society the Catholic Church. According to their teaching, the catholicity of the Church is not its spatial ubiquity, but the fullness of its doctrine and the plenitude of its sacraments. Augustine also accepts this understanding of the term “catholic.” However, he insists primarily that the true Church must be universal, spread throughout the world. According to Augustine, catholicity, in the sense of being spread throughout the world, is a sign of the true Church of Christ, as opposed to heresy or schism. The Donatist society does not have such a universal character, and therefore it is not a Church. That the true Church must be universal is clear from its very name, catholic. The Greek word καθ᾿ ὅλον means “universal.” Blessed Augustine devotes a large portion of his work, “De Unitate Ecclesiae,” to proving the necessity of the Church being universal. To this end, he cites a number of testimonies, primarily from the Old Testament, seeing in them either transformations or prophecies about the New Testament universal Church. Here, Augustine does not omit a single piece of evidence that could in one way or another be applied to the Church and would prove the necessity of its universal character. 104 For Augustine, almost every page of Scripture speaks of the Church’s need to be spread throughout the world. 105 Christ, having founded the Church, sent apostles to preach His name to the ends of the earth. 106 Augustine attributes the prophecies of the Old Testament to the Church, finding confirmation in the writings of the New Testament and challenging the interpretation of the Donatists. These prophecies and the Savior’s testament were fulfilled at the very beginning of the Church’s existence. Augustine quotes the first two chapters of the Acts of the Apostles,107 showing how the Church, having received its foundation in Jerusalem, began to spread throughout the world. The subsequent history of the spread of Christianity also shows how, even in apostolic times, the Church strove to realize its universal character. This character of the Church was, in particular, revealed to the Apostle Peter in a vision of a vessel descending from heaven, bound by its four corners (cf. Acts 10:11–12). This vessel symbolized the entire world with all its peoples. The four cords with which the vessel was bound denoted the four cardinal directions.108 The Apostles founded Churches in all corners of the earth, and all these Churches constitute a single universal Church, scattered throughout the universe. Even if we admit that the African Churches are guilty of something, this still does not give the Donatists grounds to break communion with the other Churches; these Churches did not perish through the fault of the Africans (criminibus Afrorum). All the Churches to which the Apostle Paul wrote his epistles exist today. The Donatists hold only the Apostle’s epistles, while the African Church maintains communion with the Churches themselves. There are Churches to which the Apostles Peter and John wrote. Perhaps the Donatists don’t even know where this or that Church is located, and yet, in their blindness (caecitate), they condemn unknown Churches. Unity with all the Churches, however, is the sign of belonging to the true universal Church. Therefore, Augustine often refers to every Local Church as catholic.

The Donatists also firmly adhered to their teaching on the sanctity of the Church at the end of the 4th century. This is demonstrated by the schism that occurred among them over the question of the sanctity of the Church. Among the Donatists, there appeared people who understood the sanctity of the Church in a more Orthodox sense. Such was Tichonius the African, or Grammarian. His teaching on the Church is set forth by him in his book on the seven rules for investigating and finding the meaning of Holy Scripture. 112 Here Tichonius speaks of the two-part Body of the Lord (de Domini corpore bipartito). “The two-part nature of the Body of Christ is shown by Scripture in the words: I am black and good (Song of Songs 1:4). For let it not be that the Church, which has no blemish or spot (Eph. 5:27), which the Lord has cleansed with His Blood, be black in any part except the left, because of which ‘the name of God is blasphemed among the nations’; In all other respects, she is entirely good, as it is said: “You are all good, my neighbor, and there is no blemish in you” (Song of Solomon 4:7). Moreover, he explains why she is black and good in the words: “like the tabernacles of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon” (Song of Solomon 1:4). He points to two tents: the royal and the slave. But both are Abraham’s seed, for Kedar is the son of Ishmael… But we cannot say that Kedar’s tent is outside the Church. For he himself says: “the tent of Kedar and Solomon,” and that is why he said: “I am black and good,” for the Church is not black in those who are outside her. Herein lies the mystery of how the Lord in the Apocalypse sometimes calls the seven angels, that is, the seven-figured Church, saints and keepers of the commandments, and sometimes denounces them both as guilty of many crimes and as worthy of repentance. And in the Gospel, one body of stewards is exposed by the diversity of merits (diversi meriti manifestat)… One and the same body is both good and evil… Thus, the Lord testifies in all Scriptures that in all nations the same body of Abraham’s seed grows, flourishes, and perishes.”113 “Two bodies are united as if into one, and one body is simultaneously praised and blamed.”114 For Tichonius, Esau and Jacob are images of the two component parts of the Church. Two peoples struggle in the same womb of Mother Church. Of them, one is beloved by choice and foreknowledge, the other, by the choice of his own will, hated. Jacob and Esau are in one body, descended from one seed. But since they are obviously two, two peoples are indicated. And lest anyone think that this clearly means two divided peoples, it is indicated that both will be in one body in Jacob… Concerning both separated peoples, even before they are separated, it is shown that they must be in one… Never did Jacob, that is, the Church, attain blessing without the accompaniment of flattery, that is, false brothers… Jacob is the receptacle of both… Although the images of Israel and Esau are separated by believers, everything later grows into one people… so even now, under the dominion of the New (Testament), there is no lack of sons of slavery.115 A similar thought permeates all the speeches of Tichonius, when he speaks, “conforming to the mysteries of heavenly wisdom and having the Holy Spirit as his guide”116, of species and genus. In his fourth canon, Tichonius attributes prophetic speeches about various countries and cities to the Church, because the narrative about them applies equally to both the species and the genus (that is, the Church).117 But everywhere Tichonius finds speech specifically about the two-part composition of cities; this same state is ascribed to the Church. “Many cities appear as images of the Church. Wherever he mentions Idumea, Teman, Bozrah, and Seir, he depicts the wicked brothers, for they constitute the domain of Esau.”118

Having expressed in such a unique form a teaching on the earthly state of the Church, close to the catholic, Tichonius, however, did not draw any conclusions from this and remained a Donatist. Tichonius’s work provoked discontent among the Donatists. The leader of the Donatists, Parmenian, and other bishops vigorously protested.119 First, Parmenian wrote to urge Tichonius to renounce his teaching on the Church, and then Tichonius was condemned by a Donatist council.120 Evidently, a different conception of the Church prevailed among the Donatists. We learn about this concept in detail from the writings of St. Augustine.

According to Donatist doctrine, there should be no sinners in the Church. Numerous passages from Holy Scripture were cited to support this position. 121 The Donatist community satisfies this requirement; among the Donatists, no one is found with any vice. 122 When the Donatists separated, a separation of the wheat from the chaff occurred: the wheat was reduced to the confines of Africa alone (ad solam Africam); in the Catholic Church, the chaff remained. 123 It is not even known whether there are good Christians among all the peoples overseas. 124 Parmenian even asserted positively that Gaul, Spain, Italy, and their accomplices (which he wishes to consider the entire world, notes Augustine), having relations with the African traditionalists, are similar to them in their crimes. 125

Augustine presents the earthly state of the Church quite differently. 126 Thus, already in the “Psalm against the Party of Donatus,” he speaks of the Church as containing many sinners (abundantia peccatorum). This is as it should be, for the Lord likened the Church to a net with various fish. When the net is drawn to the shore, they begin to sort the fish: the good ones are collected into vessels, and the bad ones are thrown back into the sea. The net is the Church; the present age is the sea; the shore is the end of the age. While the net is in the sea, the fish are both good and bad. 127 One should not break communion with sinners, but, of course, one should distance oneself from communion in sin. 128 Sinners cannot cause any harm in the Church. Only in extreme cases should they be excluded, but without disturbing the peace (salva race). And if this exclusion could disturb the peace, then it is better to exclude them only from the heart. The prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:4) speaks of people who wept over the sins of their brothers but did not separate themselves. So too, we must not separate ourselves from Mother Church because of the wicked. 129 And among the Jewish people, there were seven thousand faithful men (see 1 Kings 19:18), and other pious people did not separate themselves from the unity of the people because of the idolatry of some, or even most. They gathered with them in the same temple (uno tempeo miscebantur), but in their hearts they were distant (mixti non erant corde). 130

Noah’s Ark is also a symbol of the Church, and it contained both clean and unclean animals. “Let us learn to understand Noah’s Ark, which is a symbol of the Church, and let us enter it together, like clean animals, and let us not insist that there be no unclean animals there with us until the end of the flood.” 131 The parable of the tares speaks of the same thing. The Lord Himself explained that the harvest is the end of the age, and the field where the tares and wheat are sown is the world. Clearly, both must grow throughout the world until the end of the age. The field is the world, not Africa; the harvest is the end of the age, not Donatus’s time. Christ said that the harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. Donatus says that the wheat was separated at the beginning of his schism, and that he and his comrades did before the harvest what Christ said the angels should do during the harvest: choose whom to believe! Even if the majority in the Church are sinners, one cannot slander the entire Church, as heretics do. In the Old Testament, there were examples when few righteous people remained: this was the case with Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; there were only twelve apostles. True, two tribes once separated from the ten, but this was a governmental, not a religious, division. God never commands heresy or schism. 135 In Holy Scripture, the Lord Himself says that the good will be few; but of these same few, it is said that they will be many. The Apocalypse says that there will be thousands upon thousands of holy children of the Church (see Rev. 5:11). They are few only in comparison with the unworthy. 136

This is how St. Augustine judges the earthly state of the Church: here, the tares grow alongside the wheat, and the holiness of the Church does not require the separation of the wheat; the sins of one person do not defile others. 137 However, St. Augustine himself says that such a conception of the Church does not yet imply a disregard for church discipline, and that everyone is allowed to do as they please, without any effort on the part of the Church to correct them. 138 The Apostle Paul says: “Warn the unruly, comfort the fainthearted, support the weak, be patient with all. See that no one repays another evil for evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:14-15). Based on these words, Augustine defines the essence of church discipline; it has an educational purpose. It is not the sword of an enemy inflicting a wound, but that of a physician cutting (the wound), as Augustine says. [139] The Donatists’ discipline serves only to separate them not only from the wicked but also from many good people. [140] In the Church, discipline is not applied so unwisely. The Church sometimes excommunicates sinners, but this only happens when a firm, diligent, and wise minister (dispensator) of Christ sees that sin cannot be rationally justified. Countless examples are known of bishops or persons of other hierarchical ranks being defrocked (degradati) or fleeing to other lands in shame, joining the Donatists or other heretics. Had Petilian recalled many such examples, he would never have fallen into such a patently false and empty opinion, according to which he says: “None of you is innocent, because no guilty person is punished.”141 Augustine reminds Petilian of how he rebaptized the deposed deacon Splendonius, ordained him a priest, and then himself excommunicated him.142 Excommunication, therefore, also occurs in the Church, but it is clear how careful one must be in doing so, lest the wheat be uprooted along with the tares.143 And above all, excommunication can be applied when it will not lead to schism, and moreover, the excommunication itself must be done with love, as the apostle says: do not consider him an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thessalonians 3:15). Consequently, the excommunication itself should pursue not only the goal of eradication, but rather correction (non ad eradicandum, sed ad corrigendum). St. Augustine speaks of “prohibitio a communione medicinalis” 144. If a sinner does not repent and amend himself through repentance, he will leave the Church and voluntarily break away from ecclesiastical unity. By this application of discipline, the wicked are separated from the Church without harm to peace and unity and without any loss to the wheat. 145 All fellowship with such sinners is broken; when they see themselves deprived of all fellowship, then they can be healed by shame, for they will have no accomplices in sin. 146 Blessed Augustine explains those passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians that speak of excommunication for incest. Here, Augustine sees precisely the idea that excommunication from everyone has a healing effect on the sinner himself. 147 But if many sin, they cannot be corrected by separating them from fellowship. 148 It will no longer be a separation, but a division, which will not so much correct the wicked but strong in spirit as it will confuse the good but weak. 149 Each person should strive to correct what he can and what he cannot; let him patiently endure and grieve with love until the sinner himself is corrected, or let him postpone the plucking of the tares until the harvest. If Christians associate with desperate people whom they are powerless to correct, let them cast off evil from themselves, lest they themselves harbor what they dislike in the actions of others. Such a separation of good from evil is always possible; physical separation, however, should occur at the end of the age. “Remove,” says the apostle, “the evil (malum) from among you” (see 1 Cor. 5:13); that is, if you cannot remove the evil from your midst, then remove the most evil from yourselves. If one must be careful that the peace of the Church is not harmed, then one must be very careful not to uproot the wheat with the tares. If one diligently reflects on this, then one will also notice the strictness of discipline in preserving unity and will not break the union of society with immoderate demands. 150. One cannot reproach the Church for the morals of those whom she herself condemns and whom she strives daily to correct. 151.

* * *

Notes:

75.De schism. donat. I, 5, 6, 7. P. 7, 15; 9, 2, 10–11.

76.Ibid. I, 10; II, 1. P. 11, 21; 32, 10.

77.Ibid. I, 10: “Paeniteat te talibus hominibus (sc. haereticis) etiam schismaticos adjunxisse… et non attendisti. inter schismaticos et haereticos quam sit magna distantia.” P. 13, 14 sqq.

78.Ibid. I, 10. P. 13, 9 sqq. Cfr.: II, 8. P. 44, 14–15: “Soli sigillum integrum? id est symbolum catholicum, non habentes”; IV, 8. P. 114, 10–11: “Ubi in exterminium fidei corrupta sunt semina”; V, 1. P. 121; I, 12: “Haeretici… veritatis exules, sani et verissimi symboli desertores, de sinu sanetae ecclesiae impiis sensibus depravati.” P. 14, 8–10.

79.De schism. donat. I, 5: “Extraneos esse catholicis sacramentis. P. 7.13. Cfr.: 1, 10. P. 11, 17–20.

80.Ibid. I, 10: “Seimus enim haereticorum ecclesias singulorum prostitutas nullis legalibus sacramentis et in se jure honesti matrimonii esse…” P. 11, 18–20.

81.Ibid. I,12: “Haereticos… solos habere varia (other reading: vana) et falsa baptismata etc.” P. 14, 15 sqq.

82.Ibid. III, 9: “Nobis et vobis ecclesiastica una est conversatio, et si hominum litigant mentes, non litigant sacramenta… pares credimus et uno sigillo signati sumus nee aliter baptizati quam vos, testamentum divinum pariter legimus, unum deum pariter rogamus, oratio dominica apud nos et apud vos una est.” P. 93, 20–94, 3. Cfr.: V, 1: “Pro utrisque illud est, quod et nobis et vobis commune est, ideo et vobis, quia ex nobis existis, denique et apud vos et apud nos una est ecclesiastica conversatio, communes lectiones, eadem fides, ipsa fidei sacramenta, eadem mysteria.” P. 121, 13–17.

83.Ibid. I,12: “Vobis vero schismaticis, quamvis in catholica non sitis, haec negari non possunt, quia nobiscum vera et communia sacramenta traxistis.” P. 14, 22–15, 1. For more on Optatus’s views on baptism outside the Church in connection with baptism in general, see: Ioh. Ernst. Die Ketzertaufangelegenheit in der altchr. Kirche. P. 43–52.

84.Ibid. I, 11: Catholicam facit simplex et verus intellectus intellegere, singulare ac verissimum sacramentum et unitas animorum. P. 13, 20–21. Cfr.: PL. T. 11, coil. 905D–906B–C. not. 15–17.

85.Ibid. I, 11. P. 14, 1–7.

86.Ibid. I, 3. P. 4–5.

87.Ibid. I, 2. P. 4. Cfr.: IV, 2. P. 102–103.

88.Ibid. III, 9: “In parte vestis adhuc unum sumus, sed, in diversa pendemus, quod enim scissum est, ex parte divisum est, non ex toto.” P. 93, 17–19.

89.Ibid. III, 10: “pars vestra quasi ecclesia est, sed catholica non est.” P. 95, 21–22.

90.Ibid. I, 12. P. 14:14–15, 22–23.

91.Ibid. I, 21. P. 25, 5–7.

92.Ibid. I, 21. P. 22–23; 23:6. In VII:4, Optatus even calls the Donatists’ guilt blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: see p. 176.

93.Ibid. I:21, VII:1. P. 24:6; 159:6.

94.Ibid. I:2. P. 4:3-4.

95.Ibid. I:15. P. 18:9-11.

96.Ibid. II:9. P. 45:2-4.

97.Of the vast scholarly literature devoted to Blessed Augustine, we make use primarily of the new and specialized works: Dr. Thomas Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche nach dem hl. Augustia Paderborn, 1892; P. Capistran Romeis. The Church’s polemics after St. Augustine. Edited by Dr. A. Ehrhard and Dr. I. P. Kirsch. VIII Band. 4. Heft. Paderborn, 1908; V. Guerrier. Architects and Ascetics of the “Kingdom of God.” Part 1. St. Augustine. Moscow, 1910.

98.We do not consider it necessary to present the external history of St. Augustine’s polemics with the Donatists, especially since this history is described in detail in N. Kutepov’s special work, “The Schism of the Donatists.” pp. 85 ff., as well as in V. Guerrier (“St. Augustine.” pp. 482 ff.).

99.It is impossible not to note that the polemic with Donatism bore a clear dogmatic imprint. From this we can see that Donatism itself was based on religious and dogmatic interests, and V. Guerrier is a tendentious historian, depicting Donatism (“Blessed Augustine.” Pp. 437 ff.) as “a banner that gathered around itself the native elements opposed to Rome and its civilization” (p. 477). See on this issue the opinions of Professor A. A. Spassky (Theological Bulletin, 1901. III. Pp. 189-194) and N. N. Glubokovsky (“Blessed Augustine in the Portrayal of a Russian Secular Historian.” – Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy. 1911. I. Pp. 133-136).

100.The polemical works of Blessed Augustine are presented in more detail in the book by V. Z. Belolikov, “The Literary Activity of Blessed Augustine against the Donatist Schism.” Kyiv, 1912.

101.Brevicul. Col. III, 3, 3: “Donatistae responderunt, non catholicum nomen ex universitate gentium, sed ex plenitudine Sacramentorum institutum.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 624; Epist. 93, 7, 23: “Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis communione interpretaris, sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum, atque omnium Sacramentorum.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 333.

102.Epist 93, 7, 23. PL. T. 33. Col. 333.

103.De unitale Ecclesiae. C 2: “Quae utique una est, quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt, ut ex ipso nomine ostenderent, quia per totum est.” Secundum totum enim, καθ’ὅλον graece dicitur.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 392. Cfr.: Contra litteras Petiliani lib. 2. From 38, 91. PL. T. 43. Col. 292; Epist 52, 1; PL., 33. Col. 194; Contra Gaudent II, 2, 2; P.L. T. 43. Col. 741.

104.In particular, the following passages from the Old Testament are cited: Judgment.6:36–40; Life22:16–18;26:1–5;28:10–15; Isa 11:9–10;41:4–5;42:1–4;49:4–23;52:9–10;53:11–12 62:1–4; 64:1–5; Ps.2:7–8;21:28–29;18:5;56:5–6;71 and others PL. T. 43. Col. 398 sqq. Cfr. Contra ep. Parmeniani. Ι, 2; P.L. T. 43. Col. 35–36; Contra Cresconium, III, 64, 72; 65, 73; P.L. T. 43. Col. 535–538; Epist. 140, 17, 43; P.L. T. 33. Col. 556; Epist. 208, 6; P.L. T. 33. Col. 952.

105.Serm. 46; 14, 33; P.L. T. 38. CoL 289; In psalm. 147, 6; P.L. T. 37. Col. 1924–1925.

106.OK.24:46–47; Acts1:1–8;9:15; Rome.15:16; De unit. Eccl. pp. 10–11; P.L. T. 43. Col. 408 sqq.

107.De unite Eccl. From 11, 29; P.L. T. 43. Col. 411–412. Cfr.: in ep. Ioan. tract. 2, 2–3; P.L. T. 35. Col. 1989–1991

108.Ibid. De unite Eccl. From 11, 30: “Iam cui non appareat, illo vase significatum orbem terrarum, cum omnibus gentibus? Unde etiam quatuor initias erat alligatum, propter notissimas quatuor partes, Orientem et Occidentem, Austrum et Aquilonem, quas saepissime Scriptura commendat.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 413.

109.Ibid. C 12, 31: “Cognoscite ergo etiam quam longe ab Africa remotae sunt, et dicite nobis cur eas omnino vobis incognitas, et in apostolicis Litteris manifestatas, tarn sacrilega temeritate discatis et tanta dementia criminibus Afrorum periisse dicatis?” P.L. T. 43. Col. 414–415; Epist. 87, 2; P.L. T. 33. Col. 297.

110.After this, Augustine goes on to analyze numerous testimonies from Holy Scripture, which the Donatists skillfully interpreted as proof that, although their society did not have a universal character, it was nevertheless the true Church. – PL. T. 43. Col. 416 sqq. Cfr.: Contra Cresconium. III, 35, 39; PL. T. 43. Col. 517. On the universal character of the Church as opposed to local heresies and schisms, see Augustine: Epist. 49, 2; PL. T. 33. Col. 189–190; Epist. 52, 1; PL. T. 33. Col. 194; Epist. 53, 1, 6; PL. T. 33. Col. 195–196, 198; Epist. 76, 1; P.L. T. 33. Col. 263–264; Epist 142, 1–3; P.L.T. 33. Col. 583–584; Epist. 185, 5; P.L. T. 33. Col. 794; Contra litter. Petiliani, II, 8, 19–20; P.L. T. 43. Col. 264–265; II, 14, 33. Col. 268; II, 64, 144. Col. 306; II, 73, 164. Col. 310; II, 92, 210. Col. 330; III, 50, 62. Col. 380; Contra Crescon. IV, 54, 64; P.L. T. 43. Col. 582–583; IV, 57, 70. Col. 587; Ad. Donatistas post Col. From 2.PL. T. 43. Col. 653. Contra Gaudent. I, 20, 22. PL. T. 43. Col. 718–719. See also Th Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 254–256, in general the entire §30: Die Katholicität der Kirche. S. 251–268.

111.See eg Epist. 49, 3: “Ecclesia catholica est etiam in Africa.” PL T. 33. Col. 190.

112.”Liber de Septem regulis ad investigandam et inveniendam S. Scripturae intelligentiam.” The work of Tichonius is used in the edition: F. C. Burkitt M. A. Texts and studies contributions to biblical and patristic literature, edited by J. Armitage Robinson Vol. III. No. 1. The rules of Tychonius. Cambridge, 1894. For the Russian translation, see “Appendices to the Works of the Holy Fathers.” 1891. Part 48. On Tichonius, see F. Ribbeck. Donatus und Augustinus. S. 198–205.

113.Reg. 2. P. 10–11. Appendices. Part 48. P. 196–197, 198.

114.Ibid. 3. P. 26, 13–14. Appendices. Part 48. P. 217.

115.Ibid. 3. R. 28–30 passim. Additions. Part 48. pp. 220, 221, 222.

116.Ibid. 4. R. 31. Additions. Part 48. P. 224.

117.Ibid. 4. R. 32 sqq. Additions. Part 48. From 225 ff.

118.Ibid. 4. R. 53. Additions. Part 48. P. 250.

119.“Parmenianus autem caeteriquc Donatistae viderunt hoc esse consequens. et maluerunt suscipere obstinantissimum animum adversus apertissimam veritatem quam Tichonius asserebat,” says Bl. Augustine (Contra epist. Parmeniani. I, 1. PL. T. 43. Col. 35).

120.Contra epist Parmeniani. I, 1.PL. T. 43. Col. 35.

121.Is.59:1–8; Proverbs17:15; 2 Tim.2:19; Εf. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6; Contra epist. Pannen. II. S. 3, 6 sqq. P.L. T. 43. Col. 53 sqq.

122.Contra epist Pannen II, 6, 13, PL. T. 43. Col. 58.

123.Ibid. II, 2, 5. PL. T. 43. Col. 52.

124.Ibid. 1, 2, 4. PL. T. 43. Col. 51.

125.Ibid. 1, 2, 2. PL. T. 43. Col. 35.

126.For more on the earthly state of the Church according to Augustine, see: Th. Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 67 ff.

127.This psalm is also called “Abecedarium” because its stanzas begin with letters in alphabetical order. We have cited the first stanza. PL. T. 43. Col. 24–25: “Genus autem mixtum piscis, justus est cum peccatore.” The seine is also called “similitudo apertissima de commixtione malorum et bonorum.” De unit Eccl. From 14, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 418. Cfr.: Contra epist. Parmen III, 3, 19. PL. T. 43. Col. 97; Epist. 93. P. 9, 34. PL. T. 33. Col. 338; De civit Dei Hb. 18. From 49. PL. T. 41. Col. 611; Ad donatistas post collat ​​S. 8, 11. PL. T. 43. CoL 659. P. 10, 14. Col. 660.

128.Abecedarium G.PL. T. 43. Col. 27.Gfr. Epist. 105. P. 5, 16. PL. T. 33. Col. 403; Epist. 108.С 3, 7. PL. T. 33. Col. 409.

129.Abecedarium N.PL. T. 43. Col. 28–29. Cfr.: Contra epist. Parmen, II, 1, 3. PL. T. 43. Col. 51; De unitate Eccl., 14, 35: “Nulla ergo malorum commixtio terret bonos, ut propterea velint tanquam retia rumpere, et a congregatione unitatis exire.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 418. See also Epist. 93. pp. 4, 15, 9, 34. PL. T. 33. Col. 329, 338; Epist. 87, 2.PL. T. 33. Col. 297; Epist. 129, 5.PL. T. 33. Col. 492; Epist. 43. P. 8, 21: “Ne nomen Christi per horribilia schismata blas- phemetur, pro bono unitatis tolerant, quod pro bono aequitatis oderunt.” P.L. T. 33 Col. 170; Epist 44. P. 5, 11. PL T. 33. Col. 179; Epist 53. pp. 3, 6. PL. T. 33. Col. 198; Epist. 76, 2–3. P.L. T. 33. Col. 265.

130.Abecedarium P.PL. T. 43. Col. 29; Ad Donation. post. collat, 20, 31. PL T. 43. Col. 671–672.

131.Epist. 108. pp. 7, 20. PL. T. 33. Col. 417. Cfr.: Brevicul. coil. cum Donatistis. pp. 9, 16: “When the raven flew out of the ark, there still remained unclean animals, but in it until the end of the flood there remained both clean and unclean, just as in the Church there were good and evil until the end of the age. But as Noah offered a sacrifice not of unclean, but of clean animals, so not those in the Church who are evil, but those who are good, will come to God.” – PL. T. 43. Col. 633.

132.De unitate Eccl., 14, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 418; Contra litt Petil., II, 45, 106. PL. T. 43. Col. 296; II, 47, 110. Col. 297; II, 78, 174. Col. 312; Contra Crescon, III, 65, 73; III, 66, 75. PL. T. 43. CoL 536, 537; Epist. 10. From 3, 11. PL. T. 33. Col. 411.

133.Contra litteras Petiliani, III, 2, 3. PL. T. 43. Col. 349.

134.Contra epist. Parmenian, II, 2, 5. PL. T. 43. Col. 52; Cfr.: Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 90, 199. PL. T. 43. Col. 321–322; Contra epist. Parmenian, III, 3, 19. PL. T. 43. Col. 97.

135.De unitate Eccl., 13, 33. PL T. 43. Col. 416–417.

136.Here Augustine also quotes Matt. 7:13–14; Gen. 15:5; 22:27; Rom. 9:7; Is. 54:1; Matt. 8:11–12; Titus 2:14; De unitate Eccl. p. 14, 36. PL T. 43. Col. 418–419. Besides the Donatists, the Pelagians also believed that the Church consisted solely of saints, based on a misunderstanding of the words of the Apostle John (1 John 3:9) and the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:25–27). In his polemic against the Pelagians, Augustine argues that the state of holiness, both for an individual and for the Church, is the result of a long process. See: Th. Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 84–88.

137.Epist. 93, 9, 36. PL T. 33. Col. 339. Cfr.: Contra litt. Petil. III, 37, 43. PL T. 43. Col. 370. Retract. II, 17. PL T. 32. Col. 637.

138.Contra litt. Petiliani, III, 4, 5: “Neque hoc ideo dixerim ut neglegatur ecclesiastica disciplina, et permittitur quisque facere quod velit sine ulla coneptione, et quadam medicinali vindicta et terribili lenitate et charitatis severitate.” PL T. 43. Col. 350.

139.Ibid. III, 4, 5: “Neque enim ferrum est inimici vulnerantis, sed medici secantis.” PL T. 43. Col. 350.

140.Contra litt. Petiliani, III, 4, 5. PL T. 43. Col. 350.

141.Ibid. III, 37, 43. PL T. 43. Col. 370.

142.Ibid. III, 38, 44. PL T. 43. Col. 370–371.

143.Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 20, 39. PL T. 43. Col. 80.

144.Serm. 351, 10. PL T. 39. Col. 1546.

145.Contra epist. Parmeniani, III, 2, 13: “Non dormiat severitas disciplinae, in qua tanto est efficacior emendatio pravitatis, quando diligentior conservatio charitatis. Tunc autem hoc sine labe pacis et unitatis et sine laesione frumentoram fieri potest, cum congregationes Ecclesiae multitudo ab eo crimine quod anathematur, aliena est.” PL T. 43. Col. 92. Cfr.: Brevicius collationis cum Donatistis, dies 3; 9, 16: “Quamvis debeat vigilare ecclesiastica disciplina, ad eos non solum verbis, sed etiam excommunicationibus et degradationibus corripiendos, tarnen non solum in ea latentis nesciantur, sed plerumque propter pacem unitatis etiam cogniti tolerentur.” PL T. 43. Col. 632.

146.Ibid. III, 2, 13. PL T. 43. Col. 92: “Tunc etiam ille et timore percutitur, et pudore sanatur, cum ab universa Ecclesia se anathematum videns, sociam turbam cum qua in delicto suo gaudeat et bonis insultet non potest invenire. Contra epist. Parmeniani.”

147.Ibid. III, 2, 14. PL T. 43. Col. 92–93.

148.Ibid. III, 2, 14: “Jam propter multitudine non poterant ita corripi, ut ab eorom conjunctione se caeteri continerent, et eos erubescere facerent.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 93.

149.Idem

150.Ibid. III, 2.15: “Haec qui diligenter cogitat, nee in conservatione unitatis negligit disciplinae severitatem nee immoderatione coercitionis disrumpit vinculum societatis.” PL T. 43. Col. 94; Contra litt. Petil, III, 3, 4. PL T. 43. Col. 349; In Retract. II, 17: Augustine, based on the Greek text, corrects this in Contra epist. Parmea interpretation of 1 Cor.5:13: “Potius intelligendum ut homo malus auferatur ex hominibus bonis, quod fit per ecclesiasticam disciplinam.” PL T. 32. Col. 637. On ecclesiastical excommunication according to Augustine, see Romeis C. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. S. 40 ff.

151.De moribus Ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus manichaeorum Hb. I. C 34, 76. PL T. 32. Col. 1342.

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)