By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya The Donatists sometimes referred to the time of St. Cyprian, saying that in his time the Church wa…
By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya
The Donatists sometimes referred to the time of St. Cyprian, saying that in his time the Church was holy. Augustine speaks in detail about St. Although Cyprian judged wicked people harshly, he did not break off ecclesiastical communion with them, although he was, of course, far removed from their lives and morals. 152 St. Cyprian partook of the Lord’s Bread and drank the Lord’s Cup not only with wicked laymen, but even with unworthy bishops. 153 The Donatists should have said that the Church had already perished in those days. And if so, then Donatism itself is meaningless. A holy and immaculate Church could not have been born from a wicked one. 154 Augustine often and at length says that even the Donatist community, in its moral state, does not satisfy their dogmatic teaching on the sanctity of the Church: their teaching on the Holy Church is merely an unsuccessful theoretical proposition, which cannot be applied to reality. The Donatists reproached the Church for the most varied vices and crimes of its members; in response, they receive from Augustine an indication of their own shortcomings. Polemicists against Donatism particularly frequently pointed to the frenzy of the Circumcellions, with whom the Donatists, however, never broke their unity.155 The crimes of Church representatives were in the past, while the Circumcellions live and operate to this day.156 All such mutual reproaches between the Church and the Donatists are, of course, of more historical interest, but they also have some significance from a dogmatic standpoint. When the Donatists pointed out sinful members of the Church, this did not pose any dogmatic danger to the Church. The doctrine of the holiness of the Church, which church writers adhered to, did not suffer in the least from the presence of sinners in the Church. Blessed Augustine acknowledges the sinfulness of some members of the Church, but does not consider this fact sufficient to prove the Church’s falsity. Blessed Augustine’s references to the shortcomings of the Donatists had a different meaning. For their concept of the holiness of the Church, there was an insurmountable difficulty here, for, according to their teaching, there should be only wheat in the Church, and suddenly among this wheat there were tares.
Blessed Augustine could only reproach the Donatists for their moral shortcomings by adopting their dogmatic viewpoint, thereby demonstrating the impossibility of their teaching on the Church. If consistently applied, it would lead to the recognition that the Church does not exist at all, that the Church has already perished. Blessed Augustine’s own ecclesiological system left no room for such conclusions. The Church, before the Judgment and until the end of the age, represents a field where wheat and tares grow together. Blessed Augustine says that two periods in the life of the Church must be distinguished (distinguenda esse tempora Ecclesiae). Now the Church contains sinners, but the time will come when it will consist only of saints. In Holy Scripture, these two periods are symbolically depicted in two miraculous catches of fish. At the first entanglement (cf. Luke 5:4), the Lord says nothing about the right and left sides, thereby showing that in the nets of His Mysteries there will be neither good nor evil, but rather the evil will be mixed with the good. After the Resurrection, He commanded that the net be cast on the right side (cf. John 21:6–11), so that we would understand that after our resurrection, the Church will be composed only of good people. 158
This is what Blessed Augustine says about the earthly Church; moreover, he is speaking specifically of the historically known, visible Church, which began in Jerusalem and spread throughout the world. 159 Augustine was familiar with allegorical interpretations of the entire early history of Christianity. By Jerusalem, they said, one should not understand this visible city; this is only a figurative turn of phrase. And the entire Church must be understood spiritually, as the eternal Heavenly Church, partly wandering on earth. Augustine decisively rejects all this. If the Church is understood figuratively, then the sufferings of Christ must be understood in the same way, and this means rejecting Christianity. Analyzing the Evangelist’s account of the Lord’s ascension (cf. Luke 24:49–52), Augustine particularly draws attention to the fact that the apostles returned to the earthly Jerusalem after the ascension. In Acts (cf. Acts 1 and 8), specific localities and cities where the Church spread are also named, as if to indicate the visibility of both the Church and the Jerusalem from which it spread. In this visible Church, good and evil are intermingled; they live inseparably.
However, Augustine also suggests that worthy members of the Church stand in a certain special relationship with one another. Through baptism, a person enters the Church and remains in union with it throughout his life. However, he may commit sins that, according to the apostle, make him incapable of inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven (see Gal. 5:19–21). Such sinners are only in visible communion with the Church. They participate in the Sacraments, and yet they are not in the Church. There is no visible excommunication, but neither is there full union with the Church.163 Such people are outside the Church, although they apparently belong to it.164 The true Church consists only of the good; they are the true members of the Body of Christ, and certain words of Holy Scripture apply only to the Church of saints. The Church is in those who build upon the rock, that is, who fulfill the teachings of Christ, and not in those who do not fulfill them.165 From this Church, which is free from filth or vice, the sinner is excommunicated, even though he may have external union with the saints. 166 The Sacraments are of no benefit to him. 167 Sometimes, even the saints alone are called the Church. 168 It is possible, apparently, to be in the Church and yet be alien to that spiritual union of love which constitutes the true Church. 169 A distinction must be made between visible communion with the Church and the invisible participation in the unity of love which is the property of the good. Love sometimes replaces the Sacrament: for example, martyrs invisibly accomplish what they could not do visibly. 170
In all the above passages, one cannot discern in Augustine any idea of the invisible essence of the Church. Otherwise, Augustine’s teaching would contain an irreconcilable contradiction: the Church includes both the righteous and the sinners, but the Church consists only of the righteous. Augustine considers righteous people to be the Church primarily, but not exclusively. While the Church is on earth, it equally includes both the righteous and the sinners. The Church of the saints, according to the teaching of Blessed Augustine, is not special; we have already seen how Augustine insisted on the inseparability of the righteous and the sinners; it is impossible to separate the tares from the wheat, and there is no need to do so. The Holy Church is the Church of the age to come. On the contrary, Augustine says that without ecclesiastical unity, Christian love cannot be preserved, and without love, both faith itself and all the Sacraments have no meaning. Consequently, all holy people belong to the same Church, which also includes unworthy members. This is indeed what all truly good people do. Their holiness not only does not compel them to abandon ecclesiastical unity, but even unites them more closely with the Church. 174 To separate from the Church under the pretext of holiness, as the Donatists did, is something only an impious and arrogant person could do. 175 “I hold,” writes Augustine, “to a Church full of wheat and tares. If there are traditors unknown to me, then when you show them, I will turn away from them in body and heart; but for the sake of these dead ones, I will not separate myself from those who remain alive in the holy unity of the same Church. I have no need to separate. If I recognize such in the union of the Mysteries, then by the word and law (disciplina) of the Lord I correct those I can, and I tolerate those whom I could not correct. “I avoid the tares, lest I become one myself, but I do not leave the threshing floor, lest I become nothing.”176 Thus, the saints in the Church abide together with sinners. They are never separated, but are always found in one part or another of the Church. Only righteous people primarily realize the idea of the Holy Church.177 Sometimes sin spreads so much that it seems as if there is no longer any wheat from God. In fact, there is never a shortage of this wheat: it is predetermined and sown everywhere.178
Blessed Augustine’s teaching on the Church is connected with his teaching on predestination, although some scholars consider these two points in Blessed Augustine’s system to be contradictory. Blessed Augustine attached great importance to predestination in the matter of salvation.179 Those predestined for salvation can stray from the path and lead an evil life, but grace can always guide them to the path of salvation. They cannot perish; Sooner or later, grace will lead them to salvation, and they will achieve this salvation in the Church. The complete certainty of fate is revealed only at the end of a person’s life. Only the final moment finally reveals the mysterious veil of predestination. Clearly, such a teaching on predestination is completely at odds with the Donatist view of the Church. Every sinner cannot be excommunicated from the Church, because despite his grave sins, he may still be predestined to salvation. When Augustine says that one should not rush to pluck out the tares, because one could also ruin the wheat, his words in these cases have a special meaning: people’s destinies are hidden from them, and they should not anticipate God’s judgment. The Church’s job is not to judge sinners, but to give them the opportunity to reform; even excommunication from the Church should pursue the same goal. It should also be noted that, when speaking of predestination, Augustine is far from suggesting that the predestined alone constitute the Church. On the contrary, many predestined individuals spend almost their entire lives outside the Church, and among the Church’s most faithful sons are those who are not predestined to salvation. 183. Not only the predestined belong to the Church, and not all predestined individuals belong to the Church. 184.
The writings of St. Augustine, in which he polemicizes against Donatism, give the impression that he is constantly defending sinners; it is not sinners who defile the Church, 185 but the Church that sanctifies and educates sinners, influencing them with both teaching and discipline. Therefore, the Church is necessary for them, and they should not be excommunicated from it. Thus, in the works of St. Augustine, the truth that the earthly Church is not composed solely of saints and perfect believers, but has as its goal the education and correction of sinners, finds its full expression and justification. The Church is only preparing to become glorious, without blemish or vice.187 The perfect separation of the righteous from the sinners will take place at the end of the age.
When the Orthodox and Donatists sometimes clashed over the relative morality of their respective lives, as noted above, this debate had a certain fundamental significance, although such disputes are usually only the inevitable concomitant of more fundamental dogmatic disagreements. Closely related to the difference in dogmatic understandings of the Church was the question of the moral worth of hierarchical figures. Indeed, it was precisely these figures that caused the Donatist schism. 188 The invalidity of a sacrament administered by a traditionalist—this is one of the most fundamental dogmatic tenets of Donatism. 189 Moreover, the Church, in communicating grace to people, depends entirely on the moral qualities of its hierarchy and cannot tolerate traitors within it without compromising its sanctity.
Blessed In all of Augustine’s writings on Donatism, we find a decisive struggle against this view, which for him is res falsissima et absurdissima. 191 Above all, in St. Augustine we find, so to speak, an immanent critique of the Donatist view. Scripture calls anyone a liar who says he has no sin (cf. 1 John 1:8), and therefore it is impossible to find a person among people who can validly baptize, if the Sacrament at all depends on the personal qualities of the celebrant. 192 One must seek an angel in order to be baptized by him. 193
The moral qualities of people vary, and if the validity of baptism depends on these qualities, then, obviously, baptism also varies, and is not the same for everyone. 194
The practice of the Donatists themselves does not correspond to their dogmatic teaching. If the Sacraments administered by an unworthy member of the hierarchy are invalid, then the Donatists must rebaptize all those who were baptized in their society by an unworthy person. 195 After all, they cannot deny that there are unworthy hierarchs in their society, perhaps unknown to them. 196 After all, before such people were excommunicated, they nevertheless administered the Sacraments. Obviously, these Sacraments are invalid, and people baptized by an unworthy person do not have true baptism and have not yet entered the Church. The Donatists also do not baptize those who have separated from them, for example, the Maximianists, although they vilify them no less than the Orthodox. 197 To be consistent, the Donatists, when accepting Maximianists, should rebaptize them. The Donatists themselves cited this reasoning. The Sacraments of an unworthy person are invalid, but only when his unworthiness is known to the Church. If it is unknown, the Sacrament remains valid. 198 Petilian, in his response to Augustine, and the Donatists in general, added: A Sacrament is invalid when it is received from someone known (sciens) to be an infidel. 199 The Donatists did not deny the validity of Sacraments performed by hypocrites. But, of course, Blessed Augustine rightly considered such an explanation completely unsatisfactory. A crime is not lessened simply because it is unknown to others. It is known to God. Why then is only the Church’s judgment on the sinfulness of a particular person valid, and not God’s? God condemns sin when it has just been committed, even if it has remained unknown to people for a long time. The sinner is already dead; he has already lost the Holy Spirit. 200 If we connect the validity of a Sacrament with the person who performs it, then it is necessary to recognize as invalid the Sacraments performed by a sinful person, from the very moment of his sin. From him, deprived of the Holy Spirit, sanctification could not be received. 201 Therefore, if the Donatists wished to be consistent, they must rebaptize everyone whom the excommunicated person had baptized before his excommunication.202 Augustine’s demand was, of course, entirely justified. The Donatists lacked consistency in their teaching regarding the dependence of the Sacraments on the person administering them. While denying the validity of the Sacraments among the Orthodox on the grounds that they were administered by unworthy ministers, they nevertheless recognized baptism as valid within their own society, regardless of the personal sanctity of the celebrant, namely, when his unworthiness was unknown. It appeared that only that which the Donatists wished to deem sacred was sacred.203 But it is also clear that the Donatists’ dogmatic view cannot be made the guiding principle of church practice. To invalidate the Sacraments administered by a sinful person from the very moment of his sin would be to completely destroy the Sacraments. After all, a sinful priest can conceal his sin until death, and all those baptized by him lose hope of salvation. The final result is that it is completely unknown who belongs to the Church and who does not. No one can be certain of their membership in the Church. The question always remains: what if I was baptized as a hidden sinner? It is understandable why, having pointed out this contradiction in the Donatist views, Augustine insists on it so strongly.
Finally, Augustine asks: why should infant baptism be considered invalid? After all, they do not know that they are being baptized by a sinner. Donatists should not rebaptize infants accepted into their society, just as they do not baptize anyone baptized in their society by an unknown sinner.206
* * *
Notes:
152.Contra epist. Parmeniani, III, 2, 8. PL T. 43. Col. 88–89. Epist 93, 10, 36: “Unitatem orbis terrae atque omnium gentium et diligendo tenuit, et disputando defendit.” PL T. 33. Col. 339.
153.Ibid. III, 2, 9. PL T. 43. Col. 90.
154.Ibid. III, 2, 11: “Quid eis prodest quod avaros et rapaces. Modo se vel non habere in congregatione sua, vel incognitos sibi esse mentiuntur, quandoquidem fuerunt tales in illa unitatis Ecclesia, unde isti exortos se sie jaetant, et eam in sua sola societate. Id est, m communione Donati remansisse persuadere conentur? Si enim dicunt per talium communionem perire Ecclesiam, cur eam non dicunt jam Cypriani periisse temporibus?” PL T. 43. CoL 90–91; De bapt, II, 6, 8. PL T. 43. Col. 131; II, 7, 11. Col. 133; De unico bapt C14, 23–24. PL T. 43. Col. 607–608; Epist. 93, 10, 37, 42, 45. PL T. 33. Col. 339, 341, 342.
155.On the origin and character of the Circumcellions, see Kutepov: “The Schism of the Donatists.” Pp. 38 ff. Augustine always places the Circumcellions in close connection with the Donatists. See Contra litt. Petiliani., II. 83, 184. PL T. 43. Col. 317; Epist. 105, 3. PL T. 33. Col. 397. Addressing the Donatists, Augustine calls the Circumcellions “vestri.” – Epist. 88, 1. PL T. 33. Col. 302.
156.Abecedarium L: “Clamatis vos de Macario, et nos de Circumcellione. Illud, nostrum jam transactum: vestri non cessant usque hodie.” PL T. 43. Col. 28. Cfr.: De haeres. 69 PL T. 42. Col. 43.
157.See Epist 187, 7, 28. PL. T. 33. Col. 842; De gestis Pelagii. From 12, 27. PL. T. 44. Col. 336; De nuptiis et concupisc. C 33, 38; 34, 39.PL. T. 44. Col. 435; Contra dues epist. Pelagianorum, lib. IV. From 7, 17–18. P.L. T. 44. Col. 621–622; De natura et gratia. S 63, 75. PL T. 44. Col. 285; De perfect, just. pp. 15, 34–35. P.L. T. 44. Col. 310; Epist 185, 9, 38–39. P.L. T. 33. Col. 810.
158.Brevicius col.cum Donatistis, d. 3. P. 9.16. P.L. T. 43. Col. 633. Cfr.: ad Donat. post collat., 9, 12. PL. T. 43. Col. 659.
159.De unitatc Eccl. pp. 10, 25: “Teneamus Ecclesiam ex ore Domini designatam, unde coeptura, et quousque perventura esset; coeptura scilicet ab lerusalem, et perventura in omnes gentes.” P.L. T.43. Col.409.
160.Ibid. From 10, 26. PL. T. 43. Col. 409.
161.Ibid. From 11, 27: “Nullus omnino dubitare permittatur, nisi qui de sanctarum Scripturarum fide dubitat, illam esse lerusalem visibilem civitatem, unde coepit Ecclesia post Domini Iesu Christi resurrectionem et ascensionem; nec aliud eum voluisse ostendere, nisi hujus terrae loca, unde illi daret initium, et quomodo eam per cuncta inde diffunderet.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 409–410. Cfr.: from 11, 28 and 24, 70. Col. 441–442.
162.Vgl.: Harnack Α Dogmengeschichte4, III. S. 147, Anm. 2; V. Guerrier. Blzh. Augustine. P. 610.
163.De unite Eccl. P. 25, 74: “Multi tales sunt in Sacramentorum communione cum Ecclesia, et tarnen jam non sunt in Ecclesia. Alioquin si tunc quisque praeciditur cum visibiliter excommunicatur; consequens erit ut tunc rursus inseratur, cum visibiliter communioni restituitur.” PL T. 43. Col. 444. Cfr.: In Ioan. tract., 5, 7. PL T. 35. Col. 2016; In ep. Ioan., 7, 6. PL T. 35. Col. 2032.
164.De bapt, 1, 10, 14; IV, 3, 4; V, 27.38; VI, 14, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 117, 155, 156,196, 207; In ep. Ioan. tract., 7, 13. PL. T. 35. Col. 2028; In p.s. 25 en., 2, 2. PL. T. 36. CoL 189.
165.De unit. Eccl. C 21, 60: “Nec regenerati spiritualiter in corpus et membra Christi coaedificientur nisi boni; profecto in bonis est illa Ecclesia, cui dicitur. Sicut lilium in medio spinarum, ita proxima mea in medio filiarum (Can. II, 2). In his est enim qui aedificant super petram, id est, qui audiunt verba Christi, et fociunt. Non est ergo in eis, qui aedificant super arenam, id est, qui audiunt verba Christi, et non faciunt.” Col. 436. Cfr.: De bapt., V, 27, 38. PL. T. 43. Col. 195.
166.De baptismo, 1. pp. 17, 26: “Semper ab illius Ecclesiae quae sine macula et ruga est unitate divisus est, etiam qui congregationi sanctorum in carnali abduratione miscetur.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 123. Cfr.: III, 18, 23: “Ad illam gloriosam Ecclesiam non pertineant.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 150; IV, 18, 25. Col. 170.
167.Contra litt Petiliani., II, 55, 126. PL. T. 43. Col. 302.
168.De baptismo, III, 18, 23: “Orationes sanctonim, id est columbae gemitus.” PL T. 43. Col. 150; Epist. 98, 5: “Ecclesia, quae in sanctis est.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 362; Epist. 187, 12, 41. PL. T. 33. Col. 848.
169.Ibid. III, 19, 26: “Cum intus videntur, ab illa invisibili charitatis compage separati sunt.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 152. Cfr.: Contra litt Petiliani, II, 108, 247. PL. T. 43. Col. 345; In p.s. 131, 13: ”Ille enim ad domum Dei pertinet, qui est in charitate compaginatus lapidibus vivis”. P.L. T. 37. Col. 1721; In p.s. 39, 1.PL. T. 36. Col. 433; In p.s. 95, 2.PL. T. 37. Col. 1228.
170.Ibid. IV, 22, 29. PL. T. 43. Col. 173–174. See also: Romeis C. The Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. S. 28–30.
171.Vgl.: Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 41–42; Thomasius. Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 593–596; W. Guerrier. Blessed. Augustine. S. 606–610.
172.“In view of the difference in the composition of the Church,” writes W. Guerrier, “its character at one time or another represents a complete opposition.” But only members of the earthly Church will enter the heavenly Church, and therefore one cannot speak of a complete opposition between the two Churches. Cf. the remark of Professor N. N. Glubokovsky: “Blessed Augustine in the image of the Russian secular historian.” – Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1911. T. 1. pp. 143–146.
173.Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 77, 172: “Charitas enim christiana nisi in imitate Ecclesiae non potest custodiri… Tenemus autem charitatem, si amplectimur unitatam: amplectimur autem unitatem, si eam non per verba nostra in parte confingimus, sed per verba Christi in unitate cognoscimus.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 312. Cfr.: Contra Cresconium., II, 12, 15. PL. T. 43. Col. 476; II, 13, 16. Idem.
174.De baptismo, 1, 17, 26: “Spiritales… non eunt foras: quia et cunt aliqua vel perversitate vel necessitate hominum videntur expelli, ibi magis probantur, quam si intus permaneant, cum adversus Ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur, sed in solida unitatis petra fortissimo charitatis robore radicantur.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 123–124.
175.Contra Cresconium, IV, 59, 71: “Non est enim alius impiae superbiae tumor apud omnes qui se a Christi unitate discendunt, quam se solos Christianos esse jaetare, et damnare caeteros, non solum quibus eorum lis nota est, verum etiam quibus eorum nec nomen auditum est.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 587–588.
176.Ibid. III, 35, 39. PL. T. 43. Col. 517.
177.See in more detail: Specht Th. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 76–81.
178.De unitate Eccl., 25, 73. PL T. 43. Col. 443.
179.This connection between the doctrine of predestination and the holiness of the Church is especially clear in “De bapt.”, V, 27, 38. PL. Vol. 43, Col. 195. Cf.: Romeis C. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. S. 21–23.
180.Augustine’s doctrine of predestination is explored in detail in L. Pisarev’s work “The Teaching of Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, on Man in His Relationship to God.” Kazan, 1894. Pp. 306 ff. On the relationship of the doctrine of the Church to the doctrine of grace, see Seeberg’s Studien zur Geschichte dez Begriffs der Kirche. Sps. 41–42, 49–50.
181.Augustine very decisively expresses the idea that “the saneti regno Dei praedestinati dividi ab Ecclesia nullo modo possunt.” – Contra Crescon. II, 33, 42. PL. T. 43. Col. 491. For more information on the fact that the predestined are saved not without the Church, see: Romeis C. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. We must recognize as unfounded the reasoning of W. Guerrier that “the circle of the Church in the former meaning of the mixed body (corpus permixtum) is intersected by another circle of the community of the elect, narrower, but at the same time in some parts protruding from the former ecclesiastical circle.” – Blessed. Augustine. P. 612. Cf. Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte4, III. P. 165. See also the comment by N. I. Glubokovsky: “Blessed Augustine in the Portrayal of a Secular Historian.” Transactions of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1911. Vol. 1. Pp. 146-147: “Predestination was not realized exclusively through the Church, although the latter is the most important, accessible, and legitimized arena for its saving action.” But above, on the same p. 147, the author expresses himself more decisively and definitely: “For Augustine, the Church was the only institution open to us, the only normal and sanctioned institution for applying to people the savingly predetermining will of God.” In essence, C. Romeis also comes to the same conclusion, setting forth Augustine’s view on the possibility of salvation outside the Church (pp. 94-115). Salvation outside the Church is, in any case, an extraordinary path, and Augustine does not specifically dwell on this subject (p. 114). Cf.: Specht Th. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 66–67, 89–94, 307–312. Specht comes decisively to the conclusion that the doctrine of predestination does not in any way violate the entire ecclesiological system of Blessed Augustine.
182.L. Pisarev, op. cit. S. 308.
183.De civit. Dei. I, 35. PL. T. 41. Col. 46.
184.For more detail, see: Specht Th. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 89–94.
185.Contra litt. Petilian I, III, 37, 43: “Alienis peccatis non maculatur Ecclesia”. T. 43. Col. 370; Epist. 93, 10, 37: “Manifestum est non contaminari justos alienis peccatis.” PL. T. 33. Col. 339.
186.Vgl.: Romeis C. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. S. 18.
187.Retract. II, 18. PL. T. 32. Col. 637–638.
188.One might think that the question of the dependence of the Sacraments on the personal moral qualities of their celebrants was already brewing in the Novatian communities, where they were inclined to resolve it in the spirit of Donatism, although independently of it. See: Pseudo-August. Quaest. 102. PL. T. 35. Col. 2311; Harnack A. Der pseudoaugustinische Tractat Contra Novatianum. Abhandlungen Alexander von Oettingen gewidmet (München, 1898) S. 85–89.
189.Contra litt. Petiliani, I, 2, 3: “Qui fidem a perfido sumpserit, non fidem porcipit, sed reatum.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 247; Epist 89, 5: “De Baptismo solent dicere, tunc esse Baptismum Christi, cum ab nomine justo datur.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 311. Cfr.: Contra ep. Parmen, II, 17, 36. PL. T. 43. Col. 77.
190.Augustine puts the words into the mouth of the Donatist: “Ego baptizo, ego justifico, ego justum facio.” Serm. 292, 4–6. P.L. T. 38. Col. 1323–1324. Cfr.: Contra epist. Pannen., II, 11, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 66. Contra Cresc., IV, 16, 19: “Quam jueti sumus, tarn justum Baptismum esse facia-mus.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 559.
191.De unitat. Eccl., 21, 59. PL. T. 43. Col. 435.
192.Contra Cresconium, II, 27, 33. PL. T. 43. Col. 487. Cfr.: II, 16, 19. Col. 559.
193.Ibid. II, 28, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 488.
194.In Ioan. tract., 6, 8. PL. T. 35. Col. 1428–1429.
195.Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 10, 21: “Cur mendaces et infideles eorum ministri, non aquam mendacem, sed veracem vel dare vel habere creduntur? Cur ab illoram mortuis qui baplizantur, proficit aliquid lavatio eorum?” P.L. T. 43. Col. 64.
196.Contra epist. Parmen., II, 10, 21: “fictos bonos, id est occultos malos, apud se esse negare non possunt.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 64–65; Epist. 93, 11, 49. PL. T. 33. Col. 345.
197.Ibid. 1, 13, 31. PL. T. 43. Col. 73; II, 15, 34. PL. T. 43. Col. 76. On the Maximianists, see: Ribbeck F. Donatus und Augustinus. S. 206–236.
198.Ibid. II, 10, 21: “Tunc posse a malo baptizari quem quam, si lateat malitia baptizantis.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 64. Cresconius says that the holiness of the baptist must be judged “secundum famam, non secundum sinceritatem, quae in illa videri non potest.” Contra Cresconium, II, 17, 21. PL. T. 43. Col. 478.
199.Contra litt Petiliani, III, 27.32. PL T. 43. Col. 363. Cfr.: Contra epist. Parmen, II, 11, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 67; Epist. 89, 5.PL. T. 33. Col. 311.
200.Contra epist. Parmen., II, 10, 21. PL. T. 43. Col. 65; II, 13, 31: “Nec ullo modo isti expedire se possunt, cum eis proponitur, cur sanetitas sacramenti et haben et dari possit ab eo, quem intus sceleratum jam Deus damnavit, et tunc incipiat ab eo dari non posse, cum ab hominibus damnatus fuerit, cum tarnen nec tunc eam possit amittere.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 73.
201.Ibid. II, 10, 21, 24. PL. T. 43. Col. 65–67; Contra litt. Petiliani., III, 47, 57. PL. T. 43. Col. 377–378; III, 52, 64. Col. 382; III, 30, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 366; Contra Cresconium, II, 26, 31: “Ita ne quia fictus est mortuus non est?” P.L. T. 43. Col. 485.
202.Ibid. II, 15, 34. PL. T. 43. Col. 76; Contra litt. Petiliani., 1, 2, 3: “Ecce stat perfidus baptizaturus at ille qui baptizandus est, perfidiam ejus ignorat: quid eum accepturum esse arbitraris? Utrum fidem, an reatum? Si dixeris fidem; concedes posse fieri ut a perfido quisque fidem percipiat, non reatum; et falsum erit illud quod dictum est, qui fidem a perfido sumpserit, non fidem percipit, sed reatum. Invenimus enim fieri posse ut etiam a perfido fidem quis percipiat, si perfidiam dantis ignoret… rebaptizent ergo illos quos ab eis baptizatos esse constiterit, qui diu apud ipsos conscelerati latuerunt, et postea proditi convictique damnati sunt.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 247; Contra litt. Petiliani, III, 27, 32 ff. P.L. T. 43. Col. 363 sqq.
203.Ibid. II, 13, 31: “Ouid est hoc aliud, quam quod eorum Tichonius de illis ait, quod volumus sanetum est.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 73.
204.Contra litt. Petiliani, 1, 4, 5. PL. t. 43. Col. 248. Cfr.: III, 27, 32. Col. 364.
205.Ibid. III, 32, 37: “Hinc satago, hoc urgenter interrogo, hoc ut respondeatur vehementissime flagito.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 367.
206.Ibid. III, 26, 31. PL. T. 43. Col. 363.
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)
