By Fr. Jоhn Meyendorff

2. Human freedom – which belongs to every human person – is revealed in the Greek patristic tradition as the true expression of the image of God. “Adam,” writes St. Basil the Great, “received from the Creator a free life, because his soul was created in the image of God.”[43] This same idea was developed later by St. Gregory of Nyssa[44] and by St. Cyril of Alexandria. “Man,” writes St. Cyril, “from the very beginning of creation was endowed with power over his desires and was free to follow the inclinations of his choice, because the Deity, whose image he is, is free.”[45] The freedom of the human person, therefore, points to the divine freedom that is the source of creation itself.

The incarnation undoubtedly presupposes the dimension of the hypostatic or personal existence of God, distinct from the dimension of nature or essence. By His nature or essence, God is unchangeable. In His essence, therefore, no becoming occurs.[46] Yet, “the Word became (ἐγένετο) flesh” (John 1:14), in other words, God undergoes a change, becoming something that He had not previously been. Moreover, since human nature is necessarily changeable and exists in history, the changes in the human life of Jesus must be accepted by the Logos not in essence but in person, including death itself: otherwise He would not have become fully man. It is the divine hypostasis of the Son himself, therefore, which has emerged from divine transcendence and has become visible and accessible – in the human nature of Jesus – restoring human nature in accordance with its divine prototype.

Indeed, if Christology itself presupposes an inaccessibility and absolute transcendence of the divine nature, as well as the openness and existential mutability of the hypostasis, then the formulation adopted by the Council of Chalcedon, namely of Jesus Christ as one hypostasis in two natures, acquires such clarity and applicability that were probably not fully understood even by its authors themselves. The full applicability of this formulation will be gradually developed in what has (in all likelihood inappropriately) been called Byzantine Neo-Chalcedonism. Indeed, the basic soteriological intuition of St. Cyril – namely, the unity of the person of the Incarnate Logos – as well as the necessity of distinguishing the divine nature from the human, had to be accepted in full and simultaneously. It has gradually become clear how, on the one hand, the hypostatic life in God expresses a mutual opening of the three hypostases to one another, and how, on the other hand, the hypostasis of the Son has opened itself to creation and to the assumed human nature, making it the “human nature of God.”[47] Thus, the openness of the divine hypostases to one another is a mutual openness within the Holy Trinity, but it is also an openness downwards to creation. It reveals the meaning of defining God as love, since love presupposes a personal reciprocity and relationship, eternal and transcendent in the Trinity, but also extending beyond the being of God: to the temporal being of the creatures that God has willed to exist.

On the other hand, human beings are also – hypostatically – open to the heights. As Lars Thunberg notes with regard to the Rev. Maximus the Confessor, “… Maximus manages to express his conviction that there is also a personal aspect in the life of man which goes truly beyond his nature and shows his inner unity as well as his relationship with God”.[48]

Thus the hypostatic dimension of the divine life of the Trinity, as well as the image of this life in humanity, exclude the idea of ​​redemption, salvation and deification as some automatic or magical processes of absorption of the human by the divine. Both of them presuppose – on the part of God as well as on the part of man – personal and free relationships. In Christ we see the hypostasis of the divine Logos, who perceives the fullness of human nature. Christ is not a human hypostasis. Otherwise the man Jesus could be individualized on the level of creatures, and this would make life in Christ impossible. Indeed, one created hypostasis could not exist in another. One human being cannot be transformed into another – human beings invariably preserve their uniqueness. The decisive factor with regard to salvation is that the hypostasis of the Logos is the prototype of which every human being is an image. The human nature of the Logos is not simply the nature of some individual human being – it is also our common humanity, which He assumed in its fallen state and which He glorified by His death and resurrection. The incarnate Logos calls us to be participants in His saved and glorified human nature, by virtue of our free and personal decision, through Baptism, in Eucharistic communion, in order to be transformed from the first man who is “of the earth, earthy” to the second man who is “the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47).

The New Adam

The New Testament applies to Jesus the image of the Suffering Servant, described by Deuteronomy[49] (Is. 52-53; cf. Matt. 8:17; Rom. 15:21, etc.): “He took our infirmities and carried our sorrows… They made his grave with the wicked” (Is. 53:4, 9). His image is that of the Messiah, who suffers and dies, voluntarily accepting the consequences of the sins of the human race. And this suffering and this death are consequences – on a cosmic level – of Adam’s sin, which sin determines the biblical perception of created reality after the Fall.

It has often been acknowledged that Eastern patristic thought ignores the notion of the transmission of guilt from Adam to his descendants. However, this does not ignore the fact of the Fall itself – in its cosmic dimensions. This fallen state is not expressed in the vocabulary of some divine punishment imposed on all men (Augustine’s massa damnata[50]) by parents on their children, but rather as a usurpation or illegitimate tyranny exercised by Satan over God’s creation. Humans are seen rather as victims of the universal dominion of evil—after all, Satan himself is “a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). They are “those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (Heb. 2:15). It is not sin that is passed from parents to children: it is mortality and slavery that are passed on, creating the conditions under which sin is inevitable. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrene writes: “Having become mortal, [Adam and Eve] conceived mortal children, and mortal beings are inevitably subject to suffering and fear, to pleasure and sorrow, to anger and hatred.”[51] The model here is Darwinian: the fear of death gives rise to a struggle for survival, and survival is only achievable at the expense of others – it is the survival of the strongest who prevail over the weak. As Theodore of Mopsuestia writes, “… having become mortal, we have acquired an urge to sin, because we are dependent on food, drink and other necessities, and the desire to acquire them inevitably leads to sinful passions.”[52] The references to patristic texts can easily be multiplied, and their context can be understood if we remember that the Greek Fathers read the famous phrase from the Epistle to the Romans – “… as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed upon all men, for[53] all have sinned[54]” (5:12) – in its Greek original, and their thinking was not conditioned by the erroneous translation into Latin, which implied the notion that all had sinned “in Adam”.[55]

What the Logos assumed was the mortal, corruptible and fallen nature of the human race. This was well understood in particular by the Alexandrian Fathers – supporters of a high Christology: St. Athanasius of Alexandria the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria. And therefore their Christological position makes theopaschism inevitable: the divine Logos himself voluntarily assumed mortal human nature and, therefore, had to die in the flesh. The consequence of this is not “anthropological minimalism” – as Father George Florovsky once wrote,[56] but quite the opposite – an affirmation that human nature and its fallen state are such a real and fateful fact that they led to God’s self-emptying as a condition for salvation and true restoration.

That the high Alexandrian Christology did not imply any degradation of human nature in Jesus is also clear from the sixth-century controversy over the aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus. Julian’s position is simple: since death and corruption (φθορά) are consequences of human sin, they could not have been present in Jesus, who had not committed sin. Thus, according to Julian, Jesus possessed an “incorruptible” (ἄφθαρτος) human nature. Julian’s critics were right when they said that he was in fact a Docetist: Jesus’ death on the Cross was only an “apparent” but not a real experience of what death is for other human beings.[57] However, if we understand Christ as sharing the determinism of a corrupt and fallen human nature, what then happens to divine freedom? Did not the Logos suffer voluntarily? The Church’s rejection of aftartodocetism was in no way intended as a rejection of divine freedom. The incarnation was indeed – in all its aspects – an expression of God’s free will. However, God willed that Jesus – precisely as a man – from the moment of his conception in the womb of the Holy Virgin, should be completely conditioned by what our human, fallen existence is: He lived in time, prospered “in wisdom and age” (Luke 2:52), there were things he did not know about, he suffered and died. On the other hand, the hypostatic unity – that is, the conception and birth of the God-man Jesus – does not yet represent in itself a deification of the human nature of Jesus. If the deification were something that happened automatically, as some imagine, then the Incarnation would be only a manifestation of a pre-existing divine-humanity of the Logos, realized when He became a human being. Whereas in reality the Incarnation has as its prerequisites tragedy and struggle. Having assumed created flesh, fallen into sin, the Creator meets death – face to face. He confronts these realities of the fallen world – the world that He Himself did not create, but only allowed – and overcomes them. And this tolerance of His reaches its ultimate point when the Incarnate Son of God accepts human death on the Cross: this ultimate point also becomes His final victory. Modern New Testament criticism has often dealt with the psychology of Jesus, as well as with questions such as His messianic consciousness. Sometimes, however, one wonders whether such pursuits do not lead to a dead end, as, for example, a learned Anglican theologian once wrote: “It is truly ridiculous and irreverent to ask what it feels like to be God incarnate.”[58] Yet what cannot be denied—and what the high Christology which affirms the fullness of the pre-existence of the divine nature of the unique person of Jesus Christ does not deny—is that “being human” necessarily implies change and growth—from child to adult; that the human nature assumed by the Son of God was ours—a “corruptible” human nature that needed salvation and which He ushered in a passage[59] (the Christian Passover) from death to life; that Christ “… was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15; cf. 1 Pet. 2:22).[60]

This last – “… except without sin” – also makes a high Christology inevitable, because it can be said of God alone – and of no creature – that he is above sin, which is a conscious personal act of rebellion against the divine will. Precisely because he is God and not “merely man” – Jesus is able to overcome the temptations inherent in fallen human nature, and that is why he says to the tempter: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God” (Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12). And although no philosophical, rational or psychological explanation can be found for this, here is precisely the very content of the gospel revealed in Christ: that God himself has placed himself on our level, within our very existence; that He is no longer a distant, heavenly existence, but the One who is personally, hypostatically with us, even in temptations and in death – Emmanuel.

It is important, moreover, to realize that the Chalcedonian patristic tradition, which itself adheres to a high Christology, stands firmly against the Monophysite and Monothelite, and any other one-sided theocentric views of salvation. The Christology of St. Maximus the Confessor, which defends the existence in Christ of a human will that is separate from the divine, is particularly categorical when it claims that the human nature of Christ was not a passive instrument of divinity, but exercised – in time and space – authentic human freedom. St. Maximus illustrates this in his commentary on two of the episodes of Christ’s life – His baptism in the Jordan River and His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.

When Jesus came out of the Jordan—where, having been baptized by John, he consciously identified himself with the condition of the others—he “suddenly saw the heavens being opened, and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove” (Mark 1:11). For St. Maximus, this was Jesus’ second birth, thus shaping the model of our own baptismal renewal:

The incarnation first took place in the form of a bodily birth—because of my condemnation, but was later followed by a birth in the Spirit, through baptism, which was neglected [by fallen humanity]; [it took place] for the sake of my salvation, so that I might be called again by grace, or, more precisely, be created anew.[61]

In Jesus, therefore, the synergy between the divine and human wills, which is a precondition for the reconciling sacrament of communion between the divine nature and the human nature, included His human experience of the new birth, which took place at the end of His growth as a man and at the beginning of His messianic ministry.

What happened in Gethsemane, according to St. Maximus, is another and decisive human perception by Jesus of the Father’s will for the salvation of the world. Indeed, Gethsemane did not signify resistance or rebellion, but only an agonizing exercise of the human will of Christ. In the divine nature and in the will of the Holy Trinity, the Logos has willed our salvation at all times (φύσει θελητικὸς καὶ ἐνεργητικὸς τῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας).

This salvation He willed together with the Father and with the Holy Spirit; but [for the sake of this same salvation] He also [as a human being] became obedient to the Father “unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8), accomplishing in Himself (in His divine hypostasis) the great mystery of His coming to us in the flesh.[62]

This Christology illustrates once again the distinction – always characteristic of the Greek Fathers – between the concepts of hypostasis (or person) and nature. As we have already noted, the hypostasis of the Son is not the same as the divine nature, for the hypostasis “becomes,” while the nature is absolutely unchangeable. The hypostasis, by assuming human nature and making it its own, becomes a composite hypostasis (ὑπόστασις συμποτος[63]). The personality – divine or human – is therefore not simply a manifestation of “nature” (individual), but a subject capable of saying “I” and of transcending or going beyond the limitations of the nature it possesses. The human nature assumed by the Logos was fully such and even more perfectly human than our nature, because the Logos is the Model according to whom we ourselves were created: the fact that in Jesus there is no human hypostasis – or a separate human “I” (the Nestorian solution) – does not make Him any less perfect man. Rather, His hypostasis, because it is divine, intensifies the humanity which is – in Christ – the human nature of God. This philosophy of hypostasis, applied to created human nature, makes deification understandable as always a personal or hypostatic possibility for every human being – when he or she goes beyond natural limitations and becomes a participant in the divine life.

As we have seen, the move away from legalism and towards an emphasis on personal communion as the essence of salvation is a major trend in contemporary Orthodox theology. In this approach, there is a certain danger of falling into subjectivism if we do not adhere fully to patristic Christology and a sound theology of Baptism.[64]

If death is the last and cosmic enemy, then Christ is the Savior, because He has conquered death. His death on the Cross is a historical fact, sealed by the Resurrection. Having identified Himself with fallen humanity – even to His death on the Cross – He rose again and showed the exalted, transformed and deified human nature, which was in God’s intentions from the very beginning. This new human nature also becomes ours when we are baptized and partake of the Eucharist, which is communion with the risen Lord: “For – as the apostle writes – you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3). Thus, Baptism and the Eucharist are the true foundations not only of spirituality, but also of Christian ethics. Through them, every human person can participate in the risen humanity of Christ and reach that communal unity that is the Church: the Body of Christ. Since Christ’s human nature is hypostatically united with the divine Logos, life in Christ can also be called deification.[65]

Although the Christological dimension of the new human nature is the necessary starting point in soteriology, central to the personalistic and freedom-oriented Orthodox understanding of salvation is, however, the role of the Holy Spirit.[66]

The Fathers of the Church – and especially St. Gregory the Theologian and Pseudo-Macarius – often define theocentric anthropology, speaking of an outflow of the Spirit into man, making him different from the rest of creation.[67] It is precisely this kinship with God – through the Holy Spirit – that explains both man’s openness upward and his freedom. It follows that the Spirit is at work wherever humanity exercises this God-given freedom—for example, as Mary uttered her “Yes” to God’s will (Luke 1:38) or as Jesus, with his human will, accepted the messianic ministry in the waters of the Jordan River and—like countless other human beings—was baptized by water and the Spirit. When they mention the Spirit, Christian revelation and Christian theology are to some extent apophatic. Indeed, the Spirit has not become incarnate, and his person or hypostasis remains hidden, except for his role in the manifestation of Christ and in the completion of Christ’s work—the revelation of the divine life in Christ for the free choice of every human person.

Conclusion: The Ethics of the Resurrection

If it is true to say, as we have already pointed out, that human existence in a fallen world is dominated by mortality (and therefore by the struggle for survival, creating both dependence on the means of subsistence and conflicts in the struggle to possess these means), then the Resurrection and the possibility of sharing in the glory and immortality of Christ radically change these conditions. The awareness that this is so explains why for the early Christians the Resurrection represented the very content of the Gospel: “… if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” – writes the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:17), because the mortal human being is unable to give up the struggle for survival and, therefore, remains an inevitable sinner. In immortality, however, man can be truly free.

Herein lies, it seems to me, the correct approach to ethics—such as we find in the New Testament, but which can easily be dismissed as an unrealistic retelling if we do not take seriously the idea that Jesus’ teachings are addressed to those who are free from death and the struggle for survival. Indeed, precepts such as “do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink… Look at the birds of the air, for they do not sow or reap… Consider the lilies of the field…” (Matt. 6:25-30) may sound only sentimental or emotional exhortations—unless they reflect some real experience of victory over death that frees Christians from the most widespread dependence on food (or money) and enables them to give rather than be concerned about what they receive (cf. Acts 20:35). Redemption is not simply the cancellation and forgiveness of sins, but also – and above all else – a new freedom for the children of God – in communion with the New Adam.

Notes:

[43] Homiliae, 6 (Quod Deus non est auctor malorum) – PG 31, 344B.

[44] Gaïth, J. La conception de la liberté chez Grégoire de Nysse, Paris: “Vrin”, 1953, pp. 40-66.

[45] Glaphyra in Genesin, 1, 4 – PG 69, 24C.

[46] Italics mine.

[47] These implications were brilliantly developed by the Romanian theologian Prot. Dumitru Staniloae – see: Staniloae, D. “Trinitarian Relations and the Life of the Church” – In: Theology and the Church, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1980, p. 11-44.

[48] Thunberg, L. Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, Lund: “Gleerup”, 1968, p. 119.

[49] The name “Second Isaiah” (or “Deutero-Isaiah”) in biblical studies conventionally designates the author of chapters 40-55 of the Old Testament Book of the Prophet Isaiah, written ca. 540 BC.

[50] From the Latin “accursed mass” or “condemned multitude” – a term introduced into theology by St. Augustine, who describes the state of all humanity after the fall of the first parents.

[51] Interpretatio in psalmos, 50 – PG 80, 1245A.

[52] In Epistolam ad Romanos, 6, 6 – PG 66, 801B.

[53] At this point Father Meyendorff adds as his own reading: “… and through death (all have sinned)”.

[54] The second part of Rom. 5:12: “and thus death passed upon all men through one man, for in him all sinned,” which semantically coincides with the erroneous translation of this passage into Latin commented on by Fr. John Meyendorff.

[55] The Latin version of ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον from Rom. 5:12 is “in quo omnes peccaverunt.” In the masculine gender, quo should refer to that “one man” mentioned earlier in the sentence, i.e., “all sinned in Adam.” The Greek text does not allow such a meaning, but grammatically allows for two possibilities: 1) if ἐφ’ ᾧ is neuter and means “because,” the sentence defines death as the punishment for the transgressions of every person (not “original” sin); 2) if ἐφ’ ᾧ is masculine, then it refers to “death” (θάνατος), so that death – as a cosmic, personalized reality – becomes the cause of the sins of the individual. This is the sense in which the text was read by the blessed Theodoret of Cyrene and by Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as by many other Greek authors, including St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor and the later Byzantine theologians. For more on this issue, see: Meyendorff, J. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, New York: Fordham University Press, 31987, pp. 143-146. The clear divergence of the Augustinian tradition from the Greek tradition on the topic of “original sin” is something widely recognized by historians – see, for example: Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines, London: A. & C. Black, 1958, pp. 348-352. For a detailed analysis and treatment of the issue of “original” sin, see also the doctoral dissertation of Prot. John S. Romanidis, also printed as a book: Ρωμανίδης, Ἰ. Σ. Τὸ Προπατορικὸν Ἁμάρτημα, Thessaloniki: “Πουρναράς”, 32010; for more on the topic from the work of the protopresbyter John Meyendorff himself, see his article: “Ἐφ᾽ ᾧ (Rom. 5, 12) chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie et Théodoret”, published in Studia patristica, 4, 1961 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlicher Literatur, 79), S. 157-161.

[56] Florovsky, G. Byzantine Fathers V-VIII centuries, Paris: “YMCA”, 1933, p. 7.

[57] See the concise definition of St. John of Damascus: “… [the Aphthartodocetes] accept the incorruptibility of the Lord’s body from its very creation; and they also confess that the Lord experienced passions, i.e. hunger and thirst, and fatigue, but they believe that He experienced these passions not in the same way as we do. For we experience them by natural necessity, but they say of Christ that He experiences them voluntarily (ἑκουσίως), and not in servitude to natural laws” (On Heresies, 84 – PG 94, 156A; on aftartodocetism see also: Draguet, R. Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ, Louvain, 1924; cf. Meyendorff, J. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, p. 87-88, 165-166. Of course, if we believe in the divinity of Christ, we cannot deny divine freedom, but in the Orthodox tradition (unlike aftartodocetism) divine freedom, as a whole, finds its expression in the Incarnation: mortality and corruption were assumed by the Son of God from the very beginning of His human life.

[58] Mascall, E. L. Christ, the Christian and the Church, London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1946, p. 3.

[59] “Passing over” is the meaning of the Hebrew Pesach (פֶּסַח), whence the name of the feast of Passover.

[60] See my article: “Christ’s Humanity: The Paschal Mystery” – In: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 31, 1987, p. 5-40.

[61] Ambiguorum liber – PG 91, 1348D. The scholarly literature on St. Maximus is abundant. Specifically on the subject of his Christology see: Heinzer, F. “L’Explication trinitaire de l’économie chez Maxime le Confesseur” – In: Maximus Confessor: Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur, Fribourg, 1-5 Septembre, 1980, ed. F. Heinzer & Ch. von Schönborn, Fribourg, 1982, p. 159-172.

[62] Opuscula theologica et polemica, 6 – PG 91, 68D. On this subject see the commentary in: Léthel, F. M. Théologie de l’agonie du Christ, Paris: “Beauchesne”, 1979, pp. 87-90 (with a French translation of the critically important Opusculum 6 of the Rev. Maximus).

[63] See: Maximus Confessor, Epistola, 12 – PG 91, 489C etc.; cf.: Johannes Damascenus, De natura composita contra acephalos – PG 95, 113D.

[64] From the fourth century until the Late Middle Ages the heresy of Messalianism was a constant temptation for Eastern Christian monasticism. One of its most characteristic features is the understanding of deification as a purely subjective result of prayer – independently of Baptism. This criterion has allowed the modern tendency to rehabilitate the author, known as Pseudo-Macarius, from the accusation of Messalianism – see: Dörries, H. Die Theologie des Makarios/Symeon, Göttingen: “Vandenhoeck Ruprecht”, 1978. His rehabilitation is important in view of the great (and fully justified) popularity of Macarius’ writings in the Orthodox spiritual tradition.

[65] In the Christology formed by St. Maximus the Confessor and later by St. Gregory Palamas, the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ presupposes a communicatio idiomatum: the divine energies penetrate and deify the risen human nature of Christ (without mixing of essences or natures), as well as the human nature of those who are in Christ – cf. Meyendorff, J. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, p. 170-171; 188-189; A Study of Gregory Palamas, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 21974, pp. 157-184.

[66] See: “The Theology of the Holy Spirit” – In: Meyendorff, J. Catholicity and the Church, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1983, p. 15-29.

[67] See: Gregorius Nazianzenus, Poemata dogmatica, 8: “De anima” – PG 37, 452A.

Source: Meyendorff, J. “New Life in Christ: Salvation in Orthodox Theology” – In: Theological Studies, Vol. 50, No. 3, 1989, pp. 481-499; the text is also printed in: Meyendorff, J. Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press” 1996, pp. 149-168.

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)

The criminal proceedings involving the Russian dissident and spiritual teacher Konstantin Rudnev in Argentina have relied on a single alleged victim. Her name is Elena Makarova, and her experience has been repeatedly invoked to sustain a case that prosecutors have tried to present as self‑evident. Now, an article she has written for “Bitter Winter” changes the entire picture. She writes that she is not a victim of Rudnev and instead describes a sequence of events in Argentina that she attributes to the prosecutorial team’s conduct. Her testimony arrives as a surprising development and reshapes the understanding of a story that has circulated for months.

Several accounts collected by the scholar María Vardé confirm her story. In her research on the Rudnev case, Vardé spoke with defendants who were introduced in the proceedings as victims. Their descriptions of what happened to them echo the atmosphere of pressure that Elena Makarova recounts in her own article. They explain that from the first hours of their detention they were repeatedly told that they were victims of Rudnev, even though they did not understand the accusations being discussed.

They describe days spent in detention without a clear explanation for their detention. During that time, they were encouraged to provide statements that would fit the expected narrative. These accounts, drawn from Vardé’s scholarly work, reinforce the impression of a climate in which people were guided toward a predetermined storyline and of highly suspicious behavior by the prosecutors.

Makarova’s account begins far from Argentina. She describes a difficult relationship in Russia, a pregnancy lived in fear, and the search for a safe environment to give birth. She explains that thousands of Russian women travel to Argentina every year for childbirth because of the citizenship rules that benefit both mother and child. She followed the same path, encouraged by friends and relatives, and hoped that distance and tranquility would help her rebuild her life. She traveled with a family acquaintance, Nadezhda Belyakova, who agreed to accompany her out of concern for her situation. Makarova writes that she had no interest in esoteric teachings and had never heard of Rudnev before she arrived in Argentina.

Her first weeks in Bariloche were peaceful. She prepared for childbirth, walked through the town, and relied on a Russian interpreter to communicate with doctors. She repeatedly expressed her wish for a natural birth. She describes these days as a period of calm before an abrupt change. The turning point came at the hospital, where staff insisted on obtaining documentation about the baby’s father. She had asked to register the child under her surname and to avoid disclosing the father’s identity. A nurse later admitted that such documentation was not required for discharge. Under pressure, Belyakova produced a photocopy of Rudnev’s passport that she had found among papers in the house where they were staying. Their landlady knew Rudnev’s wife and was helping Rudnev with immigration matters in Argentina. Makarova writes that she had never seen that passport before. That photocopy became the origin of her ordeal.

Her description of what followed is harrowing. She recounts an induction attempt without her consent, a cesarean section she had tried to avoid, and degrading treatment immediately after childbirth. She writes that she was forced to breastfeed under police supervision, that her phone and documents were seized, and that she was interrogated while still recovering from surgery. She describes shelters with mold, insufficient food, and restricted communication. She recalls threats that her child could be taken away and pressure to declare herself a victim of Rudnev. She writes that she was urged to claim she had been trafficked and to identify Rudnev as the father of her child, a claim later disproved by DNA. Her testimony portrays a climate of intimidation that shaped every moment of her stay.

She identifies Prosecutor Fernando Arrigo as the central figure in this process. According to her account, Arrigo issued orders that determined her treatment, directed efforts to obtain statements against Rudnev, and later initiated proceedings against her lawyer. She has filed complaints against him and other prosecutors. Her narrative suggests a predetermined objective drove the case and that her role was shaped to fit it.

After returning to Russia, she decided to speak publicly. She opened a YouTube channel and published her article to reclaim her voice. She writes that she wants to protect her child’s future and prevent her name from being used in narratives that do not reflect her life. She rejects the idea that she is under any influence and affirms her autonomy as a mother who wants to be left in peace.

Her testimony introduces a new dimension to the Rudnev case. The prosecution has relied on her presence as the only alleged victim. Her article states that she is not a victim of Rudnev and instead describes a sequence of actions she attributes to the prosecutorial team. This development raises questions about the case’s foundation and the methods used to sustain it. Her voice, long absent from public discussion, now emerges with force and invites a reconsideration of the entire narrative.

Her story recounts the life of a young mother reshaped by circumstances she never sought. It also reminds us that institutional pressure can transform human experience and that personal testimony can illuminate aspects of a case that official documents leave in the shadows. Her decision to speak publicly adds a new dimension to the Rudnev proceedings. It calls attention to the human dimension behind legal files. It supports international observers’ widespread demands for a review of the decision to send Rudnev back to jail from house arrest and for the removal of Prosecutor Arrigo from the case.

By Fr. Jоhn Meyendorff

Orthodox theology is, so to speak, a newcomer to the fabric of contemporary theology in the West. Today it is being rediscovered in the context of the ecumenical movement, but also – and perhaps even more importantly – within the framework of that return to the sources that has characterized Roman Catholicism in France and Germany since the end of the Second World War. This return includes a revival of interest in the Eastern Fathers of the Church and in worship as a living testimony to the continuous tradition of early Christianity.

Orthodox Christians do indeed live with the self-consciousness of being heirs of the Greek Fathers, and for them worship has always been the central, essential expression of the Catholic nature of the Church. During the long centuries following the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Orthodox communities in the Middle East and the Balkans had virtually no other sources from which to learn about their faith, nor any other means of witnessing to their Christian commitment than their liturgy, which, however, proved powerful enough to keep them spiritually alive. Meanwhile, in Russia, historical circumstances delayed for centuries the organic development of theological thought, which ultimately emerged in Modernity within the framework of the Western scholastic system and methodology, introduced in the eighteenth century by Emperor Peter the Great, and later adopted in other Orthodox countries. I will begin this study with a brief overview of theological trends as they unfolded during the period of Modernity. I believe that such an introduction is necessary to explain the picture of the theological diversity and liveliness characteristic of Orthodoxy today, but rarely seen in the West, where interest in Eastern Christianity is limited to a few specialists.

Trends in Soteriology

Coined by Father George Florovsky, the notion of the “Western captivity of Orthodox thought” is an inevitable and consistent characteristic of the theological realities in the Orthodox world in the period after the fall of Constantinople, which lasted practically until the nineteenth century. The Church of the East continues to live through its sacramental life, through its worship, through the spiritual tradition of only a few monastic centers, but the books and writers who claim to be able to present theology are captive to the categories determined by the problems and conflicts in Western thought: scholasticism, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Enlightenment. Writing about this period, Florovsky aptly, if sarcastically, notes: “The West theologizes while the East is silent or, what is worse, thoughtlessly and belatedly repeats Western doctrines.”[1] This is true of all the various “Orthodox confessions” that emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and it would be a long time before the Orthodox learned how to use their own tradition creatively, without falling into the pernicious habit of using Protestant arguments against Roman Catholics and scholastic Latin ideas against Reformation thought. Indeed, the whole period was dominated by a defensive polemic which, in the case of Orthodoxy, had its origins outside the real context of the Orthodox mind.

The hopelessness of this de facto passivity of Orthodox theology was first formally recognized by Russian lay theologians, the so-called “Slavophiles,” in the 1950s and 1960s,[2] who began to discover that solutions to Western problems were to be sought in the Eastern tradition. Florovsky writes: “The older Slavophiles derived Russia’s tasks from European needs—from the unresolved or insoluble questions of the other half of the Christian world.” And for this reason, he continues, “a creative revival in the Orthodox world is a necessary condition for the solution of the ecumenical problem…”,[3] and most Orthodox theologians would agree with Father G. Florovsky that such a revival requires a recovery of basic patristic intuitions, which can then be applied to the problems of the present day.

It was inevitable that the Latinized, scholastic, essentially “Anselmian” view of salvation would not be reproduced in documents such as the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila (1640).[4] The Confession itself was, in fact, a reaction against another, Calvinistic in character, “Confession” – that of Patriarch Cyril (Lucaris), and is a good example of how arguments that had been adopted during the Counter-Reformation could be adapted – in an Orthodox environment – to combat Protestant thought. Even more remarkable is that the scholastic methodology survived even when the theological revival takes its place in the textbooks of systematic theology.[5] The reasons for this survival may all too often have been simply a matter of scholastic routine—that sense of security offered by an orderly and rational presentation, seemingly conservative and scientific in approach. In these textbooks—which remain rather good examples of the “Western supports” mentioned by Fr. Florovsky—no creative use is to be seen of the intellectual power contained in the medieval Latin systems.

Parallel to and independent of the established theological schools, a revival of monastic spirituality was also observed in Orthodoxy, beginning in particular with the publication of the great patristic texts in the Philokalia of St. Nicodemus the Athonite (1782), the Slavonic translation of the Philokalia by St. Paisius (Velichkovsky; † 1794), and its Russian edition prepared by St. Theophanes the Recluse († 1894).[6] The tradition of Byzantine hesychasm and Byzantine spirituality, as represented in this movement, places strong emphasis on the concept of the spiritual elevation of man and of the community, which presupposes a synergy between divine grace and human freedom, and which rejects any legalistic understanding of redemption and sacramental grace, and therefore of salvation. Thus, the “Philokalean” revival contributes greatly to the contemporary developments of Orthodox theology.

Another development whose impact on theology was decisive and which could not have occurred without the influence exerted by the monastic revival on intellectually oriented laypeople was the emergence – initially in Russia, but later also in the Balkans and the Middle East – of a theological thought independent of the ecclesiastical-academic establishment. One dominant characteristic presented by this theology of the “lay” and adopted by the monastic tradition was a sharp criticism of rationalism and legalism. Figures such as Ivan Vasilievich Kireevsky (1806-1856) were born for philosophy under the influence of Schelling, but this same Kireevsky devoted much more of his energy to the publication and study of the Greek Fathers, published in collaboration with the famous elders of Optina. Which leads him to discover the Church and especially tradition – but not so much as an authority or as a criterion of truth, but rather essentially as a “medium” of a “comprehensive knowledge”, of communion with God and with the brothers – within a redeemed humanity. Usually better known is Kireevsky’s friend and contemporary, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860) – especially for his concept of catholicity, which practically refers to the same principle of communion between free individuals – as the context and as the condition for an authentic knowledge of God and truth. For Khomyakov, this communion can be found only in the One Church.[7]

The theology of these early Slavophiles was initially viewed with great suspicion by the scholastic establishment, but by the end of the nineteenth century some of their most significant ecclesiological and epistemological intuitions were gaining widespread acceptance, not only in Russia but also in Orthodox theology in general. This acceptance, which did not exclude criticism of some of the more romantic aspects of their thought, was based on the obvious fact that the Slavophiles were faithful to the idea of ​​”communion” which they had inherited from the early Christian and Greek patristic tradition, and that this communion – far more than any other juridical or rationalistic model – was in accordance with the Orthodox view of life in Christ and of salvation.

In Russia, the polemic against legalism and rationalism dominated the thought of such important and particularly authoritative theologians as Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky)[8] and Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky).[9] In his opposition to scholasticism, Bishop Anthony – a great admirer of Dostoevsky – reached certain extremes of moralism and psychologism that would have been to the taste of the pietistic tendencies in liberal Protestantism: the redemption – he believed – actually took place in Gethsemane – when, before His suffering, Jesus revealed to the full His “compassionate love” in His prayer for sinful humanity. This moralizing trend found its most consistent and decidedly liberal expression in the works of Mikhail Mikhailovich Tareev (1866-1934) – a well-known and influential professor of moral theology at the Moscow Theological Academy.[10]

Alongside the “moralists”, the anti-rationalist movement is also represented in a different philosophical school, inspired mainly by the task of overcoming philosophical secularism and atheism. Mainly originating from Vladimir Solovyov († 1900), this school – strongly dependent on German idealism – is known as sophiological. In sophiology, salvation is understood not historically, but cosmically – by postulating an ontological-divine nature of creation, together with the concept of Sophia or Divine Wisdom, revealing both the essence of God and the foundations of created beings. A system similar in its principled approaches to the thought of Paul Tillich or Teilhard de Chardin cannot avoid the danger of pantheism, although Solovyov’s main disciples – Archpriest Sergius Nikolaevich Bulgakov († 1949)[11] and especially Fr. Pavel Florensky († probably 1938)[12] – have tried to place sophiology in the context of the patristic tradition.

All these tendencies and currents are manifestations of a search, of attempts to express the Christian message of salvation in the context of contemporary needs and problems. However, it seems as if the contemporary consensus is emerging on the basis of a more rigorous approach to patristic thought and tradition, which is facilitated by the results of renewed patristic research. This neo-patristic theology prevails today in most Orthodox countries, as well as in the West. Its well-known representatives are theologians such as Archpriest George Florovsky,[13] as well as Archimandrite Justin (Popovich) in Serbia,[14] and especially Archpriest Dumitru Staniloae in Romania,[15] and in France – Vladimir Loski.[16] In Greece, the patristic revival found expression in a series of publications, and several younger theologians – Christos Yannaras,[17] Panagiotis Nelas[18] and others – creatively connected the Holy Fathers reflection on salvation with the problems of modernity.

In the context of the patristic revival, another trend – in direct connection with the questions of Christology and salvation – is represented in what is often referred to as eucharistic ecclesiology. This term was coined by protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasiev, whose main intuition consists in the identity of each local Catholic eucharistic community with the Church itself. The consequence of such an original ecclesiology (presented in the best way by St. Ignatius of Antioch – c. 100) is a permanent criterion for understanding not only ecclesiology itself, but also all aspects of soteriology.[19] The eschatological implications of eucharistic ecclesiology and its importance not only from the point of view of the church order, but also of Christology and pneumatology, are developed by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas).[20] Other dimensions of eucharistic ecclesiology, especially essential from the point of view of defining the Christian ethos, the Christian witness to the contemporary world and the mission of the Church, are formulated in the best way by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann.[21]

Thus, despite their variability, all these currents in contemporary Orthodox theology show agreement that salvation should be understood as communion, sanctification and deification (in the Greek Fathers – θέωσις); that it is based on the synergy between divine grace and human freedom.[22] This general approach to the theology of redemption and salvation has its obvious implications also from the point of view of understanding the function of ecclesial institutions. Is this theology exposed – as its Western critics often note – to the danger of falling into a kind of Gnostic Monophysitism? The answer to this question could only come from our understanding (or from our misunderstanding) of the basic content of the Chalcedonian Creed, which declares that Jesus Christ is both God and man.

Christ the Savior

One of the most common fears among many is that the recognition of Christ’s divine nature entails a debasement of his human nature. The high Christology or Christology of condescension[23] from the Gospel of John and then throughout the patristic tradition is often seen today as a major danger not only to sound exegesis but also to spirituality. From an exegetical point of view, it gives primacy to supernatural, miraculous events – such as the Resurrection – and makes any demythologisation difficult. On the level of spirituality, it calls Christians to forget about what is humanum (human) and to seek mystical escapisms,[24] far from social and historical responsibilities. Indeed, if the purpose of faith is to seek Jesus—pre-existing as God—then his human life would be of no real interest: “He looked like a man, spoke like a man, suffered and died like a man. But underneath he remained divine, and his real humanity is suspect.”[25]

How can the real humanity of Christ be expressed? Some modern Christologies have recourse to schemes known as “kenotic.” Using—rather arbitrarily—the expression of the Apostle Paul in Phil. 2:7 (“he emptied himself”—ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν), giving it a specific philosophical interpretation, such Christologies imagine Christ as taking away his divinity in order to become more human. This “emptying” of divinity finds its ultimate point in his human death: the man Jesus dies, while God—immortal by nature—remains free from death.[26] His person is therefore seen as containing ever-changing levels of divinity and humanity, depending on whether he acts as God or as man. “The pre-existent,” writes John Knox, “is freed from such attributes of divinity as omnipotence and omniscience, but retains its more important qualities, and in so doing illustrates not only the core of divinity as such, but also what human nature really is.”[27] Those who share a similar concern for preserving the authentic and full humanity of Jesus attempt to rehabilitate the Antiochian school of Christology, as represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia and—ultimately—by Nestorius. In this tradition, the human attributes of Christ are predicated of Him as the “Son of Mary,” distinct from the Son of God. Although the historical Nestorianism of the fifth century refrained from categorically asserting the existence of “two Sons” in the person (πρόσωπον) of Christ, there is no doubt that such a conclusion logically follows from its premises. And this is acknowledged by those who, even to this day, interpret the Chalcedonian Creed of 451 as a timely posthumous rehabilitation of Theodore of Mopsuestia – after the victory of St. Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesus (431),[28] and for whom the reaffirmation of St. Cyril’s Christology by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) was, in reality, a victory of Monophysitism in the East, under the guise of the artificial theory now called Neo-Chalcedonianism.[29]

The common characteristic of all these approaches is the belief that divinity and humanity are ontologically incompatible, and that concepts such as communion or deification – if taken literally and seriously – are in fact inappropriate borrowings from Neoplatonism, leading to a denial of the true human nature in Jesus, with all the implicit theological, ethical and historical consequences of such a denial. The problem here is evidently posed on two levels: at the level of anthropology and at the level of divine (and human) personality – as expressed in the concept of hypostasis (ὑπόστασις).[30] On both levels, the tradition that is expressed in post-Chalcedonian developments encounters several concerns of modern thought:

1. It has often been noted that the Eastern patristic tradition conceives of human nature, from the point of view of its participation in God, as – in a certain sense – its natural characteristic. The normal existence of man – as created by God – presupposes grace. When describing Adam before the Fall, St. Gregory of Nyssa writes of his “blessed immortality”, of his “righteousness” and his “purity”.[31] Jean Danielou, in his famous book on St. Gregory, notes: “Gregory identifies realities that Western theology considers to be different… Man, created “in the image [of God]”, is for Gregory what man is by nature (φύσιν). And the image includes what we call the life of the mind, νοῦς, and the supernatural life (πνεύμα).”[32] Walter Burghardt has revealed a similar dimension in the thought of St. Cyril of Alexandria[33] and there is no doubt that the thought of the Greek Fathers on this point is in agreement with the theocentric anthropology, which was expressed as early as the second century by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. In our day, theocentric anthropology is supported not only by Orthodox theologians – it is also a promising and widespread development among Roman Catholics, characteristic in particular, for example, of Karl Rahner.

The idea of ​​communion with God or deification (θέωσις), which in Greek patristic thought was used to define the true purpose of man – as that intention with which God created man, can be misunderstood as a kind of pantheistic vocabulary. Neoplatonic formulas and other philosophical expressions used by patristic writers are able to contribute to such misinterpretations. In reality, however, the idea of ​​deification (θέωσις) should be understood in the Christological context of redemption, which excludes pantheism.

It is significant that St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who coined the famous formula “The Logos assumed human nature so that we might become gods,”[34] also defended (against the Neoplatonic tradition of Origen) the absolute transcendence of the divine nature: creatures exist by the will of God, as distinct from the divine Logos, who is the Son of God by nature. “The nature of creatures,” he wrote, “is mutable, impotent, and composite,”[35] and “they can also cease to exist if the Creator so wishes.”[36] St. Athanasius’s way of thinking implies a radical rejection of Origen’s vision of God as the eternal Creator by nature, as well as of Origen’s view of the original (as well as the eschatological) state of created beings as participating in the very essence of God.[37] For St. Athanasius, therefore, theology can be based only on the historical fact of the Incarnation – on the assumption by the Logos, consubstantial with the Father (but not with creation), of mortal, limited and perishable human nature. This does not exclude a theology of the “logos of creations”, nor the idea that the Incarnate Logos is also that Logos through whom all that has been made has come into being,[38] but even God’s pre-existent plan for creation lies at the level of God’s will (or of His pre-eternal, uncreated energies), not at the level of His nature or essence. God – as Creator and as Savior – is a personal God, exercising the power of His love in absolute freedom.

The Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria is also based on the concept of the Self-giving God. St. Cyril has the theology of Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23), which affirms the personal perception by the divine Logos of all aspects of human nature in its fallen state, including death. Theopaschism, i.e. the confession of the fact that the Logos is the sole subject of the death of Golgotha,[39] is a crucial point in his polemic against Nestorius.[40] Theopaschism does not presuppose that God could suffer or die in His very nature or essence: the incarnate God suffered death—not the divine nature. St. Cyril’s aim was to affirm that God alone is the Savior—entirely by His own personal action and initiative (although this presupposes a free human response). In this regard, an interesting parallel can be drawn between St. Cyril’s Christology and the neo-orthodox thought of Karl Barth.[41]

If, however, the context of the doctrine of theosis is indeed this, how are we to understand theological anthropology and the idea to which we referred above: that participation in God is, in a certain sense, a natural characteristic of man? Were not kinship and participation elements of human nature – at the level of creation – independent of the historical incarnation of the Logos? The answer to this question has sometimes been found – unsatisfactory, in my opinion – in the view of an impersonal ontological kinship or continuity between the Creator and the creatures. Speaking of the Incarnation, Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov asks: “Do people sufficiently realize that this dogma is not primary, but derivative? It in itself requires the existence of dogmatic formulations preceding it, absolutely necessary, referring to a pre-eternal God-manhood.”[42] This approach has also seemed attractive to many in the modern West who were interested in overcoming the secular perception of the created universe – such as Paul Tillich or Teilhard de Chardin, for example.

Whatever partial truth there may be in their perfectly legitimate concern to establish an authentic theocentric conception of creation, they miss the personal or hypostatic dimension in both God and humanity. Indeed, in the Incarnation it is precisely this hypostatic dimension that is manifested – as a unique manifestation of divinity and humanity united in one concrete and historical person.

Notes:

[1] Florovsky, G. Paths of Russian Theology, Paris: YMCA Press, 21981, p. 515.

In the Russian original of this work, the expression of Fr. Florovsky says: “The West theologizes when the East is silent, – or, worst of all, thoughtlessly and belatedly repeats the western backs…”; in this case, the word “zady” (plural of “zad”) – in the figurative sense “foreign samples”, “models”, “clichés” – in the English text of Fr. Johann Mayendorff is rendered with “backlogs” – figuratively: “supports”, “stocks”, “reserves”.

[2] We are talking about the nineteenth century.

[3] Florovsky, G. Cit. 514.

[4] Published by Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev, and later approved (with some modifications) by the Eastern patriarchs, this Confession, originally written in Latin, was translated into Greek and Slavonic (see the English translation by Ronald Peter Popivchak in: Popivchak, R. P. Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-1647): Translation and evaluation of his “Orthodox Confession of Faith” (1640), Washington, DC, 1975). It was intended as a counteraction to the Calvinist Confession of Cyril (Lucaris), Patriarch of Constantinople (1629), but in substance and form it represents a document of the Latin Counter-Reformation (“… le plan, la matière… les expressions mêmes de la CO lui sont venues de l’Occident” [“… the plan, the content… and the very expressions of the Orthodox Confession came from the West”] – see: Malvy, A., Viller, M. La Confession orthodoxe de Pierre Moghila, Rome: “Oriental Institute”, 1927, p. xciv).

[5] Starting with the Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) – Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (in five volumes, published in St. Petersburg between 1849 and 1853; anonymous French translation: Macaire, évêque de Charkoff – Théologie dogmatic Orthodoxe, vol. 1-2, Paris, 1859-1860), and ending with the Greek textbooks of Christos Andrutsos – Ἀνδρούτσος, Χρ. Δογματική τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἀνατολικής Ἐκκλησίας, Ἀθήναι, 1907, and Panagiotis Trembelas – Τρεμπέλας, Π. N. Δογματική τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικάς Ἐκκλησίας. Ἀθήναι, 1958 (French translation: Trembelas, P. N. Dogmatique de L’Église orthodoxe catholique, tr. P. Dumont, 3 vols., Chévetogne, 1966-1968).

[6] There are several expanded, multi-volume modern editions of the Benevolence, accompanied by commentaries and annotated – Romanian (by Archpriest Dumitru Stăniloă – 1947 onwards), French (by Abbaye de Bellefontaine – 1979 ff.) and English (by Gerald Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Bishop Callistos (Ware) – London: “Faber and Faber”, 1979 ff.) versions of this collection are in the process of publication.

[7] For a recent review and full bibliography of these two authors, see: Christoff, P. K. An Introduction to Nineteenth-Century Russian Slavophilism: A Study in Ideas – 1: “A. S. Xomjakov” (The Hague: “Mouton”, 1961); 2: “V. Kireevsky” (The Hague: “Mouton”, 1972).

[8] His works were originally published in Kazan, 1909 (reprinted in Jordanville, NY, 1956-1969). Particularly controversial is his work Dogmat of Redemption (in: Богословский вестник, 8-9, 1917, pp. 155-167; 10-12, 1917, pp. 285-315). Later, Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev († 1936) headed the Russian Synod Abroad in Yugoslavia.

[9] Orthodox Teaching on Salvation (St. Petersburg, 1895). Metropolitan Sergius led the Russian Church during the tragic years of persecution [by the Bolsheviks – after 1917], and in 1943 was elected Patriarch.

[10] On Mikhail M. Tareev, there is a recent unpublished dissertation by Paul Vallier, defended at Columbia University. See also: Vallière, P. “The Liberal Tradition in Russian Orthodox Tradition” – in: The Legacy of St Vladimir, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1989.

[11] A renegade seminarian, Marxist professor of economics, then a convert, priest and dean of a seminary, Sergius N. Bulgakov is the author of a series of monumental treatises that have recently been translated into French – see, for example: Du Verbe incarné (Paris: “Aubier”, 1982); Philosophie de l’économie (Paris: “Aubier”, 1987); see also in English: A Bulgakov Anthology, ed. J. Pain and N. Zernov (Philadelphia: “Westminster Press”, 1976).

[12] Author of a theological synthesis, The Pillar and the Foundation of Truth (Moscow, 1914; French translation: La colonne et le fondement de la vérité, Paris: Aubier, 1975), as well as many other works that are gradually being published today, Father Florensky—sometimes considered the Russian Teilhard—died as a confessor of the faith in a concentration camp. Today, posthumously, he exerts a particularly strong influence on intellectuals returning to the faith.

The date of the martyrdom of Father Pavel Florensky, which Prot. Mayendorf was conditionally released in 1938, was established as December 8, 1937, when he was shot by order issued on November 25, 1937. Later, his relatives were informed of a fictitious date of his death – December 15, 1943. Subsequently, Father Florensky was rehabilitated twice for the sentences issued during his lifetime: in 1958 and in 1959.

[13] Cf.: Florovsky, G. Collected Works (in several volumes, published in Belmont, MA: “Nordland”, 1972 ff.).

[14] Cf.: Justin (Popovic), Archimandrite Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1-3, Belgrade, 1932.

[15] Author of a comprehensive work on dogmatics, Father Dumitru Staniloae manages to connect patristic theology with modern philosophical thought in a truly original way. A representative collection of his texts has appeared in English in the edition: Staniloae, D. Theology and the Church, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1980 [On October 4, 2025, Archpriest Dumitru Staniloae was canonized by the Romanian Orthodox Church in the rank of confessors of the faith].

[16] The works of Vladimir Lossky (with the exception of his monumental dissertation on Meister Eckhart – Théologie négative et connaissance de Dieu chez Maître Eckhart, Paris: “Aubier”, 1960) have also been translated into English and published by “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press” – see: The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 1976; In the Image and Likeness of God, 1974; Orthodox Theology, 1978.

[17] See: Yannaras, S. The Freedom of Morality, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1984.

[18] See: Nellas, P. Deification in Christ: The Nature of the Human Person, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1987.

[19] The theological legacy of prot. Nikolai Afanasiev is collected in his book The Church of the Holy Spirit (L’Église du Saint-Esprit, Paris: “Cerf”, 1983).

Translated into Bulgarian, some of the most key texts from the work of Protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasiev are available in the Living Tradition project: examples of contemporary Orthodox theology – here (note transl.).

[20] For an easily accessible collection of his studies, see: Zizioulas, J. Being as Communion, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1985.

See the Bulgarian translation in: Zizioulas, I. D. Being as Communion. Studies on Personality and the Church, trans. Slava Yanakieva, ed. Kalin Yanakiev, S.: “Communitas”, 2013 (note transl.).

[21] See in particular: Schmemann, A. For the Life of the World. Sacraments and Orthodoxy, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1973.

[22] Italics mine.

[23] This refers to the emphasis on Christ as the pre-eternal Logos of God, Who descended from Heaven to earth, assumed human nature, and dwelt among men; as such the Christology of the Prologue of the Gospel of John is defined, in contrast to the ascending Christology of the Synoptic Gospels, in which the story of Christ begins with His earthly lineage.

[24] From the English “escape”, “escapism” – in this case an escape from reality.

[25] O’Collins, G. What Are They Saying about Jesus?, New York: “Paulist Press”, 1977, p. 2.

[26] The kenontic scheme is also used in the sophiology of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, who considers the theories of kenosis as “the most important current in Christological thought since the Ecumenical Councils”. He writes: “The eternal God becomes God, transforming himself into the God-man. He takes off from Himself His eternal divinity, descends to the level of human life and, in this life and through this life, makes man capable of perceiving God” (Du Verbe incarné, p. 146-147).

[27] Knox, J. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967, p. 104. One wonders who can define the “more important” qualities of God. [28] See, for example: “To reduce the humanity of Christ to a mere non-hypostatic nature is contrary to the intentions of the Council of Chalcedon, which never intended to attempt to save the divinity of Christ by reducing His humanity to a pure nature” (Van Veesk, F. J. Christ Proclaimed: Christology in Rhetoric, New York: Paulist Press, 1979, p. 51). Also: “How can the humanity of Jesus be perfectly consubstantial with ours if it is devoid of human hypostasis?” (Moeller, Ch. “Le Chalcédonisme et le Néo-Chalcédonisme en orient de 451 à la fin du VIe siècle” – In: Konzil von Chalkedon, Bd. 1, Würzburg: “Echter”, 1951, S. 697). For a more modern critical review see: Havrilak, G. “Chalcedon and Orthodox Christology Today” – In: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 33, 1989, p. 127-145.

[29] Neo-Chalcedonism is a concept born in the tradition of Western theological thought (Roman Catholic and Protestant), through which the idea is expressed that between the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria – which triumphed at the Third Ecumenical Council, and that of the Fourth Ecumenical Council there were some essential contradictions, which were artificially reconciled at the insistence of the imp. Justinian I the Great at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 553.

[30] These positions are briefly stated by John Breck in his article: Breck, J. “Reflections on the “Problem” of Chalcedonian Christology” – In: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 33, 1989, p. 147-157. They are developed in more detail in my book Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1975).

[31] De hominis opificio, 16 – PG 44, 177D-185.

[32] Daniélou, J. Platonisme et théologie mystique: Essai sur la doctrine spirituelle de saint Grégoire de Nysse, Paris: “Aubier”, 1944, p. 54.

[33] Burghardt, W. J. The Image of God in Man according to Cyril of Alexandria, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1957, p. 38.

[34] De incarnatione Verbi, 54 – PG 25, 192 B.

[35] Contra gentes, 41 – PG 25, 81CD.

[36] Contra arianos, 1, 20 – PG 26, 55A.

[37] On this subject see: Florovsky, G. “The Concept of Creation in St. Athanasius” – in: Studia Patristica, 6, part 4 (= Texte und Untersuchungen, 81; Berlin, 1962), pp. 36-67; cf. Meyendorff, J. “Creation in the History of Orthodox Theology” – In: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 27, 1983, p. 27-37.

[38] Cf.: John 1:3; Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, 2.

[39] “If anyone does not confess that the Logos of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, … let him be anathema” (Third Epistle to Nestorius – in: Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. J. Alberigo et al., Basel: “Herder”, 31962, p. 61).

[40] Cf. Meyendorff, J. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, pp. 13-28, 69-89.

[41] Or at least the “early” Barth – the author of the Römerbrief and the first parts of the Dogmatik.

[42] A Bulgakov Anthology, p. 152. For Fr. Bulgakov and other students of Vladimir Solovyov – such as Fr. Pavel Florensky, the “pre-eternal God-manhood” is, of course, Sophia – the Wisdom of God, in her uncreated and created aspects.

Source: Meyendorff, J. “New Life in Christ: Salvation in Orthodox Theology” – In: Theological Studies, Vol. 50, No. 3, 1989, pp. 481-499; the text is also printed in: Meyendorff, J. Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press” 1996, pp. 149-168.

(to be continued)

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)

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)