Anti-Donatist tendency as an exegetical factor in Aurelius Augustine's Discourses on the Epistle of John to the Parthians

Contents 1. Er. Io. tr. 1 1.1. Er. Io. tr. 1, 8 interpretation on 1 John 2:1 1.2. Er. Io. tr. 1, 12 – interpretation on 1 John 2:10 1.3. Er. Io. tr. 1, 13 – interpretation on 1 John 2:11 2. Er. Io. tr. 2 2.1. Second “Reasoning...” 2.2. Er. Io. tr. 2, 4 – interpretation on 1 John 2:12 3. Er. Io. tr. 3 3.1. Er. Io. tr. 3, 4–5 – interpretation of 1 John 2:18–19 3.2. Er. Io. tr. 3, 7–8 4. Er. Io. tr. 6 4.1. Er. Io. tr. 6, 2 – interpretation on 1 John 3:16–18 4.2. Er. Io. tr. 6, 11–14 – interpretation of 1 John. 4:1–3 5. Ep. Io. tr. 10, 8–10 – discussion on 1 John 5:1–3 Discourses on the Epistle of John to the Parthians (In Epistolam Iohannis ad Parthos tractatus) are ten homilies on the First Epistle of John that Aurelius Augustine delivered to his Hippo congregation in 407, with at least the first eight delivered during Easter week, and the ninth and tenth later, but still within the Easter period. Augustine calls the First Epistle of John 2 “the Epistle of John to the Parthians.” This name probably arose as a result of a number of misunderstandings; however, Augustine does not specifically examine the meaning of the name he gives. The Ten “Discourses...” are a recognized masterpiece of Augustinian homiletics: nowhere is Augustine’s teaching on brotherly love (caritas, dilectio) 3 more fully expressed. The theme of love dominates his commentary on the Epistle and subordinates his other important themes: faith, sin and justification, antichrists... Since the works of A.-M. La Bonnardiere and M.-F. Berroir established the year of delivery of the “Discourses on the Epistle of John to the Parthians” (407), and the severity of anti-Donatist motives in this series of sermons was explained. The same severity of anti-Donatist polemics is characteristic of other sermons of Augustine, delivered before June 407, when the Council of Carthage took place and legislative measures were taken against the Donatist schism, but also after that - until 411, the date of the Carthaginian “conference” 4. In the “Discourses...” this polemic is not only the background of the interpretation of the First Epistle of John, but, as A. Amman noted, one of the three factors that generally determine the direction of the exegesis of the Epistle of John by Augustine (the other two factors: the Easter period and the presence of the newly baptized 5 ). The purpose of this article is to examine, describe and evaluate the manifestation of this factor in the homilies on 1 John. Let me make a reservation right away: the article will only talk about the influence of anti-Donatist ideas on the exegesis of the Epistle, and not about the degree of justice and consistency or the historical significance of the criticism of Donatism that Augustine undertakes in this series of sermons. These criticisms and the reflection of the Donatist schism in Augustine's writings and thought are analyzed with exhaustive care in the magnificent summary article “Donatismus, Donatistae”, included in the second volume of the Augustinus-Lexikon 6 . In general terms, the content of the anti-Donatist polemic in this series of sermons is easily defined and therefore well known: according to Augustine, the main theme of the Epistle is brotherly love as the main condition for the existence of the true Church; The lack of this very love and, consequently, love for Christ was the reason that the Donatists fell away from the universal Church. We will try to consider exactly how, with the help of what turns of thought and exegetical techniques, Augustine connects this topic with the interpretation of the First Epistle of John, i.e. see the exegetical role of this topic in the “Discourses...” and get an idea of ​​how Augustine’s explanation of the Epistle is set by anti-Donatist polemics or, at least, colored by it 7 . To achieve this goal, we must solve the following tasks: (a) systematically consider in connection with the interpretation of which verses of the Epistle Augustine develops anti-Donatist themes and which ones; (b) for each of these passages, if possible, find out to what extent the original meaning of a particular passage of the Epistle (as we imagine it) allows for interpretation in an anti-Donatist direction, that is, to what extent the interpreter preserves the elements of the original meaning, develops them or comes into conflict with them in his explanation; (c) trace the exegetical techniques that the interpreter uses to achieve his goals; (d) draw conclusions about how, in general, Augustine’s interpretation, in those places where it is colored by anti-Donatist motives, relates to the Epistle: to what extent Augustine creatively develops or radically changes the meaning of the interpreted text. 1.1. Er. Io. tr. 1, 8 interpretation on 1 John 2:1 For the first time in the “Discourses...” the echo of the Donatist schism is heard somewhat unexpectedly in connection with the words of 1 John 2:1: Si quis peccauerit, aduocatum habemus ad patrem (“If anyone sins, we have an intercessor with the Father”). Augustine draws the attention of his listeners to the fact that John humbly includes himself among those who are under the jurisdiction of the heavenly aduocatus. This gives him reason to say about those who are not characterized by such humility: Look at how John himself observes humility. Great and righteous was this man, who drank the hidden sacraments from the breast of the Lord 8. And he, who drank his deity from the breast of the Lord, spewed out: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God” - this such a great man did not say: “You have an intercessor with the Father (advocate before the Father),” but: “If anyone sins, we have an intercessor.” He didn’t say “you have” and he didn’t say “you have me” and he didn’t say “you have Christ.” No, he showed that Christ was the intercessor, not he, and said “we have,” and not “you have.” He preferred to put himself among the sinners, so that Christ would be an intercessor for him, rather than to put himself as an intercessor instead of Christ - and find himself among the proud who were subject to condemnation. Brothers, Jesus Christ the righteous - he is our intercessor before the Father, he is the propitiation for our sins. Whoever held this did not commit heresy; whoever held to this did not create a schism. Why did the splits happen? When people say, “We are righteous,” when people say, “We cleanse the wicked, we justify the wicked, we ask and we achieve.” What did John say? “And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous.” Augustine does not specify whom he means; and indeed, what he said can be applied to many schisms and heresies. However, there is no doubt that the immediate goal of this attack is the Donatist split. The claim to the exclusive right to perform true baptism, which Augustine clearly implies here, brings to mind one of the central questions that arose in the debate with the Donatists - the question of the validity of baptism. As far as I know, Augustine is the first interpreter of 1 John to pay special attention to the significance of the first person plural in this verse of the Epistle, to the implied “we”. For John, one must think, this “we” was quite natural: in fact, why would he, in this place, speaking about the intercession of Christ, separate himself from the community of believers to which he addresses in the First Epistle? Augustine can make this “we” noticeable and conspicuous only in conditions of polemics with those who claimed their special right to act as a true Christian community and perform baptism, i.e. with the Donatists. So, for the first time, the anti-Donatist theme comes into play in the interpretation of 1 John, when it comes to a verse that, as far as can be judged, initially did not imply any polemic with schismatics or dissenters in the use of the first person plural. In this case, Augustine’s attentiveness to the smallest details of the interpreted text, which can be used for polemical purposes, is simply revealed. 1.2. Er. Io. tr. 1, 12 – interpretation on 1 John 2:10 A more explicit and more significant mention of the Donatists is contained in Ep. Io. tr. 1, 12, where the verse 1 John 2:10 is commented on: Qui diligit fratrem suum, in lumine manet, et scandalum in eo non est (“Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no stumbling block in him”). The content of “temptation”, “stumbling” 9, which threatens those who do not walk in the light, Augustine reveals with the help of the verse Ps. 120:6: Per diem sol non uret te, neque luna per noctem (“The sun will not burn you during the day, nor the moon at night”). In the context of the anti-Donatist polemic, the same allegorical interpretation of this verse was already invoked by Augustine (for example, in En. ps.120 10): to be scorched by the moon, according to this interpretation, means “to be offended by the Church.” This is how this allegory is used in Ep. Io. tr. 1, 12: Who is tempted or causes stumbling blocks? Who is offended about Christ and the Church. Those who are tempted about Christ are, as it were, scorched by the sun; those who are tempted about the Church are, as it were, scorched by the moon. But the psalm says: “The sun will not scorch you during the day, nor the moon at night” (Ps. 120:6), that is: if you hold on to love, you will not fall into temptation (you will not stumble), neither about Christ, nor about the Church, nor will you forsake Christ, nor the Church... And who has the Church scorched like the moon in the night? Those who caused splits. Listen to this word spoken by the apostle: “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who stumbles, and I am not burned?” (2 Cor. 11:29). Why is there no stumbling block in the one who loves his brother? Because whoever loves a brother endures everything for the sake of unity, since brotherhood (fraterna dilectio) consists in the unity of love. Someone has offended you, either bad, or whom you consider bad, or whom you imagine to be bad - and you leave so many good people? Good is the brotherly love that these (Donatists - S.S.) show us. They blame African Christians and break with the entire universe. Were there no saints in the universe? And how could you judge them all without listening? But if you loved your brothers, then there would be no stumbling block in you. Listen to what the psalm says: “There is much peace for those who love your law, and there is no stumbling block for them” (Ps. 119:65). There is much peace, as it is said here, to those who love the law of God, and therefore there is no stumbling block in them. So those who stumble lose peace. And about whom did he say that they do not stumble and do not cause stumbling? About those who love the law of God - and therefore stand in love (in caritate positi sunt). What exactly is this passage of John's Epistle about? According to de la Potterie's convincing division, 1 John 2:10 is located in that part of the Epistle in which, through the symbolism of light and darkness, the conditions of being in communion with God are revealed, in particular the avoidance of sin, which is the main content of the symbol of “darkness”. In this context, temptation, the cause of stumbling, stumbling, is a reason for committing sin, easily circumvented and avoided by those who love their brother and are “in the light.” Thus, avoiding stumbling by walking in the light has in the Epistle the most general sense of avoiding sin, but the use of an allegorically interpreted quotation from Ps. 120:6 allows Augustine to present the content of this sin more specifically: to be in the light and fall under temptation means, in his figurative interpretation, to be under the moon and to be scorched by it, i.e. to see the Church and not have a correct judgment about it. Thus, the Johannine symbolism of light and darkness (generally speaking, very actively perceived by Augustine 11), being included in the figurative and allegorical construction, acquires a more specific orientation - anti-schism, anti-Donatist. 1.3. Er. Io. tr. 1, 13 – interpretation on 1 John 2:11 Augustine uses and develops the imagery of the Epistle even more creatively and at the same time organically in the next paragraph of the first “Discourse...”, when it comes to the verse 1 John 2:11: Nam qui odit fratrem SUUm, in tenebris est, et in tenebris ambulat, et nescit quo eat: quoniam tenebrae excaecauerunt osulos eius (“For whoever hates his brother is in darkness, and he walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." Augustine turns this verse against the Donatists (whom this time he openly calls - pars Donati), relying on the detail of the figurative picture that appeared precisely in this verse - blindness. To do this, he draws on his other favorite image, the mountain as a symbol of the Church; a mountain that grew from the Christ-stone and filled the entire universe with itself 12. The blindness characteristic of schismatics who hate their brothers, members of the Catholic Church, is manifested in the fact that they do not see this mountain, although this mountain, unlike material mountains, is visible from everywhere, and not just from the immediate surroundings: Who could be more blind than those who hate their brothers? So that you understand that they are blind, look - they stumbled on the mountain. I’m talking about the same thing so that it doesn’t slip out of your memory. That stone that was cut off from the mountain without the participation of human hands - isn’t it Christ, who appeared from the kingdom of Judah without the participation of a man? Did not this stone crush all earthly kingdoms, that is, all the power of idols and demons? Didn't this stone grow and become a great mountain, and it filled the whole universe (Dan. 2:34-35)? Is it really necessary to show this mountain with a finger, just as people are shown the three-day moon? For example, when people want to see the new moon, they say: “There is the moon, there it is,” and if there are those there who cannot direct their gaze there, and they say: “Where?”, they are pointed with a finger so that they can see. Sometimes, out of shame, fearing that they will be considered blind, they say that they saw something that they did not see. Is this how we have to show the Church, my brothers? Isn't it open? Isn't it revealed? Hasn't it embraced all nations? Is not what was promised to Abraham for so many years fulfilled: that in his seed all nations would be blessed (Gen. 22:18)? This was promised to one faithful one, and the world was filled with thousands of faithful ones. Here is the mountain that fills the whole face of the earth and the city, about which it is said: “A city built on a mountain cannot be hidden” (Matthew 5:14). And they (Donatists - S.S.) stumbled on the mountain. And when they are told: “Come up!” - they answer: “This is not a mountain” - and they would rather smash their faces against it than seek refuge in it. Yesterday the prophet Isaiah was read; whoever of you was awake yesterday not only with your eyes, but also with your ears, and not only with your bodily ears, but also with your heart’s ears, paid attention to the words: “In the last days the mountain of the house of God will be revealed, prepared on the top of the mountains” (Is. 2:2). What could be as obvious as a mountain? But mountains can also be unknown, because they are located in one part of the earth. How many of you know Olympus? Likewise, those who live with him do not know our Giddaba. These mountains occupy only part of the earth. Not so that mountain: it filled the entire face of the earth, and it is said about it: “Prepared on the top of the mountains.” This mountain is above the peaks of all mountains. “And,” says the prophet, “all nations will gather to her.” Who can get lost on this mountain (= be mistaken about this mountain. - S.S.)? Who breaks his face on it? Who might not notice the city built on the mountain. But do not be surprised that those who hate the brothers do not notice it: they walk in darkness and do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded their eyes. They don’t see the mountain - don’t be surprised: they have no eyes. Why don't they have eyes? Because the darkness blinded them. How can we prove it? The fact that they hate the brothers, the fact that, when faced with the African brothers, they are separated from the entire universe. So, in this case, Augustine’s effective interpretation of St. John’s verse is based on imagery, which he develops and changes, complements with new elements, as a result of which the statement about those walking in darkness, as in the previous paragraph, is interpreted as a statement about those who do not see (do not want to see) the Church in its unity and conciliarity (“universality”). 2.1. Second "Discussion..." 2.1. The second “Discourse...”, as is known, begins not with an interpretation of the Epistle itself, but with a rather lengthy digression regarding the conception read that day from the Gospel of Luke (Luke 24, the appearance of Christ traveling to Emmaus), therefore the first memory of the Donatist schism in the second “Discourse...” is also associated with this text, in particular with the verse Luke 24:47: Oportebat... praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem ressatorum per omnes gentes, incipiens ab Jerusalem (“It was fitting... that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem”). Emphasizing that, according to this promise, the Church should spread throughout all nations (per omnes gentes), the preacher continues the attack on Donatist separatism in the same direction in which it went at the end of the first Discourse: only the spiritual blindness of the Donatists prevents them from seeing the Church revealed throughout the world. He even returns to playing with the images of blindness and the mountain, to which he now adds the gospel lamp (Matthew 5:15), as well as elements of the parable of the tares: You heard, brothers, remember! Let no one doubt that the Church is among all nations, let no one doubt that it began from Jerusalem and filled all nations. We recognize the field where the vine is planted, but when it grows, we do not recognize it, because the vine has occupied the entire field. Where did it start? "From Jerusalem." And where did you get to? "To all nations." There are few of them left: she took almost all of them. Meanwhile, while it occupied all nations, some shoots appeared that the farmer needed to remove, and they amounted to heresies and schisms. But don’t let the weeded shoots lure you into being weeded too; It’s better the other way around - you encourage them to move in again. After all, it is obvious that Christ suffered, rose again and ascended to heaven; The Church is also revealed, because in His name repentance and remission of sins are preached throughout all nations. Where did it start? "From Jerusalem." Let the stupid, the empty and (what else to call him?) the blind man hear this, who does not see such a great mountain, who closes his eyes in front of a lamp placed on a stand. The anti-Donatist argument is further built on the quoted verse of Luke 24:47 almost to the end of Ep. Io. tr. 2, 4, and in the end its course leads to a repetition of the verse 1 John 2:11, on which Augustine stopped in Er. Io. tr. 1. Having quoted this verse of the Epistle, the preacher again says that the “blindness” in question here prevents one from seeing the Church, but this time the Church appears not under the sign of a mountain, but under the sign of a tabernacle placed in the sun - this image is taken from the peculiarly understood and interpreted verse Ps. 19:4: Im sole posuit tabernaculum suum (“He set his tabernacle in the sun”). He already quoted this verse in Ep. Io. tr. 1, 2 - there he served as an illustration of 1 John 1:2: uidimus et testes sumus (“we have seen and we are witnesses”), an affirmation of the visibility of the incarnate Word: “Where did they see Him? - Augustine asked there and answered: - In His appearance. What does it mean in appearance? In the sun, that is, in this light. How could He who created the sun become visible in the light of the sun? Not otherwise than because He “set up His tabernacle in the sun” 13 ... that is, He showed His flesh in the clarity of this light.” And now, at the end of Er. Io. tr. 2, 4 Augustine points to the connection and even the mystical identity of the flesh of Christ and the Church: both appear as signified by the “tabernacle” mentioned in the psalm: “His tabernacle is His flesh, His tabernacle is His Church; it is placed in the sun, not in the night, but in the days. Why don’t they recognize it?” To answer this question now, Augustine can only quote 1 John 2:11 again: “For whoever hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.” So, the symbolism of blindness used by the author of the Epistle in this verse is concretized twice by Augustine as the inability to see (recognize) the Church: blindness caused by the lack of love is consistently presented by Augustine first as the inability to see the mountain, and then the inability to see the tabernacle set in the sun, and it is with this specification that the image of hateful blindness is easily interpreted as a sign of being in schism. 2.2. Er. Io. tr. 2, 4 – interpretation on 1 John 2:12 The next mention of Donatus and his party is found in the fourth paragraph of the second “Discourse...”, in the place where, having completed the digression regarding the passage read from the Gospel of Luke, Augustine continues his consistent commentary on the Epistle, in which he reached those verses where John addresses Christians: Scribo uobis, filioli, quia remittuntur uobis resata per nomen eius (“I am writing to you, children, for your sins are forgiven through His name." According to the explanation of E. Delbecq, the word τεκνία (filioli), as well as the further παιδία (pueri) is John’s appeal to the entire aggregate of his disciples, while πατέρες (patres) and νεανίσκοι (iuuenes) are appeals to different categories of this aggregate 14 . Christian writers, beginning with Clement of Alexandria, usually understood "children", "fathers" and "youths" to be three different categories of believers. For Augustine, in particular, “children”, “children” act as a designation for the newly baptized: his words reflect the symbolic connection of “childhood” with a new birth in baptism (it is in baptism, according to Augustine’s understanding, that “sins are forgiven in His name”). Here the presence in the church during Augustine’s “Discourses...” of the newly baptized, whose ritual name, most appropriately, was the word infantes, makes itself felt: I am writing to you, little Children (filioli), because your sins are forgiven in His name. You are little children because by forsaking sins you are born. But in whose name are sins forgiven? Is it named after Augustine? Well, not in the name of Donat. You know who Augustine is and who Donatus is, but not in the name of Paul or in the name of Peter. For, turning to those who divide the Church and try to make parts out of unity, in the person of the Apostle Paul, the mother who is sick with the birth of babies - love, opens her womb and, as it were, tears her chest with words, mourns the children whom she sees - are carried away, calls to return to a single name for those who wanted to create many names for themselves, rejects love for themselves so that they love Christ, and says: “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:13). What is he saying? I don't want you to be mine, but to be with me; Be with me, we all belong to Him, who died for us, was crucified for us. That is why it is said here: “Your sins are forgiven in His name,” and not in the name of any person. Augustine’s rethinking of John’s phrase is that the interpreter places special emphasis on the syntagma “in His name”, on the fact that sins are forgiven in the name of Christ, and not one of his representatives. Augustine sought to warn new church members listening to his sermon against the possible temptations of inter-party struggle. In this case, it can also be argued that Augustinian exegesis is unexpected and is based on a shift in emphasis in the words of the apostle. In this case, this shift does not highlight the fact of forgiveness of sins, but the fact that this forgiveness occurs only in the name of Christ. 3.1. Er. Io. tr. 3, 4–5 – interpretation on 1 John 2:18–19 In verses 1 John 2:18-19 we are talking about the sign of the end times - the appearance of the Antichrists, these troublers of the Church who came out of it. It is here that one would expect that the exegete would connect the Antichrists mentioned in the Epistle with those who, in his understanding, placed themselves outside the Church - with the Donatists. This is what he does, as we see in the fourth paragraph of the third “Discourse...”. First of all, he clarifies that schismatics and heretics left the Church, and then begins to explain what it actually means to be the Antichrist. Interpreting the prefix “anti-” as an adversative (Latine enim antichristus contrarius est Christo), Augustine declares that the Antichrist is anyone who is not in the body of Christ or who is in it only apparently, illegally and temporarily. Here the discussion is no longer specifically about heretics or schismatics: they are included in the general category of mali. To explain on what basis they, although only in appearance, are still in the body of Christ, Augustine resorts to comparing them with bad juices in a body that has not yet been healed - this image is close in content and structure to the group of images that S. Pock described in the category of “images of separation, borrowed from craft and agricultural technology” 15 and which Augustine uses when he talks about the temporary inevitable mixture of good and the bad in the Church (demanding tolerance from the good) and their final separation at the final judgment. He also uses another, more usual image of “separation” - threshing and winnowing. All these images and the reasoning associated with them, as already said, are not aimed exclusively at heretics and schismatics: for now they only affirm the possibility of the “evil” (including schismatics) staying inside the Church, the naturalness of leaving it already in the present century (especially during temptations, trials - tentationes), as well as the obligatory, inevitability of this exit at the end of time. John's thought has not yet been sharpened in such a way that it would be directed specifically against the Donatists; in these paragraphs, simply with the help of parallels, the image of “leaving” the Church is developed, complicated and concretized. However, in the seventh paragraph of the third “Discourse...” the interpreter is finally forced to raise the question of how to prove that the Donatists who left the Church can be classified as those Antichrists and “liars” mentioned in the Epistle. This question becomes acute when it comes time to interpret verses 1 John 2:21–22: O ne mendacium non est ex ueritate; Quis est mendax nisi qui negat quod Iesus non sit Christus (“Every lie is not from the truth; who is a liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?”)? Indeed, if we follow the letter of the Epistle, then identifying the Donatists with the antichrists and liars discussed here can only be done if it is proven that they deny the dignity of Jesus as the Christ. But the Donatists could not be reproached for this: in theology, at least in Christology, they did not differ from the Catholic Church, and in general they were not a heretical sect in the strict sense of the word, but schismatics. Therefore, they could not be accused of the lie that John directly speaks of: about the incarnation or the messiahship of Jesus Christ. So, if we follow the logic of the letter of John’s Epistle, it cannot be said about the Donatists that they left the Church? But the very state of things contradicts this. “If we are in unity, what are two altars doing in this city? What are divided homes and divided marriages doing here? What is the common bed and the divided Christ doing here?” If we believe Mountain's correction to the next phrase (uulnus instead of uult nos), then the evidence of separation for the preacher is like a wound: “This very wound forces us to recognize what is true: either they came from us, or we from them.” How can one prove that it was the Donatists, and not the Catholics, who left the Church and separated? Namely, according to Augustine, that the latter do not separate themselves from the rest of the Church, from the totality of the heritage, the property of Christ (hereditas Christi), which now occupies the entire universe (orbis terrarum), and do not agree to be reconciled. In confirmation of the importance of this point - the universality of the Church as a criterion of its truth - Augustine quotes Ps. 2:8: Dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam terminos terrae (“I will give you the nations for your inheritance (property) and the ends of the earth for your possession”), and in addition to it the more than once quoted verse Luke 24:47 (see above 2.1), and then concludes: “Let us be confident in the unity of our heritage (hereditatis). He who is not in communion with this heritage has gone out.” A further series of conclusions, as should now be expected, will inexorably lead to the recognition of the Donatists as denying that Jesus is the Christ: “So, if they have gone out from us ... then they deny that Jesus is the Christ.” However, obviously still feeling that the question cannot be resolved so easily, in the eighth paragraph Augustine will return to it and again begin to argue about which of the two parties actually denies that Jesus is the Christ, and how this is proven. The reason for the difficulty felt at this point in the interpretation seems obvious to us. Although we do not know exactly against whom the warning of John’s First Epistle was directed, it is most likely that he saw the enemies of the addressees of his Epistle as the bearers of heretical teachings of the Gnostic type who had separated from the Christian community and who, as can be judged from the words of the Epistle, denied messianism, divinity, or the incarnation of Jesus 16 . Augustine’s opponents were not the bearers of a special, incorrect teaching about Christ, but a community that separated from the Church for reasons of preserving its own (relatively speaking) moral purity. To make John's words applicable to them, criticism had to be directed not at their teaching ("words"), but at their attitude towards the Church, behavior towards it ("deeds"). Therefore, the clarification that Augustine introduces into John’s phrase “they deny that Jesus is the Christ” to obtain the desired meaning is the introduction into it of the instrumental factis “by deeds,” “in deed.” However, to make this clarification he needs sanction from Scripture, i.e. we need a statement from Scripture, where the same thing would be said in plain text: “If Scripture itself tells us that denial can be accomplished not only by language (i.e. in words. S.S.), but also by deeds, then, of course, we find many Antichrists who confess Christ with their lips, but do not agree with Christ in their morals (i.e., actions. - S.S.).” And as usual, Augustine skillfully finds such a place in Scripture; “Listen to the Apostle Paul; when he spoke of such, he said: “They say of themselves that they know God, but in works they deny Him (Titus 1:16).” In fact, from “knowing God” to “recognizing that Jesus is the Christ” is one step, and Augustine no longer hesitates with conclusions: “So, we have found that they are also antichrists: whoever denies Christ by works (factis) is the antichrist.” In this case, such “deeds” are separation of oneself from the one and universal Church, unwillingness to return to unity with other Christians in it. These considerations constitute the content of Ep. Io. tr. 3, 8 and partly 3, 9. Here the approach to the interpretation of 1 John is fully defined, which further in the course of the “Discourses...” will allow Augustine to reorient the words of John and from warnings directed against dissent and error, make accusations against schism: now he can reduce any “denial of Christ” mentioned in the Epistle to the denial of Christ factis, manifested, in particular, in the reluctance to restore the Church unity However, such a reduction will not be easy for Augustine in the future, as can be seen from Er. Io. tr. 6, 11–14, in which this theme of the anti-Donatist polemic is most noticeably present. 4.1. Er. Io. tr. 6, 2 – interpretation on 1 John 3:16–18 In verses 16–18 of the third chapter of the Epistle we talk about love as a necessary condition for the existence of the Church. This love is manifested, firstly, in the readiness to die for one’s neighbor (following the example of Christ - sicut ille animam suam pro nobis posuit), and secondly, in works of mercy: Si quis habet facultates mundi, et uiderit fratrem suum egentem, et clauserit uiscera sua aduersus eum, quomodo dilectio Patris manebit in illo (“If someone has the riches of the world, and he sees his brother in need and closes his mercy from him, how will the Father’s love abide in such a person?”)? It would seem that the meaning of these words is so simple, their general focus on creating mutual love and encouraging help is so obvious that there is hardly any place specifically for polemics with the Donatists when interpreting this particular passage. But that's not true. Verse 18, which summarizes John's thought, reads: Non diligamus uerbo tantum et lingua, sed opere et ueritate (“Let us love not only in word and speech, but in deed and truth”); and in this phrase Augustine explains the words opere et ueritate in such a way that their meaning is equal to the very factis with which he supplemented 1 John 2:22 (see the previous paragraph) in order to give it an anti-schism orientation. In other words, Augustine proposes to understand love as “deed and truth” in the sense of: love while maintaining church unity. However, to establish such an understanding, he must first show the insufficiency of self-sacrifice and mercy in themselves as manifestations of love. Of course, there is no more obvious “deed” than alms (potest esse manifestius opus quam tribuere pauperibus?); but, on the other hand, many give to the poor from their generosity in order to show off their good deeds, and not out of love for their neighbor (quam multi sunt qui iactantiae causa multa tribuunt, multa donant, et non ibi quaerunt nisi laudem humanam et gloriam popularem plenam eptis... multi hoc iactatntia faciunt, non dilectione). Again, there is no greater “deed” than to die for one’s brothers (potest esse maius opus quam toi pro fratribus?); but, on the other hand, this can also be without love, but only for the sake of “acquiring a name” (et hoc multi uolunt putari se facere iactantia nominis comparandi, non uisceribus dilectionis). There would seem to be no way to ensure that self-sacrifice or acts of mercy come from a truly loving disposition. In this case, all that remains is to refer the listeners to the testimony of their own conscience: let them themselves look at the disposition that prompts them to act, and remember the words of the Apostle Paul: Si distribuero omnia mea pauperibus et tradidero corpus teit ut ardeam, caritatem autem non habeam, nihil mihi prodest (“If I give all my property to the poor and give my body to be burned, but love I have nothing, there is no profit for me” - 1 Cor. 13:3). But still, there is a point at which, according to Augustine, the false or true basis of a good deed will appear: the observance of church unity. If a deed is done without unity, then it is done without love, on which this unity is based, and this is exactly what happens with the Donatists: If they had laid down their souls for their brothers, they would not have separated themselves from universal brotherhood... Can anyone do all this without love? Maybe. For those who do not have love have divided the unity (qui non habent caritatem, diuiserunt unitatem). Look there (among the Donatists - S.S.), and you will see that many give a lot to the poor; you will see that others are ready to accept death, so that, in the absence of a pursuer, they themselves throw themselves into the abyss - such, no doubt, do all this without love. Thus, John’s call for active love, even to the point of readiness for self-sacrifice, is transformed by Augustine into a call for church unity, without which all good deeds lose their significance, i.e. remain for him only the appearance of good deeds. What can we say about the fidelity of Augustine's exegesis to the spirit of John's Epistle at this point? First of all, I would like to note that Augustine does not in any way deny the importance of good deeds and self-sacrifice. It is enough to read the first paragraph of the third “Discussion...” to be convinced of this. But he is forced to introduce two elements into the interpretation that are not obvious from the text of the Epistle. First, he stipulates the condition for the effectiveness of these good deeds: they must come from the proper disposition. At the same time, he greatly changes the logic of John’s statement: if for John, laying down one’s soul for one’s brother is the highest manifestation and proof of love, then for Augustine, the presence of love as a motive for sacrifice is a condition for the effectiveness of this sacrifice. But John’s thought is complemented and complicated not so much by this as by the fact that a criterion is put forward, completely absent from John in this passage, by which the presence of love is determined - the desire to preserve or restore church unity. This addition and complication is the essence of the accommodation of the meaning of this passage of the Epistle to the conditions under which the “Discourses...” were pronounced. 4.2. Er. Io. tr. 6, 11–14 – interpretation of 1 John. 4:1–3 The fourth chapter of the Epistle contains a warning about the need to “test the spirits” and believe only those of them that are from God, and therefore those that confess the incarnation of Christ. In the light of the passages quoted and discussed above from Ep. Io. tr. 3 (see above 3.1 and especially 3.2) it would not be difficult to imagine what Augustine’s exegesis of these verses would be: he will require confession in works, factis, and therefore in compliance with unity. However, this time he approaches such a decision with even more noticeable caution, which is evident from his direct confession in § 12 (“He (=John) pointed out to us a certain sign for recognition, and, perhaps, it is not simple”), and also from the fact that, having posed the question in § 11, he repeats it several times in different forms, takes a long time to prepare an answer and gives it only in § 13. Of course, he does not hesitate to identify “false prophets” (through whose lips the alien spirits mentioned by John speak) with heretics and schismatics. But many heresies (of which here, in § 11, Augustine mentions the Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, Montanists under the name “Cataphriges” and Novatians) do not deny the incarnation of Christ; Moreover, the Donatists do not deny it 17. After this remark, he will recall the way to solve a similar difficulty that arose in the interpretation of 1 John 2:22 in the third Discourse: You have heard it said before: “Whoever denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the Antichrist.” And then we asked: who denies this? – because neither we deny it, nor they. And we found that someone denied this in practice, and attracted the testimony of the apostle, who said: “They say about themselves that they know God, but in deeds they deny him” (Titus 1:16) [13]. So now we will look not by words, but by deeds. Further reasoning goes like this. Christ came in the flesh for the sake of love (John 15:13 quoted here). This means that whoever rejects this love actually refuses to accept what the incarnation took place for, and therefore refuses the incarnation itself; in particular, those who destroy church unity do not have love - here Augustine again effectively rhymes caritas and unitas, emphasizing the inseparability of these concepts: Tu non habes caritatem, quia pro honore tuo diuidis unitatem. And the conclusion is not long in coming (§ 14): You are moving away from universal unity, dividing the Church with schisms, tearing apart the body of Christ. He came in the flesh to gather, but you cry out to scatter. He, therefore, is a spirit from God who recognizes Jesus Christ who came in the flesh, who recognizes Him not in words, but in deeds, who speaks of this not by emitting a sound, but by showing love. And this spirit is not from God, who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh - and he also denies not with his tongue, but with his life, not with his words, but with his deeds. This reasoning continues in § 14, where Augustine plays on one of the variants of the Latin text of 1 John 4:3, going back to the variant reading in the Greek protograph: omnis spiritus qui soluit (λύει) Iesum Christum instead of qui negat (μὴ ὁμολογεῖ) Christum. Based on the ambiguity of this soluit, Augustine contrasts the creative, unifying result of the incarnation of Christ (Ecclesiam congregauit) with the destructive work of schism: Ille uenit colligere, tu uenis soluere. Distinguere uis membra Christi, disrumpis Ecclesiam... Soluis Christum et negas eum in carne uenisse. So, again, John’s warning against false teaching is translated by Augustine into a condemnation of schism - whatever it may be, based on incorrect teaching about Christ or not - with the help of the one already applied in Ep. Io. tr. 3, 7 exegetical procedure: appeals to matters of faith, which also consist in maintaining the unity of the Church. 5. Er. Io. tr. 10, 8–10 – discussion on 1 John 5:1–3 Quite a lot of space is devoted to anti-Donatist polemics in the last, tenth “Discourse...”, and it ends, and therefore the entire series of interpretations on the First Epistle of John, also with an anti-Donatist speech. Mainly within the framework of Er. Io. tr. 10, 8–10, this speech is connected, albeit indirectly, with the last of the verses (more precisely, hemistiches) that Augustine managed to parse - 1 John 5:3 a: Haec est enim dilectio Dei, ut praecepta eius seruemus (“This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments”). The first step towards using this verse as a basis for criticizing the Donatist schism is that Augustine puts the necessary emphasis on the understanding of the “commandments” mentioned by John. John is obviously talking about all the commandments in general, the fulfillment of which verifies love for God; Augustine clarifies: the one who keeps the commandments is the one who keeps the main commandment about love for God and neighbor. The Donatists violate it, he continues, by, firstly, limiting its application only to Africa, where only their church exists - while “thy commandment is very broad” (in this verse Ps. 119:85 the breadth of the commandment for Augustine symbolizes the universality of love). Secondly (and this is a new argument for this series of sermons), they do not have proper love for Christ: you cannot love the head (the head of the Church - Christ) and hate the members of the body that is crowned with this head. Augustine pursues and develops this idea, using one of his favorite symbolic topoi about the head and the body, drawing on the quotation from Acts 9:46, which he often uses to prove that attacks on members of the Church are simultaneously attacks on its head - Christ 18, and from this concluding that the division of the Church is persecution against it, and therefore against its head. This exegetical passage is an indicative example of the reduction of many themes of the Epistle to one main theme of love for Augustine, a reduction that represents the main exegetical tendency manifested in the “Discourses...”. But in addition to this, this is also a characteristic case of narrowing and concretizing the theme of love in relation to the task of overcoming a split. The content and methods of this transition from the Johannine requirement to keep the commandments to the Augustinian requirement to observe the unity of the Church are quite obvious and do not require further analysis. It is only important to note once again that this transition and the associated denunciation of the supporters of the Donatist schism complete the entire series of “Discourses...” as we know them, and thus seal the entire interpretation of the First Epistle of John with a call for an end to the division. This is the best proof of the importance of the anti-Donatist tendency in the interpretation of 1 John. The review presented above allows us, first of all, to judge the relative weight of anti-Donatist motives in the exegesis of 1 John by Augustine, as it appears to us in the “Discourses on the Epistle of John to the Parthians.” At least 17 verses of the Epistle out of 90 quoted and analyzed by Augustine are interpreted in a clearly anti-Donatist sense, i.e. almost one fifth of that part of the Message that was reflected in the “Discourses...”. Anti-Donatist themes are developed or significantly touched upon in 20 paragraphs of the “Discourses...” out of 124, i.e. at least in almost one-sixth of the text. If we also take into account the fact that sharp attacks of the same kind complete this entire series of sermons dedicated to 1 John, then we can state that the general impression expressed about the significant coloring of the “Discourses...” with anti-Donatist polemics is quite fair: the placement of emphasis in the interpretation of the Epistle was largely determined by the “atmosphere of hatred and violence” (in Berroir’s words) that reigned in Roman Africa during the period of the church schism. Let us briefly consider once again the relation of Augustine’s exegesis to the meaning of the words of the Epistle (as far as it is accessible to us, of course). From the above summary it is clear that when interpreting two verses (1 John 2:1 about the “intercessor” and 1 John 2:12 about “the remission of sins in His name”), anti-Donatist themes arise almost arbitrarily, without obvious deep rooting in the Johannine text, only “in relation to” the verses read (however, any judgment of this kind is doomed to be largely subjective). The interpretation of verses 1 John 2:10–11 follows the path of narrowing the meaning of “temptation, stumbling” and “blindness” that John speaks of: “temptation” is presented as a temptation about the Church, “blindness” - as an unwillingness to see and recognize it; both narrowing of meaning is carried out with the help of skillful rethinking and development of Johannine symbolic imagery. When interpreting 1 John 2:18–19, 21–22 and 4:1–3 in an anti-Donatist direction, Augustine follows the path of rethinking the warnings of John, namely, the path of redirecting his warnings: the meaning of accusations against schismatics takes on in Augustine’s interpretation warnings against false teachers who left the Church. For such a redirection, it was necessary to re-imagine the meaning of the concept of “denying Christ,” which, from Augustine’s point of view, can be understood not only in a doctrinal sense, but also in a practical one: Christ can be denied by behavior, attitude towards his Church, deviation from unity in it. When interpreting the verses of the Epistle, which call for active love up to self-sacrifice (1 John 3:16-18), Augustine has to clarify that neither good deeds nor self-sacrifice testify to love if its main manifestation is absent - the preservation of church unity. In this case, John’s thought is significantly supplemented and complicated. Finally, when discussing John’s call to demonstrate love for God by keeping the commandments (1 John 5:3), Augustine insists on the importance of keeping the commandments in essence, which he reveals as love for God and neighbor, impossible without preserving church unity. Thus, the anti-Donatist understanding of this verse required a targeted concentration of its obvious meaning. In order for the explanation of the First Epistle of John to acquire the tendentiousness necessary in the conditions of the schism, and in order for this tendentiousness to be consistent and convincing, Augustine needed to apply a whole range of exegetical techniques of varying degrees of complexity, depth, subtlety and, so to speak, wit. Thanks to this intense interpretative work, the “Discourses...” became one of the most outstanding examples of the transformation of the biblical text in the mouth of Augustine the preacher: even just from the example of the anti-Donatist tendency, one can see that his interpretive art does with the text everything that usually turns the text into a message, brings it to life and makes it effective: it makes those meanings appear in the Epistle of John that at first glance did not seem contained in it; it imparts topicality to obvious and familiar statements; it turns general truths into specifically targeted instructions and calls to action. Anti-donatist tendency as an exegetical factor in St. Augustine's "Tractates on the First Epistle of John" The author undertakes a systematic analysis of all the passages of St. Augustinés "Tractates on the First Epistle of John" (In Epistulam Iohannis ad Parthos tractatus), in which the exegesis is influenced by the anti-Donatist polemics. The study demonstrates a complex of elaborate exegetical procedures which allowed St. Augustine to adjust the teaching of the Epistle to the “atmosphere of hatred and violence” still reigning in Hippo about 407. Only in two cases (Tr. 1, § 8 and 2, § 4) Augustinés anti-Donatist speculation on the text may be said to be hardly rooted in its original sense, but rather to use the text as a starting point. Elsewhere, the obvious meaning is modified in various ways. The meaning of “scandal” (or “cause for stumbling”) and “walking in darkness” is specified as “being scandalised about the Church” (or “hitting oneself against the Church”) and “incapability to see the Church” (Tr. 1, § 12 and 2, § 4 on 1John 2:10–11) respectively. John's warnings against false doctrine are redirected against the schism, the sense of false doctrine being thus enlarged in a way to include not only misleading words about Christ, but also mischievous works against his Church (Tr. 3, § 4–5, 7–8 and 6, § 11–14 on 1John 2:18–19, 21–22 and 4:1–3). John calls for charity and self-denial as manifestations of love, but Augustine points out that the most obvious manifestation of true love for one’s brothers is keeping peace within the Church; therefore, if the unity and peace are violated, there is no love, and works of mercy and acts of self-denial, being manifestations not of love, but of something else (e.g. of vain glory), are not valid. In this way John's call for compassion and selflessness is developed and supplemented to become a demand for unity (Tr. 6, § 2 on 1John 3:16–18). Finally, commenting on John's words that love for God is seen in keeping his commandments, Augustine reminds that the essence of these commandments consists in brotherly love (implying the unity of the Church, which the Donatists violate). The procedure used here may be regarded as a concentration of the original meaning (Tr. 10, § 8–10 on 1John 5:1–3). The “Tractates even considered in one aspect, that of anti-Donatist interpretation, show Augustine at his best not only as a champion of caritas and unitas, but also as a mature master of homiletic exegesis. For the dating of this cycle of sermons in connection with Augustine's interpretations of the Gospel of John to 407 (or, more broadly, the period of the anti-Donatist controversy), see La Bonnardi è re A.-M. Recherches de chronologie augustinienne. R., 1965. R. 54–62; Berrouard M.-F. La date des Tractams I – LIV in Iohannis Euangelium de saint Augustin // Recherche augustinien. 1971. 7. R. 109 s. For the order of preaching sermons during Easter week, see Poque S Les lectures liturgiques de l'ostave pascale à Hippone d'après les traités de saint Augustin sur la première Epître de saint John // Revue bénédictine. 1964. 74. R. 217–241. Somewhat different conclusions in the article: Zwinggi A. Die Perikopenordnungen der Osterwoche in Нippо und die Chronologie der Predigten des Augustinus Augustinus. 1970. 20. R. 5–34. Further in the article “Discourses on the Epistle of John to the Parthians” will be abbreviated as “Discourses...” and designated Er. Io. tr. The numbers after the abbreviation indicate the number and paragraph “Discussions...”. Translations of passages from the “Discourses...” were made and quotations are given according to the Benedictine edition, reproduced by P. Aghaess in the 75th volume of “Sources chretiennes” (1961), in places taking into account the options proposed by J. Mountain'0M for a new critical edition in the Corpus Christianorum series (Thesaurus augustinianus. A (1). Turnhout, 1989. R. LVII-LXV). In this article, for the sake of brevity, the First Message will be called simply the Message. Biblical quotations are given in literal translations from the Latin text quoted by Augustine in order to more accurately convey his understanding of the passages quoted. The best analysis of this topic is in “Discourses...”: Dideberg D. Saint Augustin et la Premiere Epitre de saint Jean. Une theologie de 1'agape. R., 1975. See about this, for example: Lancel S. Saint Augustin. R., 1999. R. 414. In the preface to the French translation: La Première Epître de saint Jean / Traduction des soeurs Carmélites de Mazille. R., 1986. R. 15. Lancel S., Alexander J.S. Donatismus, Donatistae Augustinus-Lexikon. 2, Basel, 1996–2002. sp. 606–638. The most complete analysis of anti-Donatist motives in Ep. Io. tr., as far as I know, is contained in the article by Cassidy E.G. Augustinés Exegesis of the First Epistle of John /l Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit. Dublin, 1955, pp. 201–220 (and especially 206–210). The disadvantage of this analysis seems to me to be too broad an understanding of what can be considered an anti-Donatist polemic: with this approach, any discussion of Augustine about church unity (or even about love in general) turns out to be automatically included in the anti-Donatist theme. However, this researcher (precisely thanks to his understanding of the general importance of the anti-Donatist attitude of the Discourses...) was the first to convincingly explain the presence of the theme of pride and humility in the prologue to the first Discourses... (p. 206). For this detail see Dideberg D. Saint Jean, le disciple bien aime // Saint Augustin et la Bible. R., 1986. R. 189 ss. On the meaning of σκάνδαλον (obstacle, cause for stumbling, temptation), see, for example: Evangile de Luc / Text traduit et annote par E. Delebecque. R., 1976 (ad v. 17, 1). For a detailed analysis of this exegesis, see the book: Cameron M. Augustinés Construction of Figurative Exegesis against the Donatists in the Enarrationes in psalmos. Chicago, 1996, pp. 383–386. See for example: Poque S. Le langage symbolique dans la prédication d'Augustin d'Hippone. Images heroes. vol. 1. R., 1984. R. 347–362. Laura A. Deux images de Christ et de l'église dans la prédication augustinienne Augustinus Magister. 1. R., 1954. R. 667–675. For details of the exegesis of this verse in Augustine, see Wolinski J. “Il a planté sa tente sous soleil” Saint Augustin et la Bible... R. 99 ss. Épitres de Јеаn. Texte traduit et annoté par É. Delebecque (Cahiers de la Revue biblique. 25). R., 1988. R. 34. Poque. Le langage... R. 150–191. For the results of the discussion about John’s opponents in 1 John and a detailed bibliography of the issue, see, for example, in the book: Guthrie D. Introduction to the New Testament. St. Petersburg, 1996, pp. 667–670. The Donatists are not named here more directly than simply “schismatici” (schismatici, § 12), but, of course, there is no doubt about the direction of further reasoning against them. Leroy G. “Saul, Saul, pourquoi te persécutes-tu?” Ac 9, 4b dans la prédication de saint Augustin. Memoire de License. Institut d'Etudes théologiques. Faculté de théologie de la Compagnie de Jésus. Section francophone. Bruxelles, 1986, See especially p. 66–68.