The question of the Church in the polemics of Blessed. Augustine against the Donatists

Blessed Augustine 1 was the most prominent fighter against Donatism: he fought verbally, speaking in public debates, and wrote many essays refuting Donatism. There was almost not a single phenomenon in the history of intimate relations between the Church and Donatism that would not have been reflected in the numerous theological works of Augustine. He did not leave without immediate refutation any of the works of contemporary and even deceased Donatist authors. Augustine conducted a personal polemic with the Donatist bishops, addressing them with letters, receiving from them refutations of his writings, and again responding to this with entire books. Finally, he briefly outlined the main ideas of his polemic in common language and even in poetic form in order to facilitate their assimilation. Sometimes quite extensive works by Blessed. Augustine, directed against the Donatists, are filled with dogmatic judgments about the Church and are distinguished by an overwhelming abundance of argumentation 2 . But since blessed Augustine had to conduct polemics with different people on the same issues, it is quite understandable that in his writings there are constant, almost literal repetitions of the same thoughts, the same arguments. We will try to expound the dogmatic teaching of Blessed. Augustine on the Church in its most important points, leaving aside the details of his arguments 3 . In refutation of the opinion of the Donatists that only their society represents the true Church, Blessed. Augustine, like Optatus, says that an indispensable sign of the true Church is its universal 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 teaching and the fullness of the sacraments 4 . Augustine also accepts this understanding of the term “catholic” 5: however, he insists primarily that the true Church must be universal, must be spread throughout the world. Catholicism in the sense of prevalence throughout the world, according to Augustine, is a sign of the true Church of Christ, in contrast to heresy or schism. The Donatist society does not have such a universal character, and therefore it is not a Church. And that the true Church must be universal is clear from the very fact that it was called catholic. The Greek word καθ ʼὅ λο v means - ubiquitous 6. Evidence of the need for the Church to be a universal blessing. Augustine devotes most of his work to de unitate Ecclesiae. For this purpose, he cites a whole series of evidence, primarily from the Old Testament, seeing in them either prototypes or prophecies about the New Testament universal Church. Here Augustine does not omit any of the evidence that could in one way or another be attributed to the Church and would prove the necessity of its universal character 7 . For Augustine, almost every page of Scripture speaks of the need for the Church to be spread throughout the entire world 8 . Christ, having founded the Church, sent the apostles to preach His name to the last of the earth 9. Augustine attributes the prophecies of the Old Testament to the Church, finding confirmation for himself in the writings of the New Testament and challenging the interpretation of the Donatists. These prophecies and the will of the Savior were fulfilled at the very beginning of the Church’s existence. Augustine writes out the first two chapters of the Acts of the Apostles 10, showing how the Church, having received its foundation in Jerusalem, began to spread throughout the world. The further history of the spread of Christianity also shows how, even in apostolic times, the Church sought to realize its universal character. This character of the Church, in particular, was revealed by St. Peter in his vision of a vessel descending from heaven, tied at the four corners (Acts 10:11–12). This vessel signified the whole world with all its peoples. The four ropes with which the vessel was tied signified the four cardinal points 11. The apostles founded churches in all corners of the earth, and all these churches constitute one universal Church, scattered throughout the entire universe. Even if we assume that the African churches are guilty of something, this does not give grounds for the Donatists to break off communion with other churches; these churches did not die because of the Africans (criminibus Afrorum). All those churches to which the apostle wrote letters. Pavel, they still exist. The Donatists have only the Epistles of the Apostle, but the African Church maintains communion with the churches themselves. There are churches to which the apostles Peter and John wrote. Perhaps the Donatists do not even know where this or that church is located, and yet in their blindness (caecitate) they condemn unknown churches 12. Unity with all churches is a sign of belonging to the true universal Church 13 . Therefore, Augustine often calls every local church catholic 14. The Donatists also held firm at the end of the fourth century to their doctrine of the holiness of the Church. This shows the split that has occurred among them on the issue of the holiness of the Church. Among the Donatists there appeared people who understood the holiness of the Church in a more Orthodox sense. Such was the Quiet African or Grammar. His teaching about the Church was set out by him in a book about seven rules for studying and finding the meaning of Holy Scripture 15. Here Tikhonius speaks of the two-part body of the Lord (de Domini corpore bipartito). “The two-partness of the body of Christ is shown by Scripture in the words: I am black and good (Song of Solomon 1:4). For let it not be that the Church, which has no filthiness or defect (Eph 5:27), which the Lord cleansed with His blood, should be black in any part except the left, because of which “the name of God is blasphemed among the nations”; for the rest, she is all good, as it is said: you are all good, my neighbor, and there is no vice in you (Song of Solomon 4:7). Moreover, he explains why it is black and good in the words: like the village of Kidarsk, like the veil of Solomon (1:4). Indicates two tents: royal and slave. But both are the seed of Abraham, for Kidar is the seed of Ishmael... But we cannot say that the tent of Kidar is outside the Church. For he himself says: the tent of Kidar and Solomon, that’s why he said: I am black and good, for the Church is not black in those who are outside it. This is where the mystery lies in the fact that the Lord in the Apocalypse either calls the seven angels, that is, the seven-shaped Church, saints and keepers of the commandments, and then exposes them as guilty of many crimes and as worthy of repentance. And in the Gospel one body of the overseers is denounced for the difference of merits (diversi meriti manifestat)... One and the same body is both good and evil... Thus, the Lord testifies in all the Scriptures that in all nations the same body of the seed of Abraham grows, blossoms and perishes." 16. "Two bodies are united, as it were, into one, and one body is praised and blamed." 17. For Tikhonius, Esau and Jacob are images of two components of the Church. Two peoples are fighting in one womb of the mother Church. Of these, one, by election to foreknowledge, is beloved, the other, by election of his own will, is hated. Jacob and Esau are in one body, coming from one seed. But since they were obviously produced in two, it indicates two peoples. And lest anyone think that in this way there will clearly be two divided nations, it is indicated that both will be in one body in Jacob... Both separated, even before they are separated, it is shown that they must be in one... Jacob, that is, the Church, never achieved blessing without the accompaniment of flattery, that is, lying brothers... Jacob is a designation for both... Although the images of Israel and Esau are divided by believers, everything then grows into one people.... so now, under the dominion of the new (testament), there is no shortage of sons of slavery 18. A similar thought permeates all the speeches of Tikhonius when he speaks, “in accordance with the mysteries of heavenly wisdom and having the Holy Spirit as a guide,” 19 about species and genus. In his fourth rule, Tikhonius refers to the Church as prophetic speeches about various countries and cities, because the narrative about them applies equally to both the species and the genus (i.e., the Church) 20 . But everywhere Tikhony finds it specifically about the two-part composition of cities; the same state is attributed to the Church. "Many cities appear as images of the Church. Everywhere, wherever he mentions Edomite, Teman, Bosrah, Seir, he depicts the evil brothers, for they constitute the possessions of Esau" 21. Having expressed in such a unique form a doctrine about the earthly state of the Church, close to the Catholic one, Tikhonius, however, did not draw any conclusions from this for himself and remained a Donatist. Among the Donatists, Tychonius's work caused discontent. The head of the Donatists, Parmenian, and other bishops strongly protested 22. At first, Parmenian persuaded Tichonius in writing to renounce his teaching about the Church, and then Tikhonius was condemned by the Donatist council 23. Obviously, a different idea of ​​the Church prevailed among the Donatists. We learn in detail about this idea of ​​theirs from the writings of St. Augustine. According to the teachings of the Donatists, there should be no sinners in the Church. To prove this position, many passages from the Holy Scriptures were cited. Scriptures 24. The Donatist society satisfies this requirement; Among the Donatists there is no one with any vice 25. When the Donatists separated, the wheat was separated from the chaff: the wheat was reduced to the limits of Africa alone (ad solam Africam); There are tares left in the Catholic Church 26. It is not even known whether there are good Christians among all the peoples overseas 27. Parmenian even affirmed positively that Gaul, Spain, Italy and their accomplices (whom he wants to consider the whole world, notes Augustine), having relations with African traditions, are similar to them in crimes 28. Augustine 29 presents the earthly state of the Church in a completely different way. So already in the “psalm against the party of Donatus” he says about the Church that there are many sinners in it (abundantia peccatorum). This is how it should be, because the Lord likened the Church to a net with various fish. When the net is drawn to the shore, then they will begin to sort out the fish: the good ones will be taken into vessels, and the bad ones will be thrown back into the sea. The net is the Church; the present age is the sea; coast - end of the century. In the meantime, the fish in the sea are both good and bad 30. There is no need to break off fellowship with sinners, but, of course, one must withdraw from fellowship in sins 31 . Sinners in the Church cannot do any harm. Only as a last resort should they be excluded, but without disturbing the peace (salva pace). And if this exclusion can disturb the peace, then it is better to exclude them only from the heart. The prophet Ezekiel (9:4) speaks of people who wept over the sins of their brothers, but did not separate. Likewise, because of the evil, we should not separate from the Mother Church 32. And among the Jewish people, seven thousand men faithful to God (1 Kings l9:18) and other pious people were not separated from the unity of the people because of the idolatry of some, even the majority. They met with them in the same church (uno templo miscebantur), but were distant in heart (mixti non erant corde) 33. The Ark of Noah is also a symbol of the Church, and it contained clean and unclean animals. “Let us learn to understand the ark of Noah, which is the image of the Church, and let us enter into it together as clean animals; let us not persist in ensuring that there is no unclean animal there with us until the end of the flood.” 34 The parable of the tares says the same thing. The Lord Himself explained that the harvest is the end of the age, and the field where tares and wheat are sown is peace. It is clear that both should grow throughout the world before the end of the century 35 . The field is the world, not Africa; the harvest is the end of the age, not the time of Donatus 36. 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 before the harvest did what, according to the word of Christ, the angels should do during the harvest: choose whom to believe! 37 Even if the majority in the Church are sinners, you still cannot vilify the entire Church, as heretics do. There were examples in the Old Testament when there were few righteous people left: this happened under Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; there were only twelve apostles. True, two tribes once separated from ten, but this was a state division, not a religious one. God never commands heresy or schism 38 . In St. In Scripture, the Lord Himself says that there will be few good ones; but about the same few it is said that there will be many of them. The Apocalypse says that there will be thousands of thousands of holy children of the Church (Apocalypse 5:11). They are few only in comparison with the unworthy 39. This is how the blessed one judges. Augustine about the earthly state of the Church: here the tares grow along with the wheat and the holiness of the Church does not require the separation of wheat; the sins of one person do not defile others 40 . However, Blessed Augustine himself says that such an idea of ​​the Church does not mean neglect of church discipline, while everyone is allowed to do what he pleases, without any effort on the part of the Church to correct him 41 . The Apostle Paul says: admonish the disorderly, comfort the faint-hearted, support the weak, be patient with everyone. See to it that no one repays evil for evil (1 Thessalonians 5:14–15). Based on these words, Augustine defines the essence of church discipline; it has educational value. It is not the sword of an enemy inflicting a wound, but of a physician cutting (a wound), as Augustine says 42. Among the Donatists, their discipline serves only to separate them not only from the vicious, but also from the multitude of the good 43 . In the Church, discipline is not used so unwisely. And the Church sometimes excommunicates sinners, but this happens only when a firm, diligent and wise servant (dispensator) of Christ sees that sin cannot be justified by anything reasonable. There are countless examples of how bishops or persons of other hierarchical degrees were deprived of their dignity (degradati) or fled out of shame to other lands, went over to the Donatists or other heretics. If Petilian had brought to mind many such examples, he would never have fallen into such an obviously false and empty opinion, according to which he says: “none of you is innocent, because no one who is innocent is punished.”44 Augustine reminds Petilian how he accepted the deposed deacon Splendonius through rebaptism, ordained him as a presbyter, and then himself excommunicated him 45. Excommunication, therefore, happens in the Church, but it is clear how careful one must be in this case, so as not to uproot the wheat along with the tares 46 . And first of all, excommunication can be applied when schism does not result from it, and at the same time, excommunication 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, excommunication itself should pursue not only the goal of eradication, but more of correction (non ad eradicandum, sed ad corrigendum). St. Augustine speaks of “prohibitio a communione medicinalis” 47. If the sinner does not repent and is not corrected by repentance, then he himself will leave the Church and, of his own free will, break away from church unity. With this application of discipline, the evil ones are separated from the Church without harm to peace and unity and without any damage to the wheat 48. All communication is severed with such sinners; when they see themselves deprived of all communication, then they can be healed by shame, for they will have no accomplices in sin 49 . Blazh. Augustine explains those passages in the letters to the Corinthians that speak of the excommunication of an incestuous man. Here Augustine sees precisely the idea that excommunication from everyone has a healing significance for the sinner himself 50. But if many sin, they cannot be corrected by separating them from fellowship 51; there will no longer be separation, but division, which will not so much correct the bad, but strong in spirit, as it will confuse the good, but weak 52 . Every person should try to correct what he can and what he cannot, let him patiently endure and grieve with love until the sinner himself corrects himself, or let him postpone the uprooting of the tares until the harvest. If Christians move among desperate people whom they are unable to correct, then let them cast away evil from themselves, so that they do not have in themselves what they do not like in the actions of others. Such separation of good from evil is always possible; let there be a bodily separation at the end of the age. Remove, says the Apostle, evil (malum) from your midst; that is, if you cannot remove the evil from your midst, then remove the evil itself from yourselves. If you need to ensure that the peace of the Church does not suffer damage, then you need to be very sparing of the wheat, so as not to pull it out with the tares. If anyone thinks diligently about this, then he will notice the strictness of discipline in maintaining unity and will not break the union of society by immoderation with demands 53 . The Church cannot be reproached for the morals of those whom she herself condemns and whom she tries every day to correct 54 . Donatists sometimes referred to the times of St. Cyprian, saying that in his time the Church was holy: Augustine says in detail that St. Cyprian, although he judged harshly vicious people, did not break off church communion with them, being, of course, far from their life and morals 55. St. Cyprian ate the bread of the Lord and drank the cup of the Lord not only with vicious laity, but even with unworthy bishops 56 . The Donatists should have said that the Church had already perished in those days. And if so, Donatism itself makes no sense. The holy and immaculate Church could not be born from a vicious one 57 . Augustine often says a lot that the Donatist society, in its moral state, does not satisfy their dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church: their teaching about the Holy Church is only an unsuccessful theoretical position that cannot be applied to reality. The Donatists reproached the Church for a wide variety of vices and crimes of its members; in response to this they receive from Augustine an indication of their shortcomings. Polemicists against Donatism especially often pointed to the furies of the circumcellions, with whom the Donatists, however, never broke their unity 58 . The crimes of the representatives of the Church were in the past, the Circumcellions live and act to this day 59 . All such mutual reproaches between the Church and the Donatists are, of course, of more historical interest, but from the dogmatic side they also have some significance. 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 was held by church writers, did not suffer at all from the presence of sinners in the Church. Blazh. Augustine acknowledges the fact of sinfulness of some members of the Church, but does not consider this fact sufficient to prove the untruth of the Church. The instructions from the blessed one had a different meaning. Augustine on the shortcomings of the Donatists. For their concept of the holiness of the Church, there lay an insurmountable difficulty here, for according to their teaching there should be one wheat in the Church, and suddenly among this wheat there were tares. To reproach the Donatists for the moral shortcomings of the blessed one. Augustine could only go over to their dogmatic point of view and thereby show the impossibility of their teaching about the Church, because if carried out consistently it should lead to the recognition that there is no Church at all, that the Church has already perished. In the ecclesiological system of the blessed one. Augustine had no room for such conclusions. The church, until the time of judgment and until the end of the age, represents a field where wheat and tares grow together. Blazh. Augustine says that it is necessary to distinguish between two periods in the life of the Church (distinguenda esse tempora Ecclesiae). Now there are sinners in the Church, but there will be a time when it will consist only of saints 60. In St. In Scripture these two periods are symbolically depicted in two miraculous fisheries. During the first catch (Luke 5:5), the Lord does not say anything about the right and left sides, which shows that in the nets of His mysteries there will be neither good nor evil, but the evil will be mixed with the good. After the resurrection, he ordered us to throw the net on the right side (Jo 21:6-11), so that we would understand that after our resurrection there will be only good people in the Church 61 . This is what the blessed one says about the earthly Church. Augustine; Moreover, he speaks specifically about the historically known visible Church, which began in Jerusalem and spread throughout the world 62. Augustine was aware of allegorical interpretations of the entire early history of Christianity. By Jerusalem, they said, one should not mean this visible city; This is only a figurative turn of phrase. And the entire Church must be understood spiritually, as an eternal heavenly Church, partly wandering on earth. Augustine resolutely rejects all this. If the speech about the Church is understood allegorically, then the suffering of Christ should be understood in the same way, and this means renouncing Christianity. Analyzing the evangelist's account of the Ascension of the Lord (Luke 24:48–53), Augustine especially draws attention to the fact that the apostles, after the ascension, returned precisely to earthly Jerusalem 63. In Acts (1:1-8) certain localities and cities are also constantly named where the Church spread, and this is as if to indicate the visibility of both the Church and Jerusalem, from where it spread 64. In this visible Church the good and the evil are mixed; they live inseparably. However, Augustine also has the idea that worthy members of the Church are in some special relationship with each other 65. Through baptism, a person enters the Church and remains in unity with her throughout his life. However, he can commit such sins that, according to the Apostle, make him unable to inherit the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:21). Such sinners are only in visible communion with the Church. They take part in the sacraments and yet they are not in the Church. There is no visible excommunication, but there is also no complete unity with the Church 66. Such people are outside the Church, although apparently they belong to it 67. The True Church consists only of the good; they are true members of the body of Christ and only the Church of saints applies some words of the Holy. Scriptures. The Church is in those who build a building on rock, that is, fulfilling the teachings of Christ, and not in those who do not fulfill it 68. From this Church, which has no filth or vice, the sinner is excommunicated, even if he has outward unity with the saints 69 . There is no benefit for him in the sacraments 70. Sometimes only the saints are called the Church 71. It is possible, apparently, to be in the Church and yet be alien to that spiritual union of love, which forms the true Church. 72 One must distinguish between visible communion with the Church and between invisible belonging to unity in love, which is the property of the good. Love sometimes replaces the sacrament: for example, martyrs invisibly fulfill what they could not do visibly 73 . In all the above passages one cannot discern in Augustine thoughts about the invisible essence of the Church. Otherwise, there would be an irreconcilable contradiction in Augustine’s teaching: there are righteous and sinners in the Church, 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, both the righteous and the sinners equally enter into it 74 . Church of Saints, according to the teachings of Blessed. Augustine, there is no special one; 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 for this. Holy Church – Church of the Future Century 75. On the contrary, Augustine says that without church unity, Christian love cannot be preserved, and without love, faith itself and all the sacraments have no meaning. Consequently, all holy people belong to the same Church, in which there are also unworthy members. This is indeed what all truly good people do. Their holiness not only does not prompt them to leave church unity, but even more closely unites them with the Church 77. Only a wicked and arrogant proud person can separate from the Church under the pretext of holiness, as the Donatists did. "I adhere, 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 both in body and heart; but for the sake of these dead I will not separate 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 unity of the mysteries, then by the word and law (disciplina) of the Lord I correct whom I can, and endure those whom I could not correct. I avoid the chaff, lest I myself become such, but I will not leave the threshing floor, lest I become nothing.” 79 Thus, the saints in the Church are together with the sinners. They are never separated, but they are always in one part or another of the Church. Righteous people only primarily realize the idea of ​​the holy Church 80. Sometimes sin spreads so much that it seems as if there is no longer any wheat of God. In fact, there is never a shortage of this wheat: it is predetermined and sown everywhere 81. The teaching of the blessed Augustine about the Church stands in connection with his teaching of predestination, although for some scientists these two points in the system of blessedness. Augustine seem to be contradictory to each other. Bl. Augustine attached great importance to predestination in the matter of salvation 82. Those destined for salvation may go astray and lead a bad life, but grace can always guide them to the path of salvation. They cannot perish: sooner or later, grace will lead them to salvation 83, and they will achieve this salvation precisely in the Church 84. Complete certainty of fate is revealed only at the end of a person’s life. Only the last moment finally reveals the mysterious veil of predestination 85 before him. It is clear that such a doctrine of predestination is completely inconsistent with the Donatist view of the Church. It is impossible to excommunicate every sinner from the Church, because, despite his grave sins, he may still be predestined for salvation. When Augustine says that one should not rush to pull out the tares, because the wheat can also be destroyed, then his speech in these cases has a special meaning: their destinies are hidden from people, and they should not anticipate the judgment of God. The business of the Church is not to judge sinners, but to give them the opportunity to correct themselves: even excommunication from the Church should pursue the same goal 86. It should also be noted that, speaking about predestination, Augustine is completely far from the idea that the predestined alone constitute the Church. On the contrary, many who are predestined spend almost their entire lives outside the Church, and among the most faithful sons of the Church there are those who are not predestined for salvation, and not all those who are predestined belong to the Church 87 . Works of the blessed one. Augustine, where he polemicizes against Donatism, gives the impression that he is constantly defending sinners; It is not sinners who defile the Church, 88 but the Church 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. So in creations there is bliss. Augustine finds its full expression and justification for the truth that the earthly Church does not consist only of saints and perfect ones, but has the purpose of its earthly existence to educate and correct sinners 89. The Church is only preparing to become glorious, without filth or vice 90. The perfect separation of the righteous from the sinners will take place at the end of the age. When there was sometimes a very sharp dispute between the Orthodox and the Donatists about the comparative moral height of the lives of both, then, as stated above, this dispute had some fundamental significance, although such disputes are usually only the inevitable companions of more significant dogmatic differences of opinion. The closest relation to the difference in dogmatic concepts about the Church was the question of the moral dignity of hierarchical persons. After all, it was because of these individuals that the Donatist split occurred 91. A sacrament performed by a traditionalist is invalid - this is one of the most important dogmatic provisions of Donatism 92. At the same time, the Church, in communicating grace to people, is entirely dependent on the moral qualities of its hierarchy 93 and cannot tolerate traitors among the hierarchy without violating its holiness. Blessed In all of Augustine's writings concerning Donatism we find a decisive struggle against such a view, which for him is res falsissima et absurdissima 94 . First of all, Blessed. Augustine we find, so to speak, an immanent criticism of the Donatist view. Scripture calls anyone a liar who says that he has no sin (1 John 1:8), and therefore it is impossible to find a person among people so that he can really baptize, if the sacrament generally depends on the personal qualities of the performer 95. One must look for an angel in order to be baptized by him 96. The moral qualities of people are different, and if the validity of baptism depends on these qualities, then, obviously, baptism is also different, and not the same for everyone 97 . The practice of the Donatists themselves does not correspond to their dogmatic teaching. If the sacraments performed by an unworthy member of the hierarchy are invalid, then the Donatists must again baptize all those who were baptized in their society by an unworthy person 98. After all, they cannot deny what exists in their society; they may also have unknown ones, unworthy of hierarchs 99 . After all, before such were excommunicated, they still performed the sacraments; Obviously, these sacraments are invalid, and people baptized unworthy do not have true baptism and have not yet entered the Church. The Donatists do not baptize those who separated from them, for example, the Maximianists, although they are reviled no less than the Orthodox 100. To be consistent, the Donatists, accepting the Maximianists, would have to baptize them again. The Donatists themselves gave such a reason. The sacraments of an unworthy person are invalid, but only when his unworthiness is known to the Church. If it is unknown, then the sacrament remains in force 101. Petilian, in his response to Augustine and the Donatists in general, added: a sacrament is invalid when it is recognized from a person who is obviously (sciens) unfaithful 102 . The Donatists did not deny the validity of the sacraments performed by hypocrites. But, of course, rightly blessed. Augustine considered this explanation completely unsatisfactory. A crime is not lessened just because it is unknown to others. It is known to God. Why is it only the church’s judgment about the sinfulness of this or that person that is valid, and not God’s? God condemns a sin when it has just been committed, even if it remains unknown to people for a long time. The sinner is already dead, he has already lost the Holy Spirit 103. If we connect the validity of a sacrament with the personality of its performer, 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 Holy. Spirit, it was impossible to receive sanctification 104. Therefore, if the Donatists want to be consistent, they must baptize again everyone whom the one who excommunicated them baptized even before his excommunication 105 . Augustine's demand was, of course, completely fair. The Donatists lacked consistency in their teaching about the dependence of the sacraments on the person performing them. Denying the validity of the sacraments among the Orthodox on the grounds that they were performed by unworthy ministers, they nevertheless, in their society, still recognized baptism as valid, regardless of the personal holiness of the performer, precisely when his unworthiness is unknown. The only thing that turned out to be so sacred was that the Donatists wanted to consider it so 106 . But it is also clear that there is no way to make the dogmatic view of the Donatists the guiding principle of church practice. To invalidate the sacraments performed by a sinful person from the very moment of his sin means to completely destroy the sacraments. After all, a sinful clergyman can hide his sin until death, and all those baptized by him lose hope of salvation. The last result is that it is completely unknown who belongs to the Church and who does not. No one can be sure of their belonging to the Church. There is always room for the question: what if I am baptized as a hidden sinner? 107 It is clear why, having pointed out this contradiction in the views of the Donatists, Augustine insists on it so much 108. Finally, Augustine asks: why should infant baptism be considered invalid? After all, they do not know that it is a sinner who is baptizing them. Donatists should not baptize again infants accepted into their society, just as they do not baptize anyone baptized in their society by a sinner unknown to him 109 . Having shown the internal inconsistency and inconsistency of the Donatist view, Blessed. Augustine, following in general Optatus 110, reveals in more detail the church's view of the significance of hierarchy for the sanctifying activity of the Church. The Donatists argued that there were sinful bishops in the Church, and therefore the people could not be holy. To this Augustine replies that people can be good even where bishops are bad. On the contrary, the Jewish people turned out to be evil, although they had Moses as their leader. After all, Christ also said about the scribes and Pharisees: do whatever they tell you, but do not do what they do, for they say and do not do (Matthew 23:3). Good things can be heard from evil people, and a good deed is useful regardless of who taught it - good or evil. In addition, Augustine notes that the Donatists do not apply this criterion to themselves; he points out an example when the Donatists had a vicious bishop Optatus, but the Donatists did not draw the conclusion from this that his entire flock was sinful 111. And about every bishop, even if he was not a traditionalist, it can still be said that he is a sinner, like every person 112. Therefore, there is no need to place your entire salvation in exclusive dependence on the always unknown moral qualities of the persons performing the sacraments - this is contrary to the teaching of the Holy One. Scripture that says: it is better to trust in God than in man (Wrote 11:8). Cursed is the man who trusts in man (Jeremiah Ι 7:5). All who make the sacrament dependent not only on God, but on man 113 are subject to such a curse. Salvation based on man is worthless. The Lord's salvation (Psalm 3:9), but human salvation (salus) is vain (Psalm 59:13). Therefore, cursed is the one who puts his hope in a person, even if he knows him to be righteous and blameless. That's why ap. Paul condemns those who called themselves Paul's, and said: Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Pavlovo? (1 Cor 1:13) 114. One must rely on God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and not on Peter or Paul, and especially not on Donatus or Petilian 115. The priest is not a necessary mediator between God and man. The apostles John and Paul say that there is one mediator between God and people - Jesus Christ (1 Jo 2:1-2), who was symbolically depicted as the high priest in the Old Testament. The Apostle Paul says that everyone should, as members of one body, pray for each other, and not think of themselves as mediators between God and man 116. It cannot even be said that a mediator is generally necessary when communicating grace, because in the beginning there still had to be a direct communication of grace 117 . In St. Scripture speaks of cases where God's grace was poured out directly to people. From whom did John the Baptist receive grace? No one laid hands on the one hundred and twenty men on whom the Holy Spirit came (Acts 1:15, 2:1-4). Even when the Church already existed (constituto jam ordine Ecclesiae), the centurion Cornelius, before baptism and before the laying on of hands, was filled with the Holy Spirit with everyone around him, so that even the apostle himself was surprised. Peter (Diary 10:44) 118. It is true that without the giver no one can receive anything, but the giver is not a man, but God. During the sacraments, there is God who gives and man who receives. But God gives either Himself, or through an angel, or through a holy man, through Peter or John, or through an unworthy person, of which there are many secret or obvious 119 . If the performer is evil, then he performs only the visible form of the sacrament, and God Himself gives invisible grace 120. After all, even the pagans think that they receive imaginary sanctification from the priests, and from the gods 121. And the Donatists themselves, considering baptism performed by a secret wicked person to be valid, do they not admit that in these cases everything comes only from Christ, and not from an unworthy minister? 122 I, writes Augustine, do not believe in the minister who baptized me, but in the One who justifies the wicked and imputes to me faith in righteousness 123 . Only Christ baptizes, because it is said about Him: He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (John 1:33) 124. Interpreting these words, blessed one. Augustine proves in detail that at the baptism of the Lord and at the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, John the Baptist was convinced of precisely the truth that the power of baptism (potestas dominici baptismi) belongs only to Christ and does not pass to any person. Only service is transferred to people, both to the evil and to the good. The Lord Himself had the power of baptism while on earth, and will have it, having departed body to Heaven. When Christ lived on earth. He Himself did not baptize, but the disciples of Ero (Jo 4:1-2), and Judas also baptized. Obviously, the power of baptism (potestas baptisandi) belonged to Christ, while the disciples performed only ministry (ministerium). There really was a baptism performed by Judas 126. So now a person, no matter what he may be, cannot impart sanctification, because he is not God 127. Only Christ is eternally alive, and therefore the sanctification given by Him is always valid 128. Christ, sending His apostles to preach, blew and said: Receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-23). By this He clearly showed that it is not they themselves who will forgive sins, but the Holy Spirit through them, as it is said in another place: it is not you who will speak, but the Holy Spirit who is in you (Matthew 10:20). Parmenian referred to the words of Christ: that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6). But from the Orthodox point of view of Augustine, these words do not at all refer to baptism from an unworthy minister. The minister does not himself give birth to spiritual children. The Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual children, even if the minister is unworthy. The Apostle Paul says: I have begotten you in Christ Jesus through the gospel (1 Cor 4:15). Judas could also preach the Gospel and, of course, without harm to the believers. Although the Holy Spirit leaves unworthy performers of the sacrament, spiritually through them children can be born of God 129 . The presence of wicked bishops cannot bring any harm to the laity, because they have a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, who sits at the right hand of God the Father (Heb. 7:17, 25), who was delivered for our sins, and was raised again for our justification (Rom. 42:25). Of course, one should be allowed to perform the sacraments after testing, in accordance with the instructions of St. Paul (1 Tim 3:10), but no test can completely protect against the unworthy 131. After all, the Donatists themselves had unworthy bishops 132. Through such reasoning, Blessed. Augustine comes to a clear and definite formulation of the position: the holiness of the sacrament does not depend on the holiness of its performer 133. The Holy Spirit in the Church is so united with the primate or minister that if he is not a hypocrite (fictus), then the Holy Spirit acts through him, giving him eternal reward and rebirth to those who are initiated or taught by him. If he is a hypocrite, then he loses his salvation, but his ministry remains in force and gives salvation to others. Why does the Apostle say: if I do this voluntarily, then I have a reward, but if involuntarily, then I fulfill the ministry entrusted to me (1 Cor 9:17), that is, this ministry is useful for those who use it, but not for me, because I am a hypocrite. He did not say that his service does not matter at all: he only deprives himself of the reward of salvation, and not those to whom the evil servant gives the Lord's food 134. The truth remains true, even if it is expressed by an evil person. After all, the demons also confessed Christ in the same way as the apostle. Peter (Matthew 1:16, 8:20, Mark 1:24, Luke 8:28). So the sacrament of Christ, whether it be performed unworthy or righteous, is nothing other than the sacrament of Christ. Based on the depravity of the performer of the sacrament, one should judge only his personal unworthiness, but one cannot condemn the sacrament 135. The spiritual effect of the sacrament is like a ray of sunlight, which is not polluted if it passes through unclean places 136. “I am not afraid,” writes Augustine, neither of an adulterer, nor a drunkard, nor a murderer, because it was said to me: “He is the baptizer.” 137 I received baptism from Christ 138, and it always remains the same 139. The sacraments of the wicked harm only those who perform them unworthily. The sacrament is one and the same, by virtue of the given name of the Lord, and is always holy, and is such for everyone with whatever heart he begins to receive it 140. Whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks condemnation for himself (1 Cor 11:29). Condemnation was not spoken to everyone, but to oneself 141. So, the sacrament retains its Holiness even with an unworthy performer 142. This point of teaching is blessed. Augustine is very important. The holiness of the Church does not depend on the holiness of hierarchical persons. The Church is holy in its sacraments. The face of the performer of the sacrament may be unworthy, but the sacrament does not lose its holiness because of this. A member of the church hierarchy imparts grace in the sacraments due to his ecclesiastical position, his ecclesiastical position, and not always, of course, according to his relative moral qualities. This conclusion was the most natural, because the opposite view of the Donatists was clearly untenable and inconsistent, otherwise it would necessarily lead to absurdity. It is very important that in polemics with Donatism, Blessed. Augustine could resort to immanent criticism. In the previous history of the dogma of the Church, the doctrine of the holiness of the Church was not fully thought out and precisely formulated. Even Cyprian seems to have some passages which make the holiness of the Church somewhat dependent on the personal holiness of hierarchical persons. Blessed Augustine, like Optatus, gave a definition of the holiness of the Church, which would not contradict the inevitable earthly state of the Church, where there is no person without sin. / Theological Bulletin 1912. T. 3. No. 10. P. 297–327 (2nd page). From the vast scientific literature devoted to the blessed. Augustine, we use mainly new and special works. Dr. Thomas Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche nach dem hl. Augustin. Paderborn 1892. P. Capistran Romeis. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche nach der Lehre des hl. Augustin. Forschungen zur Christlichen Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte, herausgeg. von Dr. A. Ehrhard and Dr. I. P. Kirsch. VIII Band. 4 Heft. Paderborn 1908. B. Guerrier. Architects and ascetics of the “Kingdom of God”. Part 1. St. Augustine. Moscow 1910. It should be noted that the polemics with Donatism bore a strong dogmatic imprint. From this we can see that Donatism itself was based on religious and dogmatic interests, and V. Guerrier is a tendentious historian, portraying Donatism (Blessed Augustine, p. 437 ff.) “as a banner that gathered around itself native elements who opposed Rome and its civilization” (p. 477). See the judgments of Prof. on this issue. A. A. Spassky (Theological Bulletin, 1901. III, pp. 189‒194) and H.H. Glubokovsky Blessed Augustine as depicted by a Russian secular historian. Proceedings Kyiv. Spirit. Academy. 1911. I, pp. 133‒136). In more detail, the polemical works of Blessed. Augustine are presented in the book of V. Z. Belolikov. Literary activity of Blessed. Augustine against the Donatist split. Kiev 1912. Brevicul. coll. III, 3, 3: donatistae responderunt, non catholicum nomen ex universitate gentium, sed ex plenitudine Sacramentorum institutum.. PL., t. 43, col. 624. Epist. 93, 7, 23: Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbk communione interpretaris, sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum, atque omnium Sacramentorum. P.L., t. 93, col. 333. Epist. 93, 7, 23. PL., t. 33, col. 333. De unitate Ecclesiae, sar. 2: Quae utique una est, quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt, ut ex ipso nomine ostenderent, quia per totum est. Secundum totum enim, καθ᾿ ὅ λον graece dicitur. P.L., t. 43, col. 392.Cfr. Contra litteras Petiliani lib. 2, cap. 38, 91. PL., t. 43, col. 292. Epist. 52, 1.PL., 33, col. 194. Contra Gaudent. II, 2, 2. PL., t. 43, col. 741. In particular, the following passages from the Old Testament are cited: Judgment 6:36–40. Gen 22:16‒18. 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. Psalm 2:7-8. 21:28–29. 18:5. 56:5–6. 71 and others. PL., t. 43, coll. 398 sqq. Cfr. Contra ep. Parmeniani. I, 2. PL., t. 43, coll. 35‒36. Contra Cresconium, III, 64, 72. 65, 73. PL., t. 43, coll. 535‒536. Epist. 140, 17, 43. PL., t. 33, col. 556. Epist. 208, 6. PL., t. 33, col. 952. Serm. 46.14, 33. PL., t. 38, col. 289. In psalm. 147, 6. PL., t. 37.col. 1924–1925. JIk 24:46–47. Di 1:1–8. 9:15. Rom 15:16. De unit. Eccl. cap. 10-11. P.L., t. 43, coll. 408 sqq. De unit. Eccl. cap. 11:29. P.L., t. 43, coll. 411–412. Cfr. in ep. Ioan. tract. 2, 2–3. P.L., t. 35, coll. 1989‒1991. De unite Eccl. sar. 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. De unite Eccl. cap. 12, 31: Cognoscite ergo etiam quam longe ab Africa remotae sunt, et dicite nobis cur eas omnino vobis incognitas, et in apostolicis Litteris manifestatas, tam sacrilega temeritate accusetis et tanta dementia criminibus Afrorum periisse dicatis? P.L., t. 43.col. 414‒415. Epist. 87:2. P.L., t. 33, col. 297. After this, Augustine follows with an analysis of the numerous testimonies of St. The Scriptures which, skilfully interpreted, the Donatists cited as proof that, although their society does not have a universal character, there is a true Church. P.L., t. 43, coll. 416 sqq. Cfr. Contra Cresconium. III, 35:39. P.L., t. 43, col. 517. On the universal character of the Church, as opposed to local heresies and schisms, see Augustine - Epist. 49:2. P.L., t. 33, coll. 189–190. Epist 52:1. P.L., t. 33, col. 194. Epist. 53:1.6. t. 33, coll. 195–196. 198. Epist. 67:1. P.L., t. 33, coll. 263‒264. Epist. 142:1–3. P.L., t. 33, coll. 583–584. Epist. 185:5. P.L., t. 33, col. 794. Contra litter. Petiliani, II, 8, 19‒20. P.L., t. 43, coll. 264‒265. II, 14, 33, col. 268. II. 64, 144, col. 306. II, 73. 164, col. 310. II, 92, 210, col. 3 0. III, 50, 62, col. 380. Contra Crescon. IV, 54, 64. PL., t. 43, coll. 582–583. IV, 57, 70, col 587, Ad. Donatistas post. coll. cap. 2.PL., t. 43, col. 653. Contra Gaudent. I, 20, 22. PL., t 43, coll. 718–719, See also Th. Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. SS 254–256, in general the entire § 30: Die Katholicität der Kirche. SS 251–268 See eg epist. 49:3: Ecclesia catholica est etiam in Africa. P.L., t. 33, col. 190 Liber de septem regulis ad investigandam et inveniendam S Scrip, turae intelligentiam. We use the work of Tikhonius in the publication F. C. Burkitt M. A. Tests and studies contributions to biblical and patristic literature edited by J. Armitage Robinson. Vol. Sh. No. 1. The rules of Tychonius. Cambridge 1894. Russian translation in Additions to the works of Sts. fathers 1891. Part 48. About Tikhonie, see F. Ribbeck Donatus und Augustinus. SS. 198–205. Reg. 2.rr. 10–11. Additions, part 48, pp. 196–197, 198. Reg. 3. r. 26:13–14. Additions, h. 48, p. 217. Reg. 3. pp. 28–30 passim. Additions, part 48, pp. 220, 221, 222. Reg. 4. p. 31. Additions, part 48, page 224. Reg. 4. pp. 32 sqq. Additions, part 48, page 225 ff. Reg. 4. r. 53. Additions, part 48, page 250. Parmenianus autem caeterique Donatistae viderunt hoc esse consequens. et maluerunt suscipere obstinantissimum animum adversus apertissimam veritatem quam Tichonius asserebat - says the blessed one. Augustine. Contra epist. Parmeniani. I, 1. PL., t. 43, col. 35. Contra epist. Parmeniani. I, 1. PL., t. 43, col. 35. Isa 59:1–8. Proverbs 17:15, 2 Tim 2:19. Eph 5:11. 1 Co 5:6. Contra epist. Parmen. II, cap. 3sqq. P.L., t. 43, coll. 53 sqq. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 6:13. P.L., t. 43, col. 58. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 2:5. P.L., t. 43, col. 52. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 2:4. P.L., t. 43, col. 51. Contra epist. Parrnen. I, 2:2" PL., t. 43, col. 35. For more details on the earthly state of the Church according to Augustine, see Th. Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. SS. 67 flgg. This psalm is otherwise called Abecedarium, because its verses begin with letters in alphabetical order. We have given the first stanza. P.L., t. 43, coll. 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. cap 14:35. P.L., t. 43, col. 418.Cfr. Contra epist. Parmen. III, 3:19. P.L., t. 43. col. 97. Epist. 93, cap. 9:34. P.L., t. 33, col 338. De civit. Dei lib. 18, cap. 49. PL., t. 41, col. 611. Ad donatistas post collat. cap. 8:II. P.L., t. 43. col. 659, cap. 10, 14, col. 660. Abecedarium G. PL., t. 43, col. 27 Cfr. Epist. 105, cap. 5:16. P.L., t. 33, col. 403. Epist. 108, cap. 3. 7. PL., t. 33, col. 409. Abecedarium N. PL., t. 43, coll. 28‒29 Cfr. Contra epist. Parmen.II, 1:3. P.L., 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, capp. 4, 15, 9, 34. PL., t. 33, coll. 329. 338. Epist. 87PL, t. 33, col. 297. Epist. 129:5. PL, t. 33, col. 492. Epist. 43, cap. 8:21: ne nomen Christi per horribilia blasphemetur, quod pro bono aequitatis oderunt. PL., t 33, col. 44, PL., t 179. Epist. PL., t. 33, col. 198. Epist 76:2–3. Abecedarium. P. PL., t. 43, col. 29.Ad Donat. post. collat. 20, 31. PL. t. 43, coll. 671–672. Epist. 108, cap. 7:20. P.L., t. 33, col. 417.Cfr. Brevicul. coll. cum Donaristis, cap. 9, 16: "When the raven flew out of the ark, unclean animals still remained there; in it until the end of the flood there remained clean and unclean, and in the Church good and evil until the end of the age. But just as Noah offered a sacrifice not of unclean animals, but of clean animals, so not those in the Church who are evil, but who are good, will come to God." P.L., t. 43, col. 633. De unite Eccl. 14:35. P.L., 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, coll. 536. 537. Epist. 10, cap. 3, l1. PI.. t. 33, col. 411. Contra litteras Petiliani III, 2:3. P.L., t. 43, col. 349. Contra epist. Parmenian. II, 2:5. P.L., t. 43, col. 52.Cfr. Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 90, 199. PL., t. 43, coll. 321–322. Contra epist. Parmenian. III, 3:10. P.L., t. 43, col. 97. De unite Eccl. 13:33 PL., t. 43, coll. 416–417. Here Augustine also quotes Matthew 7:13–14. Gen 15:5, 22:37. Rom 9:7. Isa 54:1. Matthew 8:11–12. Git 2:14. De unite Eccl. sar. 14:36. PL·., t 43, coll 418–419. In addition to the Donatists, the Pelagians also considered the Church to consist of only saints, based on a misunderstanding of the words of St. John (1 John 3:9) and the apostle. Paul (Eph 5:25–87). In his polemic against the Pelagians, Augustus argues that the state of holiness, both for the individual and for the Church, is the result of a long process. See Th. Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. SS. 84–88. 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. Contra litt. Petiliani, III, 4:3: Neque hoc ideo · dixerim ut neglegatur ecclesiastica disciplina, et permittitur quisque facere quod velit, sine vrila correptione, et quadam medicinali vindicta et terribili lenitate et charitatis severitate. P.L., t. 43, col. 350. Contra litt. Petiliani, III, 4:5: Neque enim ferrum est inimici vulnerantis. sed medici secantis. P.L., t. 43, col. 350. Contra litteras Petiliani, III, 37:48. P.L., t. 43, col. 370. Contra litt. Petiliani, III, 38:44. P.L., t. 43, coll. 370–371. Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 20:39. P.L., t. 43; col. 80. Serm. 351:10. P.L., t. 39, col. 1546. 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 imitatis, et sine laesione frumentorum fieri potest, cum congregationes Ecclesiae multitudo ab·eo crimine quod anathematur, aliena est. P.L., t. 43, col. 92.Cfr. Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, dies 3, 9:16: quamvis debeat vigilare ecclesiastica disciplina, ad eos non solum verbis, sed etiam excommunicationibus et degradationibus corripiendos, tamen non solum in ea latentis nesciantur, sed plerumque propter pacem unitatis etiam cogniti tolerentur. P.L., t. 43, col. 632. Tunc etiam ille et timore percutitur, et pudore sanatur, cum abuniversa Ecclesia se anathematum videns, sociam turbam cum qua in delicto suo gaudeat et bonis insultet non potest invenire. Contra epist. Parmeniani. Sh, 2, 13. PL., t. 43, col. 92. Contra epist. Parmeniani III, 2:14. P.L., t. 43, coll. 92–93 Contra epist. Parmen. III, 2:14: jam propter multitudine non poterant ita corripi, ut ab eorum conjunctione se caeteri continent, et eos erubescere facerent. P.L., t. 43, col. 93. Contra epist. Parmeniani, III, 2:15: Haec qui diligenter cogitat, nec in conservatione unitatis negligit disciplinae severitatem, nec immoderatione coercitionis disrumpit vinculum societatis. P.L., t. 43, col. 94. Contra litt. Petil. Sh, 3, 4. PL., t. 43, col. 349. In Retract. II, 17 Augustine, based on the Greek text, corrects this in Contra epist. Parmen. interpretation of 1 Cor 5:13: sic potius intelligendum ut homo malus auferatur ex hominibus bonis, quod fit per ecclesiasticam disciplinam. P.L., t. 32, col. 637. On ecclesiastical excommunication no Augustine, see C. Romeis. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. SS. 40 flgg. De moribus Ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus manichaeorum lib. I, cap. 34, 76. PL., t. 32, col. 1342. Contra epist. Parmeniani III, 2:8. P.L., t. 43, coll. 88–89. Epist. 93, 10, 36: unitatem orbis terrae atque omnium gentium et diligendo tenuit, et disputando defendit. P.L., t. 33, col.. 339. Contra epist. Parmeniani III, 2:8. P.L., t. 43, col. 90. Contra epist. Parmeniani III, 2:11: Quid eis prodest quod avaros et rapaces, modo se vel non habere in congregatione sua, vel incognitos sibi esse mentinntur; Quandoquidem fuerunt tales in illa unitatis Ecclesia, unde isti exortos se sic jactant, et eam in sua sola societate, id est, in communione Donati remansisse persuadere conentur? Si enim dicunt per talium communionem perire Ecclesiam, cur eam non dicunt jam Cypriani periiSse temporibus? P.L., t. 43.col. 90–91. De bapt. II, 6, 8. PL, t. 43, col. 131. II, 7, 11, col. 133. De unico bapt. sar. 14, 23–24. PL., t 43, coll. 607–608. Epist. 93, 10, 37. 42. 45. PL., t. 33, coll. 339. 341. 342. About the origin and character of circumcellions in Kutepov. The Donatist split, pp. 38 ff. Augustus always puts 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. Abecedarium L: Clamatis vos de Macario, et nos de Circumcellione. Illud nostrum jam transactum: vestri non cessant usque hodie. P.L., t. 43, col. 28, Cfr. de haeres. 69. PL., t. 42, col. 43. See Epist. 187, 7, 28. PL., t. 33, col. 842. De gestis Pelagii, cap. 12, 27. PL., t. 44, col. 336. De nuptiis et concupisc. cap. 33, 38; 34, 39. PL., t. O,'"oli 436. Contra duas epist. Pelagianorum, lib. IV, cap. 7, 17–18. PL., t. 44, coll. 621–622. De natura et gratia, cap. 63, 75. PL., t. 44, col. 285. De perfect. just. cap. 15, 34–35. PL., t. 44, col. 310. Epist. 185, 9, 38–39. Breviculus coll. cum Donatistis. d. 3, cap. 9:16. P.L., t. 43, col. 633.Cfr. ad Donat. post collat. 9, 12. PL., t. 43, col. 659. ) De unitate Eccl. cap. 10Teneamus Ecclesiam ex ore Domini designatam, unde coeptura, et quousque perventura esset; coeptura scilicet ab Jerusalem, et perventura in omnes gentes. P.L., t. 43, col. 409. De unite Eccl. sar. 10:26. P.L., t. 43, col. 409. De unite Eccl. cap. 11:27: nullus omnino dubitare permittatur, nisi qui de sanctarum Scripturarum fide dubitat, illam esse Ierusalem 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, coll. 409–410. Cfr. cap. 11 and 24:70. coll. 441–442. Cfr. A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4. III. S. 147 Anm. 2. B, Guerrier. Blazh. Augustine, p. 610. De unite Eccl. cap. 25:74: multi tales sunt in Sacramentorum communione cum Ecclesia, et tamen jam non sunt in Ecclesia. Alioquin situnc quisque praeciditur cum visibiliter excommunicatur; consequens erit ut tunc rursus inseratur, cum visibiliter communioni restituitur. P.L., 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. De bapt. I, 10, 14. IV, 3, 4. V, 27, 38. VI, 14, 23. PL., t. 43, coll. 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. De unit. Eccl. cap. 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 faciunt. 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. De baptismo, I, cap. 17:36: 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. Contra litt. Petiliani. II, 55, 126. PL., t. 43, col. 302. De baptismo III, 18:23: orationes sanctorum, id est columbae gemitus. P.L., 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. De bapt. 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. P.L., t. 43, col. 345. In ps. 131:13: Ille enim ad domum Dei pertinet, qui est in charitate compaginatus lapidibus vivis. P.L., t. 37, col. 1721. In ps. 39:1. P.L., t. 36, col. 433. In p.s. 95:2. P.L., t. 37, col. 1228. De bapt. IV, 22:29. P.L., t. 43, coll. 173–174. See also C. Romeis. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. SS. 28–30. Cfr. Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffes der Kirche. SS. 41–42. Thomasius. Dogmengeschichte. I.SS. 593–596. B. Guerrier. Blazh. Augustine, pp. 606–610. “In view of the differences in the composition of the Church,” writes V. Guerrier, its character, at one time or another, represents a complete opposite. But only members of the earthly Church will enter the heavenly Church, and therefore it is impossible to talk about a complete contrast between one and the other Church. Srvn. Prof.'s remark N. N. Glubokovsky. Blessed Augustine as depicted by a Russian secular historian. Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1911, vol. 1, pp. 143–146. Contra litt. Petiliani. II, 77:172: charitas enim christiana nisi in unitate 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. P.L., t. 43, col. 476. 11, 13:16. Ibidem. De baptismo 1, 17, 26: Spiritales... non eunt foras: quia et cum 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, coll. 123–124. Contra Cresconium IV, 59:71: Non est enim alius impiae superbiae tumor apud omnes qui se a Christi unitate discindunt, quam se solos Christianos esse jactare, et damnare caeteros, non solum quibus eorum lis nota est, verum etiam quibus eorum nec nomen auditum est. P.L., t. 43, coll. 587–588. Contra Cresconium. III, 35:39. P.L., t. 43, col. 517. See more details Th. Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. SS. 76–81. De unite Eccl. 25:73. P.L., t. 43, col. 443. This connection between the doctrine of predestination and the holiness of the Church appears especially clearly in de bapt. V, 27, 38. PL., t. 43, col. 195.Cfr. C. Romeis. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. SS. 21–23. Augustine's teaching on predestination is revealed in detail in the work of L. Pisarev. The teaching of the blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, about man in his relation to God. Kazan 1894, pp. 306 et seq. On the relationship of the doctrine of the Church to the doctrine of grace in Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffes der Kirche. SS. 41–42. 49–50. Augustine very decisively expresses the idea that sancti regno Dei praedestinati dividi ab Ecclesia nullo modo possunt. Contra Crescon. II, 33, 42. PL., t. 43. col. 491. More about the fact that those ordained are not saved without the Church, C. Romeis. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. It is necessary to recognize as unfounded the reasoning of V. Guerrier that “as if the circle of the Church in the former meaning of a 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 church circle.” Blazh. Augustine, pp. 612. Cfr. A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte III. S. 165. See also remark Η. N. Glubokovsky. St. Augustine as depicted by a secular historian. Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1911, vol. 1, pp. 146–147: “predestination was not carried out exclusively through the Church, although the latter is the most important, accessible and legitimized field of its saving action.” But higher up on the same 147 pages the author expresses himself more decisively and definitely. “For Augustine, the Church was the only normal and sanctioned institution open to us for applying the salvific and predetermining will of God to people.” Essentially, C arrives at the same thing. Romeis, setting forth Augustine's view of the possibility of salvation outside the Church (SS. 94–115). Salvation outside the Church is, in any case, an extraordinary path, and Augustine does not specifically dwell on this subject (S. 114). Cfr. Th. Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. SS. 66–67. 89–94. 307–312. Specht to come decisively to the conclusion that the doctrine of predestination does not in the least violate the entire ecclesiological system of blessedness. Augustine. Pisarev, cit. Op. page 308. De civit. Dei. I, 35. PL., t. 41, col. 46. Read more Th. Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. SS. 89–94. Contra litt. Petiliani. III, 37, 43: alienis peccatis non maculatur Ecclesia. t. 43, col. 370. Epist. 93, 10, 37: manifestum est non contaminari justos alienis peccatis. P.L., t. 33, col. 339. Cfr. C. Romeis. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. S. 18. Retract. II, 18. PL., t. 32, coll. 637–639. One might think that the question of the dependence of the sacraments on the personal moral qualities of their performers was brewing even in the Novatian communities, where they were inclined to resolve it in the spirit of Donatism, although independently of it. See Pseudo-August. Ouaest. 102.PL. t. 35, col. 2311. A. Harnack. Der pseudoaugustinische Traktat Contra Novatianum. Abhandlungen Alexander von Oettingen gewidmet (Munchen 1898). SS. 85–89. Contra litt. Petiliani. I, 2, 3: qui fidem a perfido sumpserit, non fidem percipit, sed reatum. P.L., t. 43, col. 247. Epist. 89:5: de Baptismo solent dicere, tunc esse Baptismum hristi, cum ab homine justo datur. P.L., t. 33, col. 311.Cfr. Contra ep. Parmen. II, 17, 36. PL., t. 43, col. 77. Augustine puts the words into the mouth of the Donatist: ego baptizo, ego justifico, ego justum facio. Serm. 292:4, 5, 6. PL, t. 38, coll. 1323–1324. Cfr. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 11, 23. PL., t. 43, col. 66. Contra Cresc. IV, 16, 19: quam justi sumus, tam justum Baptismum esse faciamus. P.L., t. 43, col. 559. De unitat. Eccl. 21, 59. P.L., t. 43, col. 435. Contra Cresconium II, 27, 33. PL., t. 43, col. 487.Cfr. II, 16, 19, col. 559. Contra Cresconium II, 28, 35. PL., t. 43, col. 488. In Ioan. tract. 6, 8. PL., t. 35, coll. 1428–1429. Contra epist. Parmeniani II, 10:21: cur mendaces et infideles eorum ministri, non aquam mendacem, sed veracem vel dare vel habere creduntur? Cur ab illorum mortuis qui baptizantur, proficit aliquid lavatio eorum? P.L., t. 43, col. 64. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 10:21: fictos bonos, id est occultos malos, apud se esse negare non possunt. P.L., t. 43, coll. 64–65. Epist. 93, 11, 49. PL., t. 33, col. 345. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 13:31. P.L., t. 43, col. 73, 11, 15:34. P.L., t. 43, col. 76. About the Maximianists F. Ribbeck. Donatus und Augustinus. SS. 206–236 Contra epist. Parmen. II, 10:21: tunc posse a malo baptizari quernquam, 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. Contra litt. Petiliani III, 27:32. P.L., t. 43. col. 363.Cfr. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 11:23. P.L., t. 43, col. 67. Epist. 89:5. P.L., t. 33, col. 311. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 10:21. P.L., t. 43, col. 65. II, 13:31: Nec ullo modo isti expedire se possunt, cuin eis proponitur, cur sanctitas sacramenti et haberi 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 tamen nec tunc eam possit amittere. P.L., t. 43, col. 73. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 10:21, 24. PL., t. 43, coll. 65–67. Contra litt. Petiliani. III, 47:57. P.L., t. 43, coll. 377–378. III, 52:64. Col. 382.III, 30:36. P.L., t. 43, col. 366. Contra Cresconium II, 26:31: Ita ne quia fictus est mortuus non est? P.L., t. 43, col. 485. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 15:31. P.L., t. 43. col. 76. Contra litt. Petiliani. I. 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 et seq. P.L., t. 43.. coll. 363 sqq. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 13:31: Quid est hoc aliud, quam quod eorum Tichonius de illis ait, Quod volumus sanctum est. P.L., t. 43, col. 73. Contra litt. Petiliani. I, 4:5. P.L., t. 43, col. 248.Cfr. III, 27, 32, col. 364. Contra litt, Petiliani. III, 32, 37: Hinc satago, hoc urgenter interrogo hoc ut respondeatur vehementissime flagito. P.L., t. 43, col. 367. Contra litt. Petiliani. III, 26, 31. PL., t. 43, col. 363. A. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte. III. S. 154. Contra epist. Parmeniani. II, 4:8. PL·., t. 43, coll. 55–56. Ibidem. II, 9:18. PL·, t. 43, col. 61. Ibidem. II, 7:12. P.L., t. 43, coll. 57–58. Contra litt. Petiliani I, 7:8. P.L., t. 43, col. 249. II, 5:11. P.L., t. 43, col. 261. Contra litt. Petiliani. II, 103:237. P.L., t. 43, col. 340. Contra epist. Parmen. II, 10:20. P.L., t. 43, col. 63. About the Donatists Augustine says: Quare computant salutem suam in hominibus esse, non in Deo? In p.s. 75, 7. PL., t. 36, col. 961. Contra litteras Petiliani I, 3: 4. PL., t. 43, coll. 247–248. II, 5:11. P.L., t. 43, col. 260. III, 28, 33, col. 364.Cfr. Epist. 89:5. P.L., t. 33. col. 311. Contra epist. Parmeniani II, 4, 8. PL., t. 43, col. 55. Contra litter. Petiliani. II, 108:217. P.L., t. 43, col. 346. Contra epist. Parmeniani II, 8, 15:16. P.L., t. 43, coll. 59–60. Contra epist. Parmeniani II, 15:33: Si et ipse a justo homine, et de illo ita quaero, donec ab ipso capite ordinis humani ad aliquem perveniam, qui non ab homine acceperit, atque ita falsum esse doceam, quod non potest homo accipere quidquam, nisi fuerit ei ab homine datum. P.L., t. 43, col. 75. Contra epist. Parmeniani. II, 15:34. P.L., t. 43, col. 76. Contra epist. Parmeniani. II, 15:34. P.L., t. 43, col. 76. De bapt. IV. 10, 16: in ista quaestione de baptismo non esse cogitandum quis det, sed quid det. P.L., t. 43, col. 164. V. 21, 29: Sacramentum gratiae dat Deus etiam per malos: ipsam vero gratiam non nisi per se ipsum vel per sanctos suos. P.L., t. 43, col. 191.Cfr. de bapt. III, 19, 27. PL., t. 43, coll. 152–153. Contra Cresconium II, 21, 26. PL., t. 43, col. 482.Cfr. Epist. 89, 7: sacramenta non humana sunt, sed divina. P.L., t. 33, col. 312. Epist. 105, cap. 3:12: semper Dei est illa gratia et Dei Sacramentum, hominis autem solum ministerium; qui si bonus est, adhaeret Deo, et operatur cum Deo; si autem malus est, operatur per illum Deus visibilem Sacramenti formam, ipse autem donat invisibilem gratiam. Hoc sapiamus omnes, et non sint in nobis schismata. P.L., t. 33, col. 401. Epist. 89. 5. PL., t. 33. col. 311. Contra litt. Petiliani I, 9:10. P.L., t. 43, col. 250. Contra Cresconium. III, 11, 13. PL., t. 43, col. 50. Contra litteras Petiliani. I, 7:8. P.L., t. 43, col. 249. II, 4:9. P.L., t. 43, col. 260. Contra epist. Parmeniani II, 11, 23. PL., t. 43, col. 67. Contra Cresconium II, 25:30. P.L., t. 43, col. 484. De bapt. III. 4, 6. PL., t. 43, col. 143. In Ioan. tract. 5, 9. 11; 6, 7. PL., t. 35, coll. 1419. 1428. Cfr. de consensu evang. II, 15, 32. PL., t. 35, col. 1093. This interpretation of blessed. Augustine attaches an important polemical meaning - omnino eorum (donatistarum) ora claudentur. In Ioan. tract. 4, 16. PL., t. 35, col. 1414. In Ioan. tract. 5, 18. PL., t. 35.col. 1423–1424. Contra litt. Petiliani II, 6:13. P.L., t. 43, col. 261. Contra litteras Petiliani II, 7:13. P.L., t. 43, col. 262. Contra epist. Parmeniani. II, 11, 23. PL., t. 43, coll. 66–67. II, 14:32. P.L., t. 43, col. 74. Contra epist. Parmeniani. II, 5:10. P.L., t. 43, col. 57. II, 8:15. col. 59. Contra litteras Petiliani. III, 30:35. P.I.,t. 43, col. 365.Cfr. In Ioan. tract. 5, 15. PI., t. 35, col. 1422. ) Contra litteras Petiliani. III, 34:40. P.L., t. 43, col. 368. See eg. Contra Crescollium IV, 16:19: non eorum meritis a quibus ministratur, nec eorum quibus ministratur, constare Baptismum, sed propria sanctitate atque veritate. P.L., t. 43, col. 559. Contra epist. Parmeniani II. 11:24. P.L. t. 43.col. 67–68. Cfr. Contra. litt. Petiliani II, 30:69. P.L. t. 43, coll. 281–282. III, 55. 67. PL., t. 43, coll. 384–385. Contra litteras Petiliani Ш, 34:39: Cum ergo Baptismus Christi, sive per iniquum sive per justum ministratus, nihil aliud sit quam Baptismus Christi; ab homine cauto et bono fideli iniquitas hominis est vitanda, non Dei sacramenta damnanda. P.L., t. 43, col. 368.Cfr. II, 47:110. 43, col. 298. See also De bapt. V. 20:27: Sacramenta Dei ubique recta sunt, et mali homines, quibus nihil prosunt, ubique perversi sunt. P.L., t. 43, col 190. Contra Crescon. II, 10. 12: nec curo per quem fuerint (sacramenta seminata, sed a quo creata. PL., t. 43, col. 474. In Ioan. tract. 5, 15. PL., t. 35, col. 1422. In Ioan. tract. 5, 18. PL., t. 35, col. 1424. In Ioan. tract. 5, 13. 18. PL., t. 35. col. 1421. 1424. In Ioan. tract. 6, 8. PL, t. 35, col. 1429 Contra epist. Parmeniani. II, 6:11: Nam unum atque idem sacrificium propter nomen Domini quod invocatur, ct semper sanctum est et tale cuique sit, quali corde ad accipiendum accesserit. P.L., t. 43. col. 57.Cfr. Contra litteras Petiliani. II, 108, 247. PL., t. 43, col. 345. In Ioan tract., 6, 15. PL., t. 35, col. 1432. See also Th. Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. SS. 141. 207–21 4.