The question of the church in the dogmatic polemic with Donatism

The thought that was first clearly and definitely expressed about the Church in the time of St. Cyprian, namely, that the Church is a Divine institution for the moral improvement of people and that for this she alone has the necessary grace-filled means, this idea was finally assimilated and forever preserved in the church consciousness 1 . In this regard, there was no longer a history of dogma in the proper sense. Also St. Cyprian decisively put this concept of the Church into church practice, and after St. Cyprian, one might say, began primarily the history of church discipline. The forms of penitential discipline are constantly changing, but behind this change of forms one can always feel the unchangeable fundamental concept of the Church as a physician for a sore conscience and, in general, an educator of the human race. The forms of discipline are changing in the direction of the best adaptation to this very purpose of the Church. Among the representatives of the Eastern Church, already at the end of the 3rd century, we encounter some speculations, only in a different form, conveying the same dogmatic teaching about the Church, which we saw expressed in particular detail among Western writers. Of such speculations, as the most characteristic of Eastern theology, we note the teaching of Methodius of Patara. In his teaching about the Church, St. Methodius proceeds from an allegorical interpretation of the creation of Eve. Adam and Eve for him are real types of Christ and the Church 2. Just as Eve was created from the rib of sleeping Adam, so from Jesus Christ, who lay in the sleep of death, came the Holy Spirit, from Whom the Church was formed. One can also say about the Church that it is bone of the bones and flesh of the flesh of Christ. For the sake of the Church, the Logos left the Heavenly Father and came down to unite (προσκολληθησόμενος) with His wife. He fell asleep in the ecstasy of suffering (ὕ πνωσε τὴν ἔκστασιυ τοῦ παθους), voluntarily dying for her in order to present her to Himself as glorious and blameless, having cleansed her with the bath. She receives the blessed and spiritual seed, which the Logos sows into the depths of the spirit. The Church receives this seed and develops it, like a woman, multiplying and nurturing virtue 3 . This is how the word is fulfilled: grow and multiply (see: Gen. 1:28)! The Church daily increases in greatness, beauty and number (είς μέγεθος καί καλλος καί παῆθος) thanks to the assistance (διά σῦνερξιν) and the communication of the Logos 4. It descends into every individual person and is revealed in moral life. Christ, as it were, dies again in everyone and unites him with the whole Church, so that he receives certain grace-filled powers in her. This way everyone gets a return. But what happens to each person, Christ did this first in relation to the Church, and only by joining the Church can an individual person grow spiritually. “The imperfect and those who are still beginning the saving teaching grow and are formed, as it were, in the mother’s womb, from the more perfect, until they, having reached the maturity of rebirth and then, upon success, having themselves become the Church, will contribute to the birth and upbringing of other children in the receptacle of the soul, as if in the womb, inexorably carrying out the will of the Word” 5 . Therefore St. Methodius calls the Church mother. Under the apocalyptic wife, who was pregnant and screaming from pain and pangs of birth, St. Methodius means the Church. “Those who are enlightened receive features, an image and a courageous appearance (τούς χαρακτῆρας καί τὴν έκτύπωσιν καί τὴν ἀ ῤῥ ενωπίαν) Christ; the image of the Word is imprinted in them and is born in them through true knowledge and faith, so that Christ is born in everyone spiritually (νοητῶς). For this reason, the Church is in the womb and experiences the pangs of birth until the born Christ is depicted (μορφωθῆ) in us, so that each of the saints, through communion with Christ, is born anointed (χριστός). Those baptized into Christ with the communion of the Spirit become anointed, and the Church here contributes to the image in them of the Word and their transformation” 6 . Church for St. Methodia is the entire congregation of believers, but at the same time she has special powers that revive people, and therefore she is, in the proper sense, the mother of all believers 7. In the teaching of St. Methodius, we can see the same ideas that have already been revealed in the West, only these ideas receive a mystical justification. Only one feature can be noticed: St. Methodius attaches special importance to the individual, which is understandable given the mystical presentation of the entire historical mission of the Church 8. Given the more external and legal nature of the issues being decided about the Church in the West, of course, the individual was, as it were, avoided and was not the subject of discussion 9 . In the 4th century, many aspects of church life in the East and West were defined precisely in close connection with the concept of the Church as the educator of the human race, spiritually giving birth to children of God. The teachings of the great Eastern fathers - St. Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom - about shepherding can be briefly expressed this way: shepherding is the service through which the Church regenerates sinful people. Here we will pay attention, in particular, to one of the most important aspects of the general educational activities of the Church - repentant discipline. This discipline, according to church teaching of the 4th century, is aimed precisely at healing the sinner, and not at punishing him or protecting the holiness of the Church. This is precisely the view expressed in the most important penitential monuments of this century: in the epistles of St. Basil the Great to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, and in the letter of St. Gregory of Nyssa to Litoius, Bishop of Melitino. These messages, canonized by the second rule of the VI Ecumenical Council, still retain their indisputable authority in the Orthodox Church and are placed in the “Book of Rules.” Later penitential literature constantly refers to Basil the Great 10. For all penitential discipline, St. Basil the Great indicates only one goal - “to snatch those who have sinned from the snare of the evil one” 11 and “to overthrow and destroy sin in every possible way” 12 . For excommunication from the Church by St. Basil the Great has almost no other name than “healing” 13. The Epistle of Gregory of Nyssa is nothing less than a wonderful treatise on pastoral theology. Here St. Gregory calls sin a disease and constantly talks about healing sin. “Just as in physical healing the goal of the art of medicine is the same - the return of health to the sick, but the way of healing is different, because according to the difference in ailments, each disease has a decent method of healing, so in mental illness, due to the multitude and variety of passions, a variety of healing care is necessary, which produces healing according to the illness" 14. St. Gregory speaks not only about the medical significance of temporary excommunication from the Church, but also about the purpose of special penitential feats. “Let him cure his illness by exercising the opposite of his passion, by distributing his property to the poor, and having squandered what he has, he will show himself cleansed from the disease of covetousness. The apostle commands the one who has nothing but the body to heal this passion with bodily labor” 15. This is the general teaching about repentance and the meaning of penances 16. The system of public repentance was subsequently replaced by the institution of secret confession, according to which a whole series of Nomocanons arose, one way or another connected with the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster 17 . These Nomocanons are very characteristic for the clarification of the concepts about the Church that have finally established themselves in the church consciousness. All later Nomocanons have only one difference from the rules of St. Basil the Great, that they are most suitable for healing moral illnesses of the individual. The rules of Basil the Great mainly speak about long periods of excommunication from church communion 18 . The later Nomocanons significantly shorten the period of deprivation of church communion for the penitent, but in them the penitent is prescribed special fasting, bows, prayers and other pious deeds 19 . Assessing this fact from a fundamental point of view, it must be said that church penitential discipline was most adapted to the teaching about the Church, which was clearly expressed back in the 3rd century: the holiness of the Church does not consist in the fact that it does not tolerate mortal sinners, whom it completely excommunicates, but in the fact that it heals those who have fallen into serious illnesses with repentance and gives them the grace-filled powers of the Holy Spirit for their moral improvement. We have briefly indicated how church discipline changed, adapting more and more to the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church. The church writers of that time posed the question more directly, and the answer to it, which had been given since the beginning of the 3rd century, received detailed and abundant argumentation. The development of dogmatic teaching itself cannot be noted here. The history of the dogma of the Church itself after the time of St. Cyprian was concentrated in the Western Church and touched on those points that were barely touched upon during the life and work of St. Cyprian and did not receive their full disclosure at the same time: church thought focused on clarifying the nature and reality of grace-filled sanctifying means in the Church. This question was especially raised by the Donatist split and received its resolution in the struggle against it. We move on to an exposition of this struggle and its dogmatic results. The persecution of Decius, which broke out under St. Cyprians, it passed quickly. But the question of the fallen arose with no less urgency during the last and most severe persecution of Diocletian at the beginning of the 4th century, when some of the bishops were among the fallen. In Africa, the question arose as to whether those who were guilty of betraying the sacred books and generally of apostasy could perform the Sacraments. This issue was resolved by some of the bishops at one of the Carthaginian Councils in a negative sense, when the ordination of Bishop Caecilian was declared invalid on the grounds that the bishop who ordained him was suspected of treason 20 . Caecilian was deposed, and Majorin was elected in his place, but the bishops of other regions took the side of Caecilian, others - the side of Majorin. This is how a split occurred, which later became known as Donatism 21. The question, which, as we saw at the end of the previous essay, was already raised in the middle of the 3rd century 22, at the beginning of the 4th century persistently demanded its solution. The external history of Donatism is very turbulent and complex, but has no significance for the history of the dogma of the Church. For this story, the polemical works of church writers directed against the Donatists are important. We will now begin to present the dogmatic teaching about the Church revealed in these works. The works of the Donatists themselves have not survived, and their views can only be judged from the works of church writers. In their dogmatic ideas about the Church, the Donatists proceeded from a strict concept of the holiness of the Church and its unity. A church that accepts traditionalists into fellowship cannot be holy. Traditorial bishops cannot impart any grace; therefore, in the Church, which has traditional bishops, there are no Sacraments. The personal unworthiness of a bishop deprives the entire Church of grace. In the Church, baptism has no meaning, and therefore anyone who wishes to move from the Church to the Donatist society, which is the one true and holy Church, must be baptized. It can be noted that the Donatists adopted some of the ideas of St. Cyprian and turned them against the Church 23. The Donatists stood close to the views of the Novatians, who did not recognize church baptism as valid 24 , but they differed from the ancient heretics, who did not baptize those who turned to them from another heresy, but only communed them 25 . St. Cyprian, as is known, completely identified heretics and schismatics, considering the baptism of both invalid. But this view constitutes a certain feature of the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian. The difference between heresy and schism, however, has always been noticed in the Church; this can also be seen in St. Irenaeus of Lyons. And the very terminology of St. Cyprian shows that he knew the difference between heresy and schism: he very often uses both terms side by side - heresy and schism, and he felt the need to prove the heresy of schismatics 26. For the first time, church thought encountered such a schism as Novatianism, and therefore it is understandable that an extreme was allowed in relation to it - Novatian baptism was declared invalid. However, Cyprian himself did not resolutely raise the issue of Novatian baptism to dogmatic grounds, giving freedom to local practice. The Donatists substituted their dogmatic basis for this practice: an unworthy person cannot teach the Sacraments. Already at the very emergence of Donatism, we see conciliar definitions that normalize the attitude towards schismatics. The Council of Arles (314), by its eighth rule, decided to baptize only those heretics who do not profess the Trinity; the African custom of baptizing all those who turn to the Church is declared private and not worthy of approval 27 . Throughout the 4th century, we generally encounter a whole series of conciliar definitions, where the Sacraments performed in schismatic societies are recognized as valid. Thus, at the First Ecumenical Council, a resolution was made regarding the Novatians, according to which their clergy were accepted into the Church while retaining their rank. “They must confess in writing that they will cleave to and follow the definitions of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is, they will be in church communion both with bigamists and with those who fell during persecution, for whom the time of repentance has been established, and the period of forgiveness has been appointed... Where, either in villages or in cities, all who are found in the clergy will be ordained from among them alone, let them be in that же чине» 28 . The baptism and ordination of the followers of Paul of Samosata and other anti-Trinitarians was rejected, although at baptism they pronounced the baptismal formula invoking the name of the Holy Trinity 29 . The resolution of the Council of Arelat was repeated at the Council of Carthage in 348 30. At the same Council, the resolution of the First Ecumenical Council on the admission into the Church of members of the schismatic hierarchy while maintaining their rank was extended to the Donatists 31 . The question of the baptism of heretics is discussed in detail from the practical side by Basil the Great in his letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. “The ancients,” writes St. Vasily, - they decided to accept baptism, in no way departing from the faith; Some they called heresy, some schism, and others self-inflicted assemblies. Heretics they called those who had completely rejected and were alienated in the faith itself, schismatics - those who were divided in opinions about certain church subjects and about issues that allow healing... Why, from the beginning, the former fathers wanted to completely sweep aside the baptism of heretics, the baptism of schismatics, as not yet alien to the Church (ἔτι ἐκ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὄντων ), accept.” Further St. Vasily says that the question should arise only about who exactly is considered a heretic and who is a schismatic. He knows that St. Cyprian and Firmilian of Caesarea also considered the Kafars to be heretics, but he himself believes that the Kafars are schismatics and should be baptized 32 . However, St. Vasily gives freedom to established various practices. The Second Ecumenical Council determined which of the modern erring people, when joining Orthodoxy and part of those being saved, should be accepted by anointing with holy myrrh, and who should be accepted as pagans, that is, through baptism 33 . The resolution of the Second Ecumenical Council with additions was subsequently repeated by the VI Ecumenical Council 34. The basis of this practice, obviously, is a slightly different dogmatic teaching about the attitude of the Church to the Sacraments than the teaching of St. Cyprian, according to whom the Church is the exclusive owner of grace. As can be seen from the words of St. Basil the Great, the established practice was based on the idea that schismatics were not completely alien to the Church. Only heretics who distorted the very concept of the Trinity of the Divine are placed on a par with the pagans. It was necessary to give a scientific and theological disclosure and justification of church teaching about the relationship between the Sacraments and the Church. This task was undertaken by those church writers who were destined to conduct polemics with Donatism. In this polemic, the dogmatic foundations for Orthodox practice of the 4th century were clarified, and at the same time, some points of the dogmatic teaching about the Church in general were more definitely expressed. First of all, attention is drawn to the teaching about the Church of Optatus of Milevia; He has already given almost all the points of the Orthodox teaching about the Church, which even later were put forward in polemics with the Donatists. Optatus wrote a rather extensive work in seven books, known under the title “De schismate donatistarum”, where he polemicizes with the Donatist bishop Parmenian, successor of Donatus 35. In his polemic against the Donatists, Optatus, proving the truth of the Church, clearly and definitely for the first time introduces as the main argument the idea of ​​the need for the true Church to be universal in the sense of its external distribution. Heretics and schismatics cannot have a Church, because then it would not be universal. If the Donatists had a Church, it would be limited to only part of Africa, it would be enclosed in a corner (in angulo parvae regionis). The Church would not exist where there were no Donatists. There would be no Church in Spain, Gaul, Italy, Pannonia and Dacia, Mysia, Thrace, Achaia, Macedonia and all of Greece, there would be no Church in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, Cilicia, within Syria, in Armenia, in all of Egypt and Mesopotamia, in countless islands and provinces that can hardly be listed 36 . This contradicts the concept of the catholicity of the Church 37. Such a limitation of the universal Church is contrary to the will of God. Jesus Christ received all nations as an inheritance and all the borders of the earth as a possession (see: Ps. 28). The whole earth with all nations is promised to Christ. This promise is destroyed by the Donatists, confining the entire breadth of kingdoms, as it were, in some kind of prison 38. “Allow,” exclaims Optat, “the Son to possess the promised, allow the Father to fulfill the promise! Why do you put limits (meta)? Why are you drawing boundaries? 39. The Holy Scriptures and other places say that the true Church should be spread to all the ends of the earth. It is written about the Savior Himself: He will rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth (Ps. 71:8). God gives Christ all countries without exception, but the Donatists unjustly reduce what was given by the Father, giving Christ only part of Africa and taking away from Him the entire universe given to Him by the Father 40. Psalm 95 says: Sing a new song to the Lord. In order to show that this does not apply to the Donatists, but to the Church, which is everywhere, it is added: sing to the Lord, all the earth... proclaim His glory among the nations, His wonders among all nations (Ps. 96:1, 3). Proclaim, it is said, among the nations, and not in the part of Africa where the Donatists are. Proclaim to all nations - no one is excluded. But the Donatists alone want to be everything without being spread throughout the world. If only the Donatists constitute the Church, then the whole earth must fall silent. Donatists must praise the name of the Lord with everyone, and if they do not want to be with everyone, let them alone be silent 41 . Thus, Optatus proves that the Church is catholic, which is spread throughout the world 42. Optatus often applies this measure to the Donatist society. Parmenian called the Church paradise. “This is true,” says Optatus, “but the paradise of the Lord must be extended in length and breadth, and the Donatists are denied from the Christian peoples of the East and North and even from many provinces of the West and countless islands. They are alone against all these peoples, obstinate, and have no communication with them 43. If you don't like us, what did Antioch or Arabia 44 do to you? The Donatists contradict themselves when they offer prayers for a single Catholic Church: their Church is not Catholic 45 . So, the true Church is that which is contained throughout the whole world (quae continetur toto orbe terrarum)” 46. To this argument Optat adds another, long familiar to us, which can be called a reference to the apostolic origin of the Church. In him we again find a list of Roman bishops up to his contemporary Siricius, with which both Africans and the whole world agree (cum quo nobiscum totus orbis commercio formatarum, in una communionis societate concordat). And just like Irenaeus and Tertullian, Optatus exclaims: “You who want to appropriate the Holy Church for yourselves, imagine the origin (originem reddite) of your pulpit!” 47. But the Donatists considered the Church false because it did not satisfy the requirement of holiness, having communion with the traditionalists. Optat focuses his attention on clarifying the doctrine of the holiness of the Church. He first of all speaks about the relative holiness of man in general, referring to the words of the Apostle John: if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). It is common for a Christian man to desire what is good and to strive for this good; but it is not given to man to be perfect, so that there is always room for God’s help (restet aliquid Deo, ubi deficienti succurrat), because only the Son of God, Christ, is perfect. People are all half perfect (semiperfecti). And Christ the Savior did not give perfection, but only promised. The Donatists cannot demand perfect holiness; they themselves are not without sin, and their teaching is not truth, but deception. Why do Donatists in the Lord's Prayer ask for forgiveness of sins if they are holy? Optat cites the Lord's parable about the publican and the Pharisee, told about those who were confident in themselves that they were righteous, and humiliated others (see: Luke 18:19–14). The Donatists are like the Pharisee (quales et vos videmus); he is their teacher. But sins with humility are better than innocence with pride. Moreover, the Donatists have no shortage of grave sins 48 . In the entire work of Optatus, in general, very often it is said about the shortcomings and various, very dark, sides of the moral life of the Donatists. In the seventh book of his work, written somewhat later, Optatus, to depict the earthly state of the Church, used for a long time for this purpose the parable of the Lord, used in church literature, about a field in which tares grow among the wheat, and this will continue until the Day of the Last Judgment. The Lord did not allow the apostles to pull out the tares, and therefore the Donatists do not have the right to do this 49. The sin of apostasy or betrayal of the sacred books is not so great that it completely destroys the holiness of the Church; the presence of traditionalists in the Church cannot be considered a sufficient basis for denying its holiness and for separating from it. Even the Apostle Peter denied Christ, and, however, the other apostles did not remove him from their midst. In persecution, Christians denied the Lord, Whom they had not seen. Peter even denied three times, but it was to him that the Savior entrusted the keys; other apostles, innocent themselves, could have closed the doors of repentance against the fallen 50. Optatus repeats Cyprian's reasoning that apostasy, as a forced sin, is not as serious as voluntary sins - murder or fornication. This especially needs to be said about the issuance of holy books. Even Moses broke the tablets of the law, and yet the Lord did not become unmerciful to Moses. In the Old Testament there is an example of the issuance of a sacred book: Baruch gave the book of the prophet Jeremiah, written at the inspiration of God (see: Jer. 36:27), and, however, God was not angry, and Baruch was not punished. The issuance of books did not harm the Church, since the Holy Scriptures still remained. Is it really better for a person to be killed than for books to be given out? But people remained intact, and there is no shortage of books. The books of the law and God are not the same thing. One can die for God; He is powerful both to resurrect from the dead and to give a reward, but a book that is not faithful cannot do either one or the other 51 . However, the Donatists attached such importance to the sin of apostasy that a bishop who had stained himself with this sin could not, in their opinion, impart any grace, and the Sacraments performed by him were invalid. Therefore, the Donatists baptized Catholics who came to them. Apart from Donatist society, there is no grace and Sacraments anywhere; heretics and schismatics are completely equal in this regard. True, this same position was defended, as we have seen, by St. Cyprian, but there is also a dogmatic difference. St. Cyprian based the lack of grace among those outside the Church precisely on their contradiction and enmity with the Church. Donatists deny grace in the Church because there are traditionists in it even among the hierarchy, and therefore it is not holy 52. Optatus, refuting in detail these points of the Donatist teaching, sets out his concept of the holiness of the Church, which would not be contradicted by the presence of those who have gravely sinned even among the hierarchy. Donatists deny baptism performed by a traditionalist and place the reality of the Sacrament in inextricable connection with the personality of its performer. But such a criterion for the validity of the Sacrament cannot be accepted. Historically, Optatus establishes that at the beginning of Donatism there were traditionalist bishops 53. Therefore, the validity of all baptism must be denied. If a traditionalist cannot baptize, then the Donatists cannot baptize, since it has been proven that the founders of Donatism were traditionalists. In general, if baptism performed by a sinner is invalid, then there is no baptism at all, because, according to the testimony of the word of God, everyone is a sinner; Donatists, who were guilty of many serious crimes, are not excluded 55. To prove their position that the Sacrament is invalid without the holiness of the person performing it, the Donatists cited several passages of Holy Scripture: for example, let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head (Ps. 141:5). The words of the prophet Jeremiah about waterless springs were attributed to the church hierarchy (see: Jer. 2:13). Optatus analyzes these passages of Holy Scripture in detail, proving that they cannot have the meaning that the Donatists attribute to them 56. On the contrary, these words speak against the Donatists themselves 57. In contrast to the Donatists, Optatus expresses and substantiates the doctrine of the independence of the sanctifying power of the Sacraments from the moral qualities of their performers. The validity of baptism does not depend either on place or on persons, but on the Trinity - this is the general position of Optat 58. According to the teachings of the Donatists, the name of the Holy Trinity has no meaning where there is no worthy performer of the Sacrament 59. Optat teaches otherwise. God, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, also acts where there is no human person. In the book of Genesis we read that the waters carried away every living soul, and this, of course, was due to the action of the Holy Trinity. There was no fourth person, and there were no Donatists. If, says Optat ironically, the Trinity can do nothing without you, then return the fish to their original state (in originem); You will drown even the flying birds in the waters, if in your absence the Trinity cannot do anything 60. Christ said that he who has been washed has no need to be washed again, because he is clean (see: John 13:10). He said this about that washing that receives power from the Trinity, not about the washing of Jews or heretics, who, when they wash, defile, but about the holy water that flows from the springs of the three names. So the Lord Himself taught, saying: “Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (see: Matt. 28:19). He said once and thereby forbade the repetition of baptism, and spoke about the object, and not about the person; for, if there had been any difference, he would have said: “who is once well washed,” but since he did not add the word “good,” he showed that what was done in the name of the Trinity is good 61 . Considering in detail the Sacrament of Baptism, Optat reasons as follows. There are three parties involved in the Sacrament of Baptism: the Holy Trinity, the believer (the baptized) and the person performing the baptism. Each of these aspects has different meaning. The first two are necessary, the third is only quasi necessariam. The first place belongs to the Holy Trinity, without which baptism itself is impossible; The faith of the baptized person follows Her; the face of the performer of baptism is already something extraneous (vicina), which does not have equal significance. The Holy Trinity and faith remain always and unchanged and always retain their power. The face of the performer cannot have equal significance because it alone is changeable. Considering themselves saints, the Donatists do not think about contrasting their pride with the Trinity, but the personality of the performer is changeable, and the Holy Trinity is unchangeable; Some people baptize today, others tomorrow. A sacrament cannot depend on the personality of its performer, because it cannot be changeable (sacramenta mutari non possunt). Therefore, all who baptize are only performers, not stewards, not masters (operarios ease, non dominos) 62. And then Optat decisively expresses his most important position: “The sacraments are holy in themselves, and not from people” 63. The Donatists, linking the power of the Sacrament with the personality of its performer, said in refutation of the opinion of the Catholics and in proof of the invalidity of the baptism performed by their hierarchy: “How can anyone give what he himself does not have?” This argument, which we also encountered in St. Cyprian, Optat analyzes and refutes in detail. The Giver is the Lord. God purifies someone. No one can wash away the impurities and vices of the soul (mentis) except God, Who is also the Creator of the soul. If you, he says to the Donatists, think that purification (lavacrum) belongs to you, then tell me what the very soul is that is washed through the body, or what form it has, or in what place of man it dwells. This person does not know. Therefore, how do you think that you are washing when you do not know what it is that you are washing? It is God who makes you clean, not man. He himself, through the prophet Isaiah, said: Though your sins are like scarlet, they will be white as snow (Isaiah 1:18). If God promised so, then why do you want to give something that you cannot be promised, given, or had? God promised to whiten sins himself, and not through a person 64. If the Donatists claim that with them all the gifts in the Sacraments are given by the celebrant, then it means that those who are baptized are immersed in the name of the baptizer. But this is not what the Apostle Paul says (see: 1 Cor. 1:13) 65. The Donatists maintained that the gift of baptism belongs to the giver, not to the recipient. This is true if by the giver we mean God, but man cannot be considered the giver. Optat represents such a case. Donatists, who consider themselves saints, baptize the non-believer. Catholics, whom Donatists call sinners, baptize the believer. The question is: which of the two baptized receives the grace of God? Of course, the one who believes. Just as a dyer (artifex purpurae) cannot say that he is dyeing independently of the precious dyes with one touch of his hands, so the celebrant of baptism cannot communicate anything without the Holy Trinity. Anyone who baptizes in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, fulfills the work of the apostles. After all, the apostles were also commanded that the celebration of the Sacrament (opus) would be [from them], and the sanctification - of the Trinity, and they immersed not in their own name, but in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; therefore, it is the name that sanctifies, not the performance of the sacrament. If the Church is a vineyard, then people are the vinedressers and the initiates are the cultivators. So, indeed, the Apostle Paul attributes everything to God, and not to people (see: 1 Cor. 3:7). The celebrant of the Sacrament must not appropriate to himself what belongs to God. It wouldn't be fair. The meaning of the performer is very limited. This is only a servant. Grace is not given to those who command, but to those who shepherd. The Apostle, along with himself, humbly calls others servants. Lest anyone think that they should place all their hope in the apostles or bishops alone, Paul said: Who is Paul? Who is Apollos? They are only the servants of Him in whom you have believed (1 Cor. 3:5) 66. All representatives of the hierarchy have not dominion, but service (non dominium, sed ministerium) 67. Grace is given from God Himself according to the faith of the recipient. Optat reveals the meaning of faith and its necessity for receiving grace by interpreting the miracle of Christ’s healing of the bleeding woman (see: Matt. 9:20–22; Luke 8:43–48) and the servant of the Capernaum centurion (see: Matt. 8:5–13) 68. Thus, at baptism, when the Most Holy Trinity agrees with faith, one born for the ages is spiritually reborn for God. The father of people is God, the mother is the Holy Church, and the performer of the Sacrament (operarius), being a man, does not appropriate anything to himself, as the Donatists do 69. The Church possesses the sanctifying gifts of the Spirit regardless of the dignity of hierarchical persons, and these persons are only ministers of the Church in distributing her grace-filled gifts 70 . The Church possesses these gifts all together, because they are inseparable from one another 71 . This is how Optatus approaches his definition of the holiness of the Church. The Donatists, out of pride, ascribe to themselves a special holiness (speciales sanotitatem), and on this holiness they base the holiness of the Church itself 72 . This, as Optatus has already shown, a very shaky principle of the Donatists was not shared by church writers. The sacraments do not depend on the personality of the priest: they are holy in themselves. Likewise, the holiness of the Church does not depend on the holiness of its members; on the contrary, the members of the Church themselves receive holiness from the Church. The Church is one, and its holiness lies in the Sacraments, and not in the pride of individuals 73 . The last brief words decisively express the formula of the holiness of the Church, the absence of which gave rise to many perplexities and misconceptions in the Church of early centuries. The question was constantly raised: how to reconcile the holiness of the Church with the inevitable moral shortcomings of its members? The demand for the sanctity of life could always only be relative. When the very holiness of the Church was determined only by this requirement, the inconsistency of [such] solution to the issue was obvious. From the beginning, the Church accepted into its fellowship even those who had sinned gravely, recognizing that its task was to educate humanity. A number of rigorists accused her of violating holiness, until finally, in the 4th century, the church teaching on the holiness of the Church was formulated, in which the sinfulness of the members of the Church does not at all concern the holiness of the Church itself. This teaching is the dogmatic result of the fight against Donatism 74. By placing the validity of baptism in a particularly close connection with the confession of the Holy Trinity, Optat was thereby forced to recognize schismatic baptism as valid, which was in full agreement with established church practice. Optatus completely agrees with his opponent that the Church is one 75, the bride of the one Christ 76, but strongly protests against the confusion of heretics and schismatics; there is a big difference between the two 77. The heretics rejected the truth and distorted the very symbol of faith (falsaverunt symbolum): one says that there are two Gods, the other wants to recognize the Father in the person of the Son, 78 and the like. Therefore, the Sacraments of the Church are alien to heretics 79; they have neither the Sacraments nor other gifts of the Church 80; their baptism is false; the unclean cannot make him clean 81. Not at all - schismatics. They have a lot in common with the Church, and most importantly, they have the same faith with the Church. They saved a lot because they left the Church 82. And therefore the schismatic Sacraments cannot be denied, although schismatics are outside the one universal Church 83 . The conditions for complete unity with the Church are unity of faith, one true Creed and unanimity 84. Schismatics lack the latter. Schism, having destroyed the bonds of the world, is born from differences in opinions, feeds on malice, envy and disputes and strengthens itself, so that when, having left the universal mother, the rebellious (impii) children go out and are separated from the root of the mother Church, being cut off by the scythe of envy, rebellious, they go away, wandering; and they cannot do anything new or do anything differently than what they have already learned from their mother 85 . Optat treats the Donatists very leniently. From the very beginning of his work, he calls Parmenian his brother and justifies this act of his. Referring to Isa. 66:5, he says that one cannot help but call those who cannot but be brothers brothers. They are brothers, albeit unkind ones. After all, Ham, although he laughed at his father’s nakedness, was nevertheless a brother to the innocent Shem and Japheth 86 . And schismatics, with the unity of their confession with the Church, are brothers for the members of the latter 87. The separation of the Donatists from the Church does not mean a complete falling away from it 88. They even seem to constitute the Church, but not the Catholic Church 89 . But at the same time, Optat says quite definitely that they do not belong to the Church, that they are outside it 90, that they are only usurping the name of the Church 91. Optatus argues that schism is a great and grave sin, along with treason, even summum malum 92. Schism is disgusting to God 93; it brings Him inconsolable tears 94. Whoever did not want to remain with his brothers in the Church, following the heretics, went out as the Antichrist 95. Optatus is inclined to deny the real life of grace among the Donatists: he compares them to branches broken from a tree, to the cut off branches of a vine; they are a stream separated from the source 96. One cannot help but notice some instability and incompleteness in Optat’s latest arguments. He either considers schismatics to have left the Church, to be outside the Church, or says that their separation is not a complete falling away. And then the question is quite appropriate: if the Sacraments are valid in schismatic societies, then is salvation not possible outside the Church and even in hostility to it? Or, perhaps, even with the reality of the Sacraments outside the Church, salvation is only in the Church? But then why do the Sacraments, even with their reality, not bring benefits outside the Church? Optat has no answer to all these questions. His clear and definite judgments about the holiness of the Sacraments, regardless of the person performing them, were adopted by Blessed Augustine, who gave an answer to all the questions posed. The new concept of the holiness of the Church reaches its full development, justification and disclosure in theological literature in the greatest of Western church writers - Blessed Augustine. Blessed Augustine 97 was the most prominent fighter against Donatism: he fought verbally, speaking in public debates, [and] wrote many works in refutation of Donatism. There was almost not a single phenomenon in the history of mutual 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 or 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 98. Sometimes the rather extensive works of St. Augustine, directed against the Donatists, are filled with dogmatic judgments about the Church and are distinguished by an overwhelming abundance of argumentation 99 . But since blzh. 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 the blessed one. Augustine on the Church in its main points, leaving aside the details of his argument 100. 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 the teaching and the fullness of the Sacraments 101. Augustine also accepts this understanding of the term “catholic” 102; however, he insists primarily that the true Church must be universal, must be spread throughout the whole 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 its very name, catholic. The Greek word καθ᾿ ὅ λον means “universal” 103 . St. Augustine devotes most of his work “De unitate Ecclesiae” to proof of the need for the Church to be universal. To this end, he cites a whole series of evidence, primarily from the Old Testament, seeing in them either transformations 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 104 . For Augustine, almost every page of Scripture speaks of the need for the Church to be spread throughout the entire world 105 . Christ, having founded the Church, sent the apostles to preach His name to the last of the earth 106. 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 testament 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 107, 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 to the Apostle Peter in his vision of a vessel descending from heaven, tied at four corners (see: 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 directions 108. 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 Paul wrote letters still exist today. 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, however, in their blindness (caecitate) they condemn unknown Churches 109, while unity with all Churches is a sign of belonging to the true universal Church 110. Therefore, Augustine often calls every Local Church catholic 111. The Donatists also held firm at the end of the 4th 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, people appeared 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 112. 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. 1:4). For let it not be that the Church, which has no filth or defect (Eph. 5:27), which the Lord has 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”; Otherwise, she is all good, as it is said: You are all good, my neighbor, and there is no vice in you (Song. 4:7). Moreover, he explains why she is black and kind, in the words: like the village of Kidarsk, like veils of Solomon (Song. 1:4). It indicates two tents: the royal and the slave. But both are the seed of Abraham, for Kedar is the son of Ishmael... But we cannot say that the tent of Kedar is outside the Church. For he himself says: the tent of Kidar and Solomon, that is why he said: black am I 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 both 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 merit (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 Abraham’s seed grows, blossoms and perishes” 113. “Two bodies are united, as it were, into one, and one body is simultaneously praised and blamed” 114. Esau and Jacob for Tikhonius are images of two components of the Church. Two peoples are fighting in one womb of the mother Church. Of these, one is beloved by choice and foreknowledge, the other is hated by choice of one’s own will. 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 the receptacle of both... Although the images of Israel and Esau are divided by believers, everything then grows into one nation... so and now under the dominion of the New (Testament) there is no shortage of sons of slavery 115. 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” 116, 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 (that is, the Church) 117 . 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, Bozrah, Seir, he depicts evil brothers, for they constitute the possessions of Esau” 118. 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 for himself from this and remained a Donatist. Among the Donatists, Tychonius's work caused discontent. The head of the Donatists, Parmenian, and other bishops strongly protested 119. At first, Parmenian persuaded Tichonius in writing to renounce his teaching about the Church, and then Tikhonius was condemned by the Donatist Council 120. Obviously, a different idea of ​​the Church prevailed among the Donatists. We learn about this idea in detail from the writings of St. Augustine. According to the teachings of the Donatists, there should be no sinners in the Church. Many passages from Holy Scripture were cited as proof of this position 121 . The Donatist society satisfies this requirement; Among the Donatists there is no one with any vice 122. 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 123. It is not even known whether there are good Christians among all the peoples overseas 124. Parmenian even affirmed positively that Gaul, Spain, Italy and their accomplices (which he wants to consider the whole world, notes Augustine), having relations with the African traditions, are similar to them in crimes 125. Augustine 126 presents the earthly state of the Church in a completely different way. Thus, 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. While the net is in the sea, the fish are both good and thin 127. There is no need to break off fellowship with sinners, but, of course, one must withdraw from fellowship in sins 128 . Sinners in the Church cannot do any harm. Only as a last resort should they be excluded, but without disturbing the peace (salva rase). And if this exclusion can disturb the peace, then it is better to exclude them only from the heart. The prophet Ezekiel (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 129. And among the Jewish people there are seven thousand men faithful to God (see: 1 Kings. 19:18), and other godly 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 tempeo miscebantur), but were distant in heart (mixti non erant corde) 130. Noah's Ark is also a symbol of the Church, and there were clean and unclean animals in it. “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 insist that there be no unclean animals there with us until the end of the flood.”131 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 until the end of the century 132. The field is the world, not Africa; the harvest is the end of the age, not the time of Donatus 133. 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 134! 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 135 . In the Holy Scriptures, the Lord Himself says that there will be few good ones; but of those same few it is said that there will be many. The Apocalypse says that there will be thousands of thousands of holy children of the Church (see: Rev. 5:11). They are few only in comparison with the unworthy 136. This is how Blessed Augustine judges 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 137 . However, Blessed Augustine himself says that such an idea of ​​the Church does not mean neglect of church discipline, and everyone is allowed to do what he pleases, without any effort on the part of the Church to correct him 138. 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 significance. It is not the sword of an enemy inflicting a wound, but of a physician cutting (a wound), as Augustine says 139. Among the Donatists, their discipline serves only to separate them not only from the vicious, but also from the multitude of the good 140. 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 is guilty is punished.” 141 Augustine reminds Petilian how he accepted the deposed deacon Splendonius through rebaptism, ordained him as a presbyter, and then himself excommunicated him 142. Excommunication, therefore, also 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 143. And first of all, excommunication can be applied when schism does not result from it, and moreover, the excommunication itself should be with love, as the apostle says: do not consider him an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thess. 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” 144. 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 145. 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 146. Blzh. Augustine explains those passages in the Epistles 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 147. But if many sin, then they cannot be corrected by separating them from fellowship 148: there will be no longer separation, but division, which will not so much correct the bad, but strong in spirit, as it will confuse the good, but weak 149. 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 among you” (see: 1 Cor. 5:13); that is, if you cannot remove the evil from your midst, then remove the most evil from yourself. 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 in maintaining unity he will notice the strictness of discipline and will not break the union of society by immoderate demands 150. The Church cannot be reproached for the morals of those whom it itself condemns and whom it tries every day to correct 151 . Donatists sometimes referred to the times of St. Cyprian, saying that in his time the Church was holy. Augustine says in detail that St. Киприан хотя и судил резко о порочных людях, однако не порывал с ними церковного общения, будучи, конечно, далек от их жизни и нравов 152 . Св. Киприан вкушал Хлеб Господень и пил Чашу Господню не только с порочными мирянами, но даже и с недостойными епископами 153 . 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 154. Августин часто и много говорит, что и общество донатистов по своему нравственному состоянию не удовлетворяет их догматическому учению о святости Церкви: учение их о Святой Церкви есть лишь неудачное теоретическое положение, которого нельзя приложить к действительности. Донатисты укоряли Церковь в самых разнообразных пороках и преступлениях ее членов; in response to this they receive from Augustine an indication of their shortcomings. Particularly often, polemicists against Donatism pointed to the furies of the circumcellions, with whom the Donatists, however, never broke their unity 155. The crimes of the representatives of the Church were in the past, but the circumcellions live and act to this day 156. All such mutual rooting of each other 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. Blzh. 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 only wheat in the Church, and suddenly among this wheat there were tares. Reproach the Donatists for the moral shortcomings of the blessed one. Augustine could only switch to their dogmatic point of view and thereby show the impossibility of their teaching about the Church, because, consistently carried out, it should lead to the recognition that the Church does not exist 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 the Judgment and until the end of the age, represents a field where wheat and tares grow together. Blzh. 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 157. In Scripture these two periods are symbolized in two miraculous fisheries. During the first catch (see: Luke 5:4) the Lord does not say anything about the right and left sides, which shows that in the nets of His Sacraments there will be neither good nor evil, but the evil will be mixed with the good. After the resurrection, [He] ordered to throw the net on the right side (see: Jn. 21:6–11), so that we understand that after our resurrection there will be only good people in the Church 158. 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 159. 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 the 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 story about the Ascension of the Lord (see: Luke 24:49–52), Augustine especially draws attention to the fact that the apostles, after the ascension, returned precisely to earthly Jerusalem 160. In Acts (see: Acts 1 and 8) certain localities and cities are also named where the Church spread, and this is as if to indicate the visibility of both the Church and Jerusalem, from where it spread 161. 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 162. 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 (see: Gal. 5:19–21). 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 163. Such people are outside the Church, although in appearance they belong to it 164. The True Church consists only of the good; they are true members of the Body of Christ, and some words of Holy Scripture apply only to the Church of saints. 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 165. From this Church, which has no defilement or vice, the sinner is excommunicated, even if he has outward unity with the saints 166. There is no benefit for him in the Sacraments 167. Sometimes only the saints are even called the Church 168. It is possible, apparently, to be in the Church and, however, be alien to that spiritual union of love, which forms the true Church 169. It is necessary to 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 170. 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: in the Church there are righteous and sinners, but the Church consists only of the righteous. Augustine considers righteous people to be the Church primarily, but not exclusively. While the Church is on earth, both the righteous and the sinners equally enter into it 171. Church of Saints, according to the teachings of the 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 172. 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 174. Only an impious and arrogant proud person can separate from the Church under the pretext of holiness, as the Donatists did 175. “I hold,” writes Augustine, “to a Church full of wheat and tares. If there are traditions 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 myself from those who remain alive in the holy unity of the same Church. I don't need to separate. If I recognize such in the unity of the Mysteries, then with the word and law (disciplina) of the Lord I correct whom I can, and tolerate those whom I could not correct. I avoid the chaff, lest I become one myself, but I do not leave the threshing floor, lest I become nothing.”176 Thus, the saints in the Church dwell together with 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 177. 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 178. The teachings of the blessed Augustine about the Church stands in connection with his doctrine of predestination, although for some scientists these two points in the system of the blessed one. Augustine seem to contradict each other. Blzh. Augustine attached great importance to predestination in the matter of salvation 179. Those predestined 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 180, and they will achieve this salvation precisely in the Church 181. 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 182 before him. It is clear that such a doctrine of predestination is completely inconsistent with the Donatist view of the Church. Every sinner cannot be excommunicated from the Church, because, despite his grave sins, he may still be predestined 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 must have the same purpose. 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 183 . Not only the predestined belong to the Church, and not all the predestined belong to the Church 184. The writings of St. Augustine, where he polemicizes against Donatism, give the impression as if he were constantly defending sinners; It is not sinners who defile the Church 185, 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 separated from it. So in the works of the blessed one. 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 186. The Church is only preparing to become glorious, without filth or vice 187. 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 height of the morality of life 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 took place 188. Invalid The sacrament performed by the traditionalist is one of the most important dogmatic provisions of Donatism 189. At the same time, the Church, in communicating grace to people, is entirely dependent on the moral qualities of its hierarchy 190 and cannot tolerate traitors among the hierarchy without violating its holiness. At the blzh. 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 191. First of all, the blzh. 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 (see: 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 192. You need to look for an Angel in order to be baptized by him 193. 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 194 . 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 not valid, then the Donatists must again baptize all those who were baptized in their society by an unworthy person 195. After all, they cannot deny that in their society there are, perhaps unknown to them, unworthy hierarchs 196 . 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 vilify them no less than the Orthodox 197. 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 not known, then the Sacrament remains in force 198. Petilian, in his response to Augustine and the Donatists in general, added: The Sacrament is invalid when it is received from a person who is obviously (sciens) unfaithful 199 . The Donatists did not deny the reality of the Sacraments performed by hypocrites. But, of course, rightly so. 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 200. If we connect the reality of the 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 the Holy Spirit, it was impossible to receive sanctification 201. Therefore, if the Donatists want to be consistent, they must baptize again everyone whom the one who excommunicated them baptized even before his excommunication 202 . 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, however, in their society still recognized baptism as valid and regardless of the personal holiness of the performer, precisely when his unworthiness is unknown. It turned out like this: only what the Donatists want to consider sacred is sacred 203 . 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 completely destroying the Sacraments. After all, a sinful clergyman can hide his sin until death, and everyone baptized by him loses the hope of salvation. The final result is that it is completely unknown who belongs to the Church and who does not. No one can be sure of their belonging to the Church. There is always room for the question: what if I am baptized as a hidden sinner 204? It is clear why, having pointed out this contradiction in the views of the Donatists, Augustine insists on it so much 205. 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 206. Having shown the internal inconsistency and inconsistency of the Donatist view, Blessed. Augustine, following in general Optatus 207, 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 208 . And about any bishop, even if he was not a traditionalist, it can still be said that he is a sinner, like every person 209. 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 Holy Scripture, which says: it is better to trust in the Lord than to trust in man (Ps. 118:8). Cursed is the man who trusts in man (Jer. 17:5). All who make the Sacrament dependent not only on God, but on man 210 are subject to such a curse. Salvation based on man is worthless. Salvation is from the Lord (Ps. 3:9), and human salvation (salus) is in vain (Ps. 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 is why the Apostle Paul condemns those who called themselves Paul’s, and said: was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:13) 211. We must rely on God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and not on Peter or Paul, and especially not on Donatus or Petilian 212. 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 (see: 1 John 2:1-2), Who was symbolically depicted in the Old Testament as the High Priest. 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 213. 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 214. The Holy Scriptures speak of cases where the grace of God is poured out directly on 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 descended (see: Acts 2:1–4). Even when the Church already existed (constituto jam ordine Ecciesiae), 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 Peter himself was surprised (see: Acts 10:44) 215. 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 the person 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 216. If the performer is evil, then he performs only the visible form of the Sacrament, and God Himself gives invisible grace 217. After all, even the pagans think that they receive imaginary sanctification not from the priests, but from the gods 218. 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 219? “I,” writes Augustine, “do not believe in the minister who baptized me, but in Him who justifies the wicked and imputes to me faith in righteousness” 220. Only Christ baptizes, because it is said about Him: He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (see: John 1:33) 221. 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 His disciples (John 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 223. So now a person, no matter what he may be, cannot communicate sanctification, because he is not God 224. Only Christ is eternally alive, and therefore the sanctification given by Him is always valid 225. Christ, sending His apostles to preach, blew and said: Receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). 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, children of God can be born spiritually through them 226. The presence of vicious 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; 10:12), who was delivered for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Rom. 4:25) 227. Of course, when allowing one to perform the Sacraments, one should first be tested (1 Tim. 3:10), in accordance with the instructions of the Apostle Paul, but no test can completely protect one from the unworthy 228. After all, the Donatists themselves had unworthy bishops 229. 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 230. 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, bringing to him an eternal reward and regeneration 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. Therefore, the apostle says: if I do this voluntarily, then I will have a reward, and if involuntarily, then I perform only 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 didn't say that his ministry didn't 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 231. The truth remains the truth even if it is expressed by an evil person. After all, the demons also confessed Christ in the same way as the Apostle Peter (see: Matt. 16:16; 8:29; 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 232. The spiritual effect of the Sacrament is like a ray of sunlight, which is not polluted if it passes through unclean places 233. “I am not afraid,” writes Augustine, “neither an adulterer, nor a drunkard, nor a murderer, because it is said to me: He is the baptizer 234, I received baptism from Christ 235, and it always remains the same 236.” 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 one begins to receive it 237. Whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks condemnation for himself (1 Cor. 11:29). It is not said “condemnation to all,” but to oneself 238 . So, the Sacrament retains its holiness even with an unworthy performer 239. This point of the teachings of the 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 communicates grace in the Sacraments by virtue of his ecclesiastical position, his ecclesiastical position, and not always, of course, by 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 his polemics with Donatism, St. Augustine could resort to immanent criticism. In the previous history of the dogma of the Church, as we have seen, 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. But the recognition of the complete independence of the Sacraments from the personality of their performer with logical necessity entailed the recognition of the Sacraments outside the Church; the baptism of schismatics must be recognized as valid, because their confession is the same as in the Church 240. St. Augustine recognizes the baptism of the Donatists as completely valid. He devoted a special essay in seven books to the issue of baptism, which is directed against the Donatists. Sacraments, no matter where they are, remain Sacraments 241. They are holy in themselves 242. Outside the catholic union, baptism not only can be preserved, but can also be taught 243. This is my position blzh. Augustine justifies it theoretically. He who is baptized in the Catholic Church retains his baptism even when he falls into schism. But the one who has received initiation also retains the grace of the priesthood, and this grace includes the right to communicate baptism. There is no need to be unjust in relation to any of the Sacraments 244. It would be inconsistent to recognize the preservation of baptism, but to deny schismatics the right to teach it, to consider invalid baptism taught by schismatics. The right to administer baptism is not some new right - it is included in the circle of rights of another Sacrament - the priesthood, which is preserved by schismatics in the same way as baptism itself. In addition, blzh. Augustine cites some passages from Holy Scripture in defense of the baptism of schismatics: he recalls and comments on the Gospel story about a man who cast out demons in the name of Jesus Christ, without being His disciple. Christ then said to the disciples: whoever is not against you is for you (Luke 9:50). From this it should be seen that those who stand outside the Church in some matters are not against the Church and have something of the Church’s wealth. They also have the Church Sacraments 245. They seem to have stolen these Sacraments from the Church 246. When they turn to the Church, they no longer need to receive what they do not need, because they already had this; they must only correct themselves in what they have shied away from. This judgment applies to all schismatics: they are not excommunicated from the Church in everything; there are points in which they are not against the Catholic Church, therefore with the Church 247. Finally, Augustine points out to the Donatists that, while they rebaptize Catholics, they do not rebaptize their schismatics, for example, the Maximianists 248. On the schism of Maximian Blzh. Augustine even looks from a providential point of view: it is a blessing from God, because it most clearly exposes the error of the Donatists 249. Augustine devotes the entire fourth book of his work “Against Cresconius” to the cause of the Maximianists. In addition, Augustine also wrote a special short work that has not survived to us - “Admonitio Donatistarum de Maximianistis” 251, and then also “Librum de Maximianistis contra Donatistas, non brevissimun sicut antea, sed grandem, multo diligentius” 252. This work also has not survived. But the Donatists also had an argument in favor of schismatic baptism: they referred to the teaching of St. Cyprian of Carthage and the resolution of the entire Carthage Council. The reference to Cyprian was the favorite and most common among the Donatists 253 . Obviously, the blessed one himself. Augustine attached particular importance to this argument of the Donatists - he devotes almost his entire essay “On Baptism” to explaining the contradiction between his teaching and the church practice of his time, on the one hand, and the teaching of St. Cyprian - on the other. Blzh. Augustine admits that indeed St. Cyprian thought differently about the baptism of schismatics. However, the Donatists have no right to refer to the authority of Cyprian. Augustine quotes the famous speech of St. Cyprian at the opening of the Council of Carthage in 256, where he refuses to force anyone to necessarily agree with him. Cyprian allows for the possibility of differences of opinion and urges not to break church unity due to differences in opinions 254. He was a special champion of church peace: he himself did not separate himself from those who thought differently, and he convinced others to adhere to church unity 255. And therefore Augustine turns to the Donatists with the question: why do they, referring so often to the opinion and definition of Cyprian, do not take from him an example of how firmly one must adhere to the church peace 256. Thus, Cyprian, by his example, denounces the Donatists 257, and Bl. Augustine often and persistently asks the Donatists the question: quare vinculum disrupistis? Quare vos separastis? 258. Cyprian thought differently; he did not place differences of opinion above church unity 259 . Detailing Cyprian's letters to Jubayan and Quintus, Augustine shows how far Cyprian is from the Donatists. Moreover, St. Cyprian himself, in a letter to Quintus, cites the example of the Apostle Peter, how he, being convinced by Paul, changed his incorrect understanding of the Gospel (non recte in aliquo ingredi ad veritatem Evangelii). And Cyprian himself was always ready not only to teach, but also to learn, he was ready to willingly accept everything that was shown to him, the best 260. The question of the baptism of schismatics was very controversial, and only among differences of opinion it had to be resolved, among the reasoning of bishops 261. In his solution to the issue, Cyprian relied on the decision of the earlier Council under Agrippina and on local custom 262. At that time, the general agreement of the Church (totius Ecclesiae consensio) had not yet been established on this issue, the opinion of the general Council (plenarii concilii) 263 had not been expressed. That is why Cyprian did not consider it possible to demand everyone’s consent to this custom. Afterwards, among many and from different sides of reasoning and research, it was not only established, but also determined otherwise by the authority of the general Council, which took place after the suffering of Cyprian and even before our birth. The general is always rightly preferred to the particular (Universum partibus semper jure optimo praeponitur) 264. If St. Cyprian did not consider his opinion binding; therefore, he admitted that another opinion could be true. But even if the opinion of Cyprian and the Donatists is true, it must still be said that the Donatists were wrong in separating from the Catholics. They separate, of course, because they consider communication with them to be destruction for the true Church. But St. Cyprian did not separate himself from those who thought differently; Consequently, the Church perished during the time of Cyprian, and Donatus received both baptism and initiation not in the true Church. And if the Church did not perish under Cyprian, then the Donatists separated from the Catholic Church in vain 265. But the most important thing from a historical-dogmatic point of view is the fact that Augustine does not consider the dogmatic teaching about the Church of St. Cyprian is completely complete and consistently revealed: he also reveals in Cyprian some elements of the very teaching that he himself decisively expresses. Augustine 266 pays special attention to the following words of Cyprian in a letter to Yubayan: “What will happen to those who, having previously turned from heresy to the Church, were received into the Church without baptism? - Cyprian asks and answers: “The Lord, in His mercy, is able to grant them forgiveness, and those who have been accepted into the Church, and have fallen asleep in the Church, will not be deprived of the gifts of His Church” 267. It is obvious that St. Cyprian considered such people to be baptized. They could not have been saved if they had not been in the ark, that is, in the Church, but how are they in the ark if they were not reborn in water? For their unity with the Church, the water of baptism, performed outside the Church, served them as salvation. All those who are with their hearts in the Church in the unity of the ark are saved by the same water, which for all opponents of unity, who stand outside their hearts, whether they are actually separated from the Church or not, serves to destruction 268. This is the defense of schismatic baptism given by St. Augustine. But if schismatic baptism is truly schismatic and if not only the Church possesses the Sacraments, then isn’t salvation possible both outside the Church and without the Church? Does this not allow for the existence of many Churches, mutually divided, even hostile to each other? How can the validity of baptism outside the Church be reconciled with the unity of the Church? To these questions blzh. Augustine had to give answers, especially since the Donatists sometimes objected like this: you recognize our baptism, but we do not recognize yours; therefore, our baptism is more reliable, and everyone should prefer our baptism, as it more ensures his salvation 269. How does the blessed one answer? Augustine to the questions posed? The baptism of schismatics, says Augustine, is the same baptism, but it does not bring them any benefit; Moreover, it only brings them harm 270: it does not lead to eternal life, but to eternal punishment 271. Gold is undoubtedly good, and it remains gold for robbers, but it serves evil purposes; he who has gold should not be in company with robbers 272. Many good things generally have a good purpose; however, truly goodness only happens in the hands of those who use it well. Light is a help to healthy eyes (adjumentum), but torment to sick eyes. The same food nourishes some and harms others; the same medicine heals some and weakens others; weapons protect some, only hinder others; the clothes cover some, confuse others. So the baptism of some leads to the Kingdom, others to condemnation 273, just as the waves of the Red Sea served the Israelites for salvation, but for Pharaoh for destruction 274. During the flood, the water destroyed those who were outside the ark, and in the same way the good members of the Church (boni catholici) are saved, and the evil ones (mali catholici) or heretics perish 275. The Apostle Paul says about the law: the law is good if anyone uses it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8). If someone uses the law illegally, then the law will obviously remain good, but will ultimately be evil 276. Even about the Body and Blood of the Lord itself, this only Sacrifice for our salvation, the apostle says: whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27) 277. Why can't the same be said about baptism? Is it possible that everyone who receives baptism is necessarily good? Although baptism is a blessing, it does not benefit everyone who has it 278. But why exactly does schismatic baptism bring not justification, but condemnation? To this Augustine responds decisively and persistently: because heretics do not have love; This is what their separation from the Church speaks of. He who has love cannot be a heretic or schismatic 279. Anyone who has separated from the Church has no love. He who does not love the unity of the Church does not have the love of God 280. He who does not adhere to unity in vain says that he has Christ's love 281. There can be no legitimate reason to separate from the Church, 282 and therefore schism itself is certainly a grave sin, 283 which deprives one of all saving grace of the Sacraments. He who is outside the Church can no longer be good. The very separation from the Church makes him evil 284. St. Augustine cites the sublime speech of the Apostle Paul, where he says that no matter what gifts he possesses, he is nothing if he does not have love (see: 1 Cor. 13:1-3). Caiaphas prophesied (see: John 11:49–52), but was condemned. Likewise, schismatics cannot be saved by the Sacraments, for they have no love 285 . Without love and unity there is no Holy Spirit, and without the Spirit there is no benefit from the Sacraments 286 and true virtue is impossible 287. The Apostle says that if I know all mysteries (sacramenta), but do not have love, then I am nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). What is baptism? Sacrament (sacramentum). Obviously, without love it will not bring any benefit. He did not say that without love everything he listed is nothing, but that he himself is nothing. All of the above is great, and I have great things, and yet I myself am nothing if I do not have love. Only love makes everything useful for me. I can have everything great, but without love it will not bring me any benefit 288. Augustine repeats this basic position when answering various questions about the Sacraments outside the united Church. They asked: does the baptism of Donatists give birth to children of God? If it gives birth, then Donatism is the true Church, but the Church is one; There cannot be two true Churches. If they do not give birth, then they must be baptized again at their conversion 289 . Augustine solves this perplexity this way. Schismatics are separated from the Church not by baptism - their baptism is ecclesiastical, but precisely by their isolation; It is not separation from the Church that gives birth to them, but baptism, which they retained even in separation from the Church. However, they were born in vain. A person reborn in baptism has no benefit from this if he does not retain love at all, even if he does not visibly separate from the Church; Moreover, outside the Church all the Sacraments are useless. He who has no love or who is schismatic receives no benefit from baptism as long as he remains such. For a sinner who is in the Church, baptism begins to be saving when he acquires love, and for a schismatic, when he unites with the Church. But just as the first is not baptized again, so the second should not be baptized. He has baptism, but without benefit. And when he joins the Church, what he already had becomes useful for him. The Church gives birth to children both from her own womb (per uterum suum), and from the womb of her handmaidens (per uteros ancillarum), and gives birth by the same Sacraments, from the seed of her Husband. It is not in vain that the Apostle Paul says that Hagar and Sarah are images (see: 1 Cor. 10:11). Proud schismatics who do not want to join their legitimate mother are like Ishmael, who was not Abraham's heir (see: Gen. 21:10). The schismatics who turned to the Church are like the sons of Jacob, who, although born of handmaids, were his heirs (see: Gen. 30:3). Those born in the Church, but neglecting grace, are like Esau, the son of Isaac, but rejected (see: Gen. 25:24; Mal. 1:2–3) 290. They also asked: are sins forgiven at baptism among the Donatists? If they are forgiven, then the Donatists have the Holy Spirit and their society is the Church. But they are not forgiven, their baptism is not true, and they must be baptized again 291. But can sins be forgiven where there is no love? He who is baptized has put on Christ (see: Gal. 3:27), and whoever hates his brother is in darkness (1 John 2:11), therefore, has not put on Christ, therefore, has not been baptized 292. In response to this, Augustine asks: what will happen if a hypocrite (fictus) approaches baptism? Are his sins forgiven or not? If they are not forgiven, then he should be baptized again when he ceases to be a hypocrite, but the Donatists do not do this either. Therefore, we must think like this. The Baptism of Christ regenerates a person, but his heart, stubborn in evil or schism (sacrilegio), does not allow the remission of sins to occur. In societies that have separated from the Church, people receive baptism, but the grace of baptism, which resolves sins if the baptized is in unity with the Church, in this case is, as it were, paralyzed, so that the sins of the baptized are retained and cannot be forgiven 293 . If one who has received baptism in societies separated from church unity turns to the true Church, then the reason delaying the forgiveness of sins is eliminated, and the forgiveness of sins occurs without a new baptism; that grace of baptism, which was previously delayed by fierce stubbornness and reluctance to unite with the Church, comes into force, so to speak. Baptism serves schismatics for destruction until they have unity of love 295 . One can imagine the effect of baptism among schismatics in this way. The sins of the person being baptized are forgiven, but immediately return to him again. The sacrament is holy in itself (per se ipsum), and the one who is baptized outside the Church, as it were, passes through a narrow strip of light, again entering darkness. For a while, it is while he passes through this strip of light that he is cleansed of sins, because baptism belongs to the Church. But since immediately after baptism he again enters the darkness of his schism (ad dissensionis suae tenebras), then his sins immediately return 296. And that forgiven sins return if there is no brotherly love, this was clearly demonstrated by the Lord when he spoke about the slave whom the master forgave ten thousand talents. When this slave did not take pity on his comrade, who owed him a hundred denarii, the master ordered him to give him everything that he owed him. Just as that slave received forgiveness of his debt for a time, so the one who is baptized outside the Church is also temporarily freed from his sins. But since even after baptism the schismatic has no love for his brothers and remains outside the Church, then all the sins committed before baptism are again charged to him. The sins of schismatics are forgiven only when they lovingly unite with the Church. Then there is no need to baptize them again; Their baptism was the same as in the Church; in this they were no different from members of the Church, but they lacked love. When this deficiency is filled, then what they already had begins to benefit them. Love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8). 298 It is not because schismatics are deprived of hope of salvation that their baptism is invalid, but only because they are outside the Church and in hostility to it. Although Esau was born of a wife, he was separated from the people of God because of his discord with his brother. Asher, by the power of his wife, but born of a servant, inherited the land of promise for brotherly love. Ishmael was excommunicated from the people of God, not because he was born of a slave, but because he hated his brother; Even the power of his wife, by whose will he was born from a slave, did not bring him any benefit. So in baptism all are born and, if they are in love with their brothers, inherit the land of promise, not being born again from the mother’s womb, but by virtue of the father’s seed. If they are at enmity with their brothers, then their fate is the fate of Ishmael 299. In the stated teaching of St. Augustine on schismatic baptism, one cannot help but notice a slightly different assessment of schismatics than the one we saw in St. Cyprian. Denying baptism outside the Church, St. Cyprian justified this by the fact that heretics have a different faith, that is, he spoke about heretics, with whom he identified schismatics. One Church within its borders for St. Cyprian completely coincides with Christianity in general. Blzh. Augustine considers it quite possible to admit that true faith can be preserved outside the Church. As proof, Augustine even refers to some places of Holy Scripture: to the words of the Apostle Paul in the Athens Areopagus (see: Acts 17:23) and to the testimony of the Apostle James that demons also believe (James 2:19), and they, of course, are outside the Church 300. Thus, the Church is a narrower concept than Christianity, understood in the sense of well-known theoretical positions. One can be in agreement with these theoretical positions, but not, however, be in the Church. For unity with the Church, consent of the will (consensio voluntatum) 301 is also required. Whoever is outside the Church cannot have love 302, this grace of the New Testament 303. Only the love of unity binds the members of the Body of Christ with each other and with Christ - the Head of the Body of the Church 304, and only with the unity of love are the gifts of the Holy Spirit 305 Who animates only one Body of the Church 306. Therefore, without unity with the Church, only theoretical agreement with Christian truth is completely useless 307 and outside the Church there is no salvation. Everything can be had outside the Catholic Church, except salvation. You can have the Sacraments, the Gospel, faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but you cannot find salvation anywhere except the Catholic Church 308. Augustine quotes the opinion of St. Cyprian: salus extra Ecclesiam non est, and adds: Quis negat? 309 Whoever separated himself from the Church, no matter how commendably he lived, will not have life, but the wrath of God will remain on him for the crime alone of being separated from the unity of Christ. If St. Cyprian in assessing schism uses a strictly dogmatic yardstick, while the bl. Augustine's question is transferred to a more practical, moral area. It is quite clear that the view of St. Cyprian's criticism of schismatics could not so easily become church-wide, because it always remains very difficult to prove that every schismatic has a different faith. On the contrary, it is always clear that the schismatic has no love; This is evidenced by his very separation from the Church. In Blessed Augustine, a schismatic is almost equated with a bitter sinner, even if he is in visible church communion: they both equally have a common faith and common Sacraments with the Church, but all this only leads to their condemnation. So, among the writers of the 4th century, compared with St. Cyprian can notice only one feature: they are more lenient towards schismatics. According to Optatus, the schismatics separated from the Church ex parte, non ex toto; for Augustine they are in quibusdam rebus nobiscum sunt, and according to Basil the Great, they are ἔτι ἐκ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας. But in essence, the writers of the 4th century are in complete agreement both among themselves and with St. Cyprian. St. Cyprian rejected all grace-filled life outside the Church; I completely agree with him and the canonical answer of St. Basil the Great, according to which those who have departed from the Church and through schism (διὰ σχίσματος) do not have the grace of the Holy Spirit, their hierarchy is the laity (λαϊκοὶ γενόμενοι), who cannot impart the grace of the Holy Spirit ( ? αὐτοὶ ἐκπεπτώκασι ). And if, at the same time, Basil the Great considers it possible to accept schismatics without baptism, and Blessed Augustine proves the validity of baptism outside the Church, then one cannot see here any contradictions and assumptions of a truly grace-filled life outside the Church. After all, according to Augustine, the grace of baptism begins to act only from the moment of joining the Catholic Church, which is why there is no salvation outside the Church. The correct performance of baptism outside the Church is, both according to Augustine and according to Basil the Great, only the basis on which the Church can accept a schismatic into its bosom even without baptism, and the incentive for such acceptance is seen in the benefit of the church world, as [believes] St. Basil (οἰκονομίας ἕ νεκα τῶν πολλῶν), and the 79th rule of the Council of Carthage (σιὰ τὴν τῆς Εκκλησίας εἰρήνην καὶ χρησιμότητα ἐὰν τοῦτο συμβάλλεσθαι τ ῇ Χριστιανῶν ειρήν ῃ φανεί ῃ). Obviously, [such] a possibility is allowed for the sake of church peace and a change in practice, since the conditions of this world may be completely different. St. Cyprian, in a letter to Yubayan, indeed, for the benefit of the Church, demanded the rebaptism of the Novatians 311. St. Cyprian and Firmilian considered the determination of the benefits of church practice and the practice dependent on it to be the job of the bishop, thus allowing for the possibility of different methods of receiving heretics and schismatics into the Church at different times and in different Churches. Basil the Great and Amphilochius of Iconium, to whom St. Vasily wrote his canonical message. This, of course, is because the fathers considered everyone outside the Church to be equally graceless, but they found it possible, depending on the circumstances of place and time, not to sometimes demand baptism from schismatics if this was considered beneficial for the Church. Blessed Augustine explains that joining the Church, destroying through repentance the mortal sin of schism, gives the schismatic the grace of baptism, which he was deprived of and did not have at all. Unity with the Church makes a person a Christian, and outside of this unity he is nothing, even if he has been baptized. Nevertheless, in the judgments of Optatus and Augustine on schismatic baptism one can notice the beginnings of the doctrine of opus operatum, which are not in the epistle of Basil the Great. In the system blzh. Augustine received the final development, disclosure and justification of the doctrine of the holiness of the Church. The question of the holiness of the Church, as we have seen, was very often brought up for discussion, mainly in the polemical literary struggle against Montanism, Novatianism and Donatism. That the holiness of the Church is not the holiness of its members - this was already established in the first six decades of the 3rd century. This truth, which has already finally formed the basis of church practice, is blessed. Augustine only argues in more detail with data from Holy Scripture. The holiness of the Church was understood as the holiness of the entire totality of sanctifying means that contribute to the achievement of personal holiness by each individual member of the Church. The Church is such a spiritual union in which only sanctifying means are valid. The basis of this union is not only external affiliation to it and not recognition of church teaching, but the moral unity of all members in love: outside the Church - outside love, and vice versa. The Church, as a visible institution, does not provide inevitable salvation, but only promotes it. Separation from the Church leads to inevitable destruction. This point of the teaching about the Church was clearly indicated in early church literature, but it reaches full disclosure only in the writings of the blessed one. Augustine (and Optatus), where the doctrine of the holiness of the Church as the holiness of the Sacraments is clearly and definitely formulated. But the Donatists made such holiness dependent on the personal qualities of hierarchical persons; thereby, of course, the holiness of the Church itself was undermined. Church writers have struggled with this view since ancient times. Back in the 3rd century, mainly in the fight against Montanism and Novatianism, the “power of the keys” of the bishop was finally established, but the dogmatic foundations of the sacramental activity of the hierarchy in general were not sufficiently clarified. In the fight against Donatism, the question was directly posed and required theological resolution: does the validity of the Sacrament depend on the personal qualities of the celebrant? Optat and blzh. Augustine responded with a resounding “no”; Even the Sacraments performed by schismatics were recognized. The sacrament is not the property of a person, but of the Church; schismatics can preserve the Sacraments, just as they preserve church teaching. A member of the hierarchy, by virtue of his church position, church position, can teach church Sacraments. The Church possesses the Sacraments that sanctify a person, regardless of the moral qualities of its servants, and this is its holiness - this is the result to which church theological thought came during the 4th century when revealing the doctrine of the holiness of the Church. It should be noted that St. Cyprian, for a whole century after his death, enjoyed enormous respect and had great influence over the entire Western Church. His authority stood very high. See about this: Tillemont Memoires. T. 4. R. 185–187; Monceaux R. Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne. T. 2. R. 358–368; Α Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 4-te Aufl. III. Tübingen, 1910. S. 23 and Anm. 2. See: Α. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 785,788. See [works] Methodius “Convivium decem virginum”. III, 4, 8. PG. T. 18. Col. 72C. Saint Methodius, bishop and martyr, Father of the Church of the 3rd century. A complete collection of his works, translated from Greek, edited by professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Evgraf Lovyagin. Ed. 2nd. St. Petersburg, 1905. S. 47, 51. "Ὑ ποδέχεται δὲ καὶ μορφοῖ δίκην γυναικὸς ἡ Ἐκκλησία εἰς τὸ "" Conviv. III, 8. PG. T. 18. Col. 73. Wed. Russian translation. P. 51. Ibid. III, 8. PG T. 18. Col. 76. Wed. Russian translation. P. 52. Ibid. VIII, 8: " "" PG. T. 18. Col. 149B-C. Russian translation pp. 95–96. Cfr.: VIII, 7: “The Church has within her womb those who are baptized.” Ibid. III, 8: “In the Scriptures the very society and assembly (το ἄθροισμα καὶ το στῖφος) of believers is often called the Church, where the most perfect in success (κατὰ προκοπὴν) are united into one person and the body of the Church." PG. T. 18. Col. 73D. Russian translation P. 52; Conviv. VIII, 5: “The Church in its proper and precise sense is our mother, a certain force, in itself distinct from children (ἑτέρα τῶν τέκνων), a force striving for enlightenment (παρωρμημένη φωτίζεσθαι ... there is a Church whose children will all come to her after the resurrection, flocking to her from everywhere.” PG. T. 18. Col. 145B – S. Russk. translation pp. 92.93. Harnack sees at St. Methodius already has the beginnings of the subjectivism of monastic mysticism and, in general, the contemplative realistic theology of the East. – Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 788,789,790 and Anm. I. Wed. F. Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 30, 6d S. 229. However, even in Western writers, already in an early period, one encounters the doctrine of the mystical relationship between the individual and Christ, but this doctrine is not in connection with the doctrine of the Church, as in St. Methodius. See Harnack’s work on this, Dogmengeschichte 4,1. S. 615, Anm. Wed. 788, Anm 2. Origen also very often calls the human soul the bride of Christ. - De orat. P. 17, 2. GrchSch. 3. S. 330. PG. T. 11. Col. 472B. Cfr.: in Math. T. XVII, 21: “Νύμφης ψυχῆς γαμουμένης Λόγ ῳ.” PG. T. 13. Col. 1540C. In Cant. cant lib. 4, v. 15.PG. T. 13. Col. 193B. The penance nomocanon of the Eastern Church should begin with Basil the Great. See about this: Prof. N. A Zaozersky. “The Nomocanon of John the Faster in its Georgian, Greek and Slavic editions.” M., 1902. Preface. P. 64. Prof. A.I. Almazov considers this opinion exaggerated, but he himself still admits that the compilers of later penance nomocanons used the views of Basil the Great. See: Canonary of Monk John. Notes of the Imperial Novorossiysk University. 1907. T. 109. P. 143. "Book of Rules". Right 84. Right there. 1. Wed. right 4,6,8. Wed. teaching on repentance of St. John Chrysostom in his conversations about repentance, the priesthood and the Epistle to the Corinthians. Particularly, see: Creations. T. 2. P. 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 323, 324, 359, 363. The same is in the ancient monastic rules, for example, in the rules of the Tavennisiot hostel. See: Ep. Feofan. Ancient monastic rules. M., 1882. From 146 ff. All repentance is represented under the image of treating a seriously ill patient in John Climacus. For penances, see S.I. Smirnov: “Spiritual Father.” S 134–148, esp. With. 141. For this nomocanon, see the preface to its publication by Prof. N. A. Zaozersky. See also: Almazov. Secret confession in the Orthodox Eastern Church. T. 1. Odessa, 1894; A S Pavlov. Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik. 2nd ed. M., 1897. pp. 32–40, 455–491. We must not, however, forget that temporary excommunication from church communion has always been associated in the Church with the performance of certain penitential deeds since the most ancient times. It is enough to recall exomologesis or interitus carnis, as Origen understands it. In the purpose of all these feats, the general lenience of the nomocanons is very noticeable, so that at the end of the exposition of the statutes on food, the compiler of the oldest edition of the nomocanon argues like this: “I know that for these very lenient definitions I will be judged by our common Judge - God, but it is better for me to be condemned for this than to be glorified as unmerciful.” – Nomocanon, ed. N. A Zaozersky and Khakhanov. P. 69. Wed. Georgian text. P. 72. This resolution was preserved in the work of an unknown author, “Contra Fulgentium Donatistam”. P. 26: “Thurificati, traditores, et qui in schismate a traditoribus ordinantur, manere in Ecclesia Dei non possunt, nisi cognito ululatu suo per poenitentiam reconcilientur. Unde Caeciliano in schismate a traditoribus ordinato non communicare oportet.” PL T. 43. Col. 774. From the historical side, Donatism was studied in N. Kutepov’s work “The Donatist Split.” Kazan, 1884.0 the origin of Donatism. pp. 6–16. Harnack A. Der pseudoaugustinische Traktat "Contra Novatianum". Abhandlungen Alexander von Oettingen zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern. München, 1898. S. 85 ff. Idem. Dogmengeschichte, III. S. 39–41. Cyprian, epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. C 2, CSEL 3, 2. P. 779. Creations. Part 1. P. 332. Ibid. 74–61 ad Pompejum. C 4, CSEL, 3, 2. P. 802. Creations. Part 1. P. 353. See Harnack about this: Dogmengeschichte 4,1. S. 423–425. “De Afris autem, quod propria lege sua utantur, ut rebaptisent, placuit ut ad Ecclesiam si aliquis haereticus venerit, interrogent eum Symbolum; et si perviderint eum in Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus tantum ei imponatur: quod si interrogatus Symbolum, non responderit Trinitatem, tunc merito baptizetur. PL T. 43. Col. 787. Here, obviously, what is required of those turning to the Church is not only that they be baptized in the name of the Trinity, but that they correctly confess faith in the Trinity in the Symbol. Only in this last case were they accepted without new baptism. Cfr.: Ioh. Ernst. Dir Ketzertaufangelegenheit in der altchristlichen Kirche nach Cyprian. Forschungen zur christlichen Litteratur und Dogmengeschichte, herausgeg. von Dr. A. Ehrhard and Dr. I. P. Kirsch. II Band. 4. Heft. Mainz. 1901. S. 52–58. Ibid. 19. See the interpretation of this rule in Ioh. Ernst'ä “Die Ketzertaufangelegenheit inder altchr. Kirche." S. 58–62. See Historia Donatistarum: "Sancitum est illicitas esse rebaptizationes eorum, qui interrogati in Trinitate secundum Evangelii fidem et Apostolorum doctrinam confessi erant ac deinde aqua tincti." P.L. T. 11. Col. 803B. See Excerpta ad donatistarum historiam pertinentia. Si hoc paci christianae prodesse visum fuerit, in suis honoribus suscipiantur. P.L. T. 43. Col. 809 ad fin. In the "Book of Rules" of St. Basil the Great is right. 1. See: Ioh. Ernst. Die Ketzertaufangelegenheit in der altchr. Kirche. S. 3–6. The time of writing this work is stated in Harnack: Optatus. Herzog's RE 3. Bd. Χ IV. S. 413–414. A detailed account of the controversy between Optat and Parmenian is given by Ferdinand Ribbeck: “Donatus und Augustinus oder der erste entscheidende Kampf zwischen Separatismus und Kirche.” Elberfeld, 1857, pp. 160–191. De schism. donat. II, 1. CSEL 26. pp. 32–33. Ibid. II, 1: “Ubi ergo erit proprietas catholici nominis, cum inde dicta sit catholica, quod sit rationabilis et ubique diffusa?” CSEL 26. pp. 33,12–14. Ibid. II, 1: “Ut quid tale infringitis promissum, ut a vobis mittatur quasi in quemdam carcerem latitudo regnorum?” CSEL 26, pp. 33,19–21. Ibid. II, 1. P. 33.22–24. Ibid. II, 1: “O vestra ingrata et stulta praesumptio! Christus vos cum ceteris in societatem regni caelestis invitat et coheredes sitis hortatur, et vos cum in hereditate sibi a patre concessa fraudare laboratis, dum Africae partem conceditis et totum terrarum orbem, qui ei a patre donatus est, denegatis.” P. 34.12–16. Ibid. II, 1: "Etiam vos ipsi laudate cum omnibus aut, quia noluistis esse cum omnibus, soli conticescite." P. 35–36. Ibid. II, 2: “Eam esse ecclesiam catholicam, quae est intoto terrarum orbe diffusa.” P. 36, 4–5. Cfr.: Historia Carthaginensis collationis. Migne, P.L. T. 11. Col. 1480A. Ibid. II, 12.P.47, 18–19. Ibid. II, 12: “Unicuique vestrum dicat deus: quid offers pro tota, qui non es in tota?” P. 47. Ibid. II, 13. P. 47, 22–23. De schism. donat. II, 2–3. R. 36–37. Cfr.: Hist. Carthag. Col. Migne, P.L. T. 11. Col. 1481C-D. Cfr.: Praef. Balduini. PL T. 11. Col. 1120B-C. Ibid. II, 20. P. 55–57. Further (p. 21) Optatus lists the crimes of the Donatists, which are so serious that “in comparatione operis vestri latronum levior videtur immanitas. P. 58, 13–14. The parallel to II, 20 is VII, 2, where the same thoughts are repeated. R. 168–170. Ibid. VII, 2. R. 169–170. Ibid. VII, 3. R. 171–173. Cfr.: IV, 4. R. 106.16 sqq. P.L. T. 11. Col. 1098,1099,1100, 1101,1102 passim. It should be noted, however, that the latest arguments are not considered by the publishers to belong to Optat. See Col. 1097C-1098A Carolus Ziwsa in his edition omits them completely. De schism. donat. II, 9: “Dixisti enim, quod, si sacerdos in peccato sit, solae possint dotes operari.” CSEL 26. p. 45. Ibid. I, 13. P. 15–16. Cfr.: I. 28. P. 30–31. For a detailed proof of this, see: De schism. donat. IV, 5–8. R. 104–114. De schism. donat. IV, 7.9. P. 112–116. Ibid. V, 1: “Aqua sola et vera ilia est, quae non de loco, non de persona sed de trinitate condita est.” P. 120, 20–22. Ibid. V, 2: "Dicilis enim trinitatem pro nihilo haberi, ubi non interfuerit vestra praesentia." P. 122, 3–4. Ibid. V, 3. P. 124, 12–125, 5. Ibid. V, 4. P. 126–127. Cfr.: V, 7. P. 133 sqq.; V, 3: "Nos docuimus caeleste munus unicuique credenti a trinitate conferri, non ab homine." P. 122.22–23. Ibid. V, 4: "Sacramenta per se esse sancta, non per homines." P. 127.16. Ibid. V, 4. P. 128, 8–129.1. This is how one Optatus reads this verse: “Ministri ejus, in quem credidistis.” Some Latin codices read: “Ministri ejus cui.” – Tischendorf. Novum Testamentum graece 8, II. P. 471. The Greek text has a slightly different meaning: “Διάκονοι, δι ’ ὧ ν ἐπιστεύσατε.” De schism. donat V, 7. R. 133–137 passim. And the conclusion: “Vides ergo iam, frater Parmeniane, ex tribus speciebus supra memoratis illam primo tripartitam esse inmotam, invic-tam et inmutabilem, operantis vero temporariam esse personam.” P. 137, 4–7. Ibid. II, 10. P. 46, 5–10. Ibid. II, 9: "Hujus sanctae ecclesiae est constituta persona et hanc esse catholicam, quae sit in toto orbe terrarum diffusa, cujus membra et nos inter alios sumus, cujus dotes apud illam ubique sunt." P. 45, 17–20. Ibid. II, 5: “Quos constat ita sibi connexas et individuas esse, ut intellegatur unam ab altera separari non posse.” P. 42.11–12. Ibid. II, 1: "Ecclesia una est, cujus sanctitas de sacramentis colligitur, non de superbia personarum ponderatur: ergo hanc unam columbam et dilectam sponsam suam Christus appellat." P. 32, 9–10. Wed. remarks Α Harnack'ä Optatus. RE 3. Bd. 14. S. 415; Dogmengeschichte 4, III. S. 45. Vgl.: Harnack Α Dogmengeschichte 4, III. S. 41. De schism. donat. I, 5, 6, 7. P. 7, 15; 9, 2, 10–11. Ibid. I, 10; II, 1. P. 11, 21; 32, 10. Ibid. I, 10: “Paeniteat te talibus hominibus (sc. haereticis) etiam schismaticos adjunxisse... et non attendisti. inter schismaticos et haereticos quam sit magna distantia.” P. 13, 14 sqq. Ibid. I, 10. P. 13, 9 sqq. Cfr.: II, 8. P. 44, 14–15: “Soli sigillum integrum? id est symbolum catholicum, non habentes"; IV, 8. P. 114, 10–11: “Ubi in exterminium fidei corrupta sunt semina”; V, 1. P. 121; I, 12: “Haeretici... veritatis exules, sani et verissimi symboli desertores, de sinu sanetae ecclesiae impiis sensibus depravati.” P. 14, 8–10. De schism. donat. I, 5: “Extraneos esse catholicis sacramentis. P. 7.13. Cfr.: 1, 10. P. 11, 17–20. Ibid. I, 10: “Seimus enim haereticorum ecclesias singulorum prostitutas nullis legalibus sacramentis et in se jure honesti matrimonii esse...” P. 11, 18–20. Ibid. I,12: “Haereticos... solos habere varia (other reading: vana) et falsa baptismata etc.” P. 14, 15 sqq. Ibid. III, 9: “Nobis et vobis ecclesiastica una est conversatio, et si hominum litigant mentes, non litigant sacramenta... pares credimus et uno sigillo signati sumus nee aliter baptizati quam vos, testamentum divinum pariter legimus, unum deum pariter rogamus, oratio dominica apud nos et apud vos una est.” P. 93, 20–94, 3. Cfr.: V, 1: “Pro utrisque illud est, quod et nobis et vobis commune est, ideo et vobis, quia ex nobis existis, denique et apud vos et apud nos una est ecclesiastica conversatio, communes lectiones, eadem fides, ipsa fidei sacramenta, eadem mysteria." P. 121, 13–17. Ibid. I,12: "Vobis vero schismaticis, quamvis in catholica non sitis, haec negari non possunt, quia nobiscum vera et communia sacramenta traxistis." P. 14, 22–15, 1. For more information about Optatus’s views on baptism outside the Church in connection with baptism in general, see: Ioh. Ernst. Die Ketzertaufangelegenheit in der altchr. Kirche. S. 43–52. Ibid. I,11: Catholicam facit simplex et verus intellectus intellegere, singulare ac verissimum sacramentum et unitas animorum. P. 13, 20–21. Cfr.: PL. T. 11, coil. 905D-906B-C. not. 15–17. Ibid. I, 2. P. 4. Cfr.: IV, 2. P. 102–103. Ibid. III, 9: "In parte vestis adhuc unum sumus, sed, in diversa pendemus, quod enim scissum est, ex parte divisum est, non ex toto." P. 93, 17–19. Ibid. III, 10: “pars vestra quasi ecclesia est, sed catholica non est.” P. 95, 21–22. Ibid. I, 12. P. 14:14–15, 22–23. Ibid. I, 21. P. 22–23; 23, 6. In VII, 4, Optatus even calls the guilt of the Donatists blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: see p. 176. Ibid. I, 21, VII, 1. R. 24, 6; 159, 6. From the vast scientific literature dedicated to St. Augustine, we use mainly new and special works: Dr. Thomas Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche nach dem hl. Augustia 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; V. Guerrier. Architects and devotees of the “Kingdom of God.” Part 1. Blessed Augustine. M., 1910. We do not consider it necessary to present the external history of the polemics of Blessed Augustine with the Donatists, especially since this history is described in detail in the special work of N. Kutepov, “The Schism of the Donatists.” P. 85 et seq., as well as in V. Guerrier (“Blessed Augustine.” P. 482 et seq.). 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 et seq.) 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 N. Η. Glubokovsky (“Blessed Augustine as depicted by a Russian secular historian.” - Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy. 1911.I. P. 133–136). The polemical works of Blessed Augustine are presented in more detail in the book by V. Z. Belolikov, “The Literary Activity of Blessed Augustine against the Donatist Schism.” Kiev, 1912. Brevicul. Col. III, 3, 3: "Donatistae responderunt, non catholicum nomen ex universitate gentium, sed ex plenitudine Sacramentorum institutum." P.L. T. 43. Col. 624; Epist. 93, 7, 23: “Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis communione interpretaris, sed ex observatione praeceptorum omnium divinorum, atque omnium Sacramentorum.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 333. Epist 93, 7, 23. PL. T. 33. Col. 333. De unitale Ecclesiae. C 2: “Quae utique una est, quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt, ut ex ipso nomine ostenderent, quia per totum est.” Secundum totum enim, καθ ’ὅ λον graece dicitur.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 392. Cfr.: Contra litteras Petiliani lib. 2. From 38, 91. PL. T. 43. Col. 292; Epist 52, 1; PL., 33. Col. 194; Contra Gaudent II, 2, 2; P.L. T. 43. Col. 741. In particular, the following passages from the Old Testament are cited: Judgment. 6:36–40; Life 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; Ps. 2:7–8; 21:28–29; 18:5; 56:5–6; 71 and others PL. T. 43. Col. 398 sqq. Cfr. Contra ep. Parmeniani. Ι, 2; P.L. T. 43. Col. 35–36; Contra Cresconium, III, 64, 72; 65, 73; P.L. T. 43. Col. 535–538; Epist. 140, 17, 43; P.L. T. 33. Col. 556; Epist. 208, 6; P.L. T. 33. Col. 952. Serm. 46; 14, 33; P.L. T. 38. CoL 289; In psalm. 147, 6; P.L. T. 37. Col. 1924–1925. OK. 24:46–47; Acts 1:1–8; 9:15; Rome. 15:16 ; De unit. Eccl. pp. 10–11; P.L. T. 43. Col. 408 sqq. De unite Eccl. From 11, 29; P.L. T. 43. Col. 411–412. Cfr.: in ep. Ioan. tract. 2, 2–3; P.L. T. 35. Col. 1989–1991 Ibid. De unite Eccl. From 11, 30: “Iam cui non appareat, illo vase significatum orbem terrarum, cum omnibus gentibus? Unde etiam quatuor initias erat alligatum, propter notissimas quatuor partes, Orientem et Occidentem, Austrum et Aquilonem, quas saepissime Scriptura commendat.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 413. Ibid. C 12, 31: “Cognoscite ergo etiam quam longe ab Africa remotae sunt, et dicite nobis cur eas omnino vobis incognitas, et in apostolicis Litteris manifestatas, tarn sacrilega temeritate discatis et tanta dementia criminibus Afrorum periisse dicatis?” P.L. T. 43. Col. 414–415; Epist. 87, 2; P.L. T. 33. Col. 297. After this, Augustine follows with an analysis of numerous testimonies of Holy Scripture, which, skillfully interpreting, the Donatists cited as proof that although their society does not have a universal character, there is a true Church. – P.L. T. 43. Col. 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. Col. 189–190; Epist. 52.1; P.L. T. 33. Col. 194; Epist 53, 1, 6; P.L. T. 33. Col. 195–196, 198; Epist. 76, 1; P.L. T. 33. Col. 263–264; Epist 142, 1–3; P.L.T. 33. Col. 583–584; Epist. 185, 5; P.L. T. 33. Col. 794; Contra litter. Petiliani, II, 8, 19–20; P.L. T. 43. Col. 264–265; II, 14, 33. Col. 268; II, 64, 144. Col. 306; II, 73, 164. Col. 310; II, 92, 210. Col. 330; III, 50, 62. Col. 380; Contra Crescon. IV, 54, 64; P.L. T. 43. Col. 582–583; IV, 57, 70. Col. 587; Ad. Donatistas post Col. From 2.PL. T. 43. Col. 653. Contra Gaudent. I, 20, 22. PL. T. 43. Col. 718–719. See also Th Specht. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 254–256, in general the entire §30: Die Katholicität der Kirche. S. 251–268. See eg Epist. 49, 3: “Ecclesia catholica est etiam in Africa.” PL T. 33. Col. 190. "Liber de Septem regulis ad investigandam et inveniendam S. Scripturae intelligentiam." We use Tikhonius’s work in the publication: F. S. Burkitt M. Α. Texts and studies contributions to biblical and patristic literature, edited by J. Armitage Robinsoa Vol. III. No. 1. The rules of Tychonius. Cambridge, 1894. For the Russian translation, see “Additions to the works of St. fathers." 1891. Part 48. About Quiet, see F. Ribbeck. Donatus und Augustinus. S. 198–205. Reg. 2. P. 10–11. Additions. Part 48. pp. 196–197, 198. Ibid. 3. R. 26, 13–14. Additions. Part 48. P 217. Ibid. 3. R. 28–30 passim. Additions. Part 48. pp. 220, 221, 222. Ibid. 4. R. 31. Additions. Part 48. P. 224. Ibid. 4. R. 32 sqq. Additions. Part 48. From 225 ff. Ibid. 4. R. 53. Additions. Part 48. P. 250. “Parmenianus autem caeteriquc Donatistae viderunt hoc esse consequens. et maluerunt suscipere obstinantissimum animum adversus apertissimam veritatem quam Tichonius asserebat,” says Bl. Augustine (Contra epist. Parmeniani. I, 1. PL. T. 43. Col. 35). Contra epist Parmeniani. I, 1.PL. T. 43. Col. 35. Is. 59:1–8; Proverbs 17:15 ; 2 Tim. 2:19; Ε f. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6; Contra epist. Pannen. II. S. 3, 6 sqq. P.L. T. 43. Col. 53 sqq. Contra epist Pannen II, 6, 13, PL. T. 43. Col. 58. Ibid. II, 2, 5. PL. T. 43. Col. 52. Ibid. 1, 2, 4.PL. T. 43. Col. 51. Ibid. 1, 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. S. 67 ff. 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. Col. 24–25: "Genus autem mixtum piscis, justus est cum peccatore." The seine is also called “similitudo apertissima de commixtione malorum et bonorum”. De unit Eccl. From 14, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 418. Cfr.: Contra epist. Parmen III, 3, 19. PL. T. 43. Col. 97; Epist. 93. P. 9, 34. PL. T. 33. Col. 338; De civit Dei Hb. 18. From 49. PL. T. 41. Col. 611; Ad donatistas post collat ​​S. 8, 11. PL. T. 43. CoL 659. P. 10, 14. Col. 660. Abecedarium G.PL. T. 43. Col. 27.Gfr. Epist. 105. P. 5, 16. PL. T. 33. Col. 403; Epist. 108.С 3, 7. PL. T. 33. Col. 409. Abecedarium N.PL. T. 43. Col. 28–29. Cfr.: Contra epist. Parmen, II, 1, 3. PL. T. 43. Col. 51; De unitate Eccl., 14, 35: "Nulla ergo malorum commixtio terret bonos, ut propterea velint tanquam retia rumpere, et a congregatione unitatis exire." P.L. T. 43. Col. 418. See also Epist. 93. pp. 4, 15, 9, 34. PL. T. 33. Col. 329, 338; Epist. 87, 2.PL. T. 33. Col. 297; Epist. 129, 5.PL. T. 33. Col. 492; Epist. 43. P. 8, 21: “Ne nomen Christi per horribilia schismata blas- phemetur, pro bono unitatis tolerant, quod pro bono aequitatis oderunt.” P.L. T. 33 Col. 170; Epist 44. P. 5, 11. PL T. 33. Col. 179; Epist 53. pp. 3, 6. PL. T. 33. Col. 198; Epist. 76, 2–3. P.L. T. 33. Col. 265. Abecedarium P.PL. T. 43. Col. 29; Ad Donation. post. collat, 20, 31. PL T. 43. Col. 671–672. Epist. 108. P. 7, 20. PL. T. 33. Col. 417. Cfr.: Brevicul. coil. cum Donatistis. P. 9, 16: “When the raven flew out of the ark, unclean animals still remained there, but in it until the end of the flood there remained clean and unclean, and so in the Church good and evil - until the end of the century. But just as Noah offered a sacrifice not from unclean animals, but from 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 unitate Eccl, 14, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 418; Contra litt Petil., II, 45, 106. PL. T. 43. Col. 296; II, 47, 110. Col. 297; II, 78, 174. Col. 312; Contra Crescon, III, 65, 73; III, 66, 75. PL. T. 43. CoL 536, 537; Epist. 10. From 3, 11. PL. T. 33. Col. 411. Contra litteras Petiliani, III, 2, 3. PL. T. 43. Col. 349. Contra epist. Parmenian, II, 2, 5. PL. T. 43. Col. 52; Cfr.: Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 90, 199. PL. T. 43. Col. 321–322; Contra epist. Parmenian, III, 3, 19. PL. T. 43. Col. 97. De unitate Eccl, 13, 33. PL T. 43. Col. 416–417. Here Augustine also quotes Matthew. 7, 13–14; Life 15, 5; 22, 27; Rome. 9, 7; Isa 54, 1; Matt. 8, 11–12; Titus 2, 14; De unite Eccl. With. 14, 36. PL T. 43. Col. 418–419. In addition to the Donatists, the Church was considered to consist of only saints and Pelagians, based on an incorrect understanding of the words of the Apostle John (1 John 3:9) and the Apostle Paul (Eph 5:25–27). In his polemic against the Pelagians, Augustine 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. S. 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, 5: "Neque hoc ideo dixerim ut neglegatur ecclesiastica disciplina, et permittitur quisque facere quod velit sine ulla coneptione, et quadam medicinali vindicta et terribili lenitate et charitatis severitate." PL T. 43. Col. 350. Ibid. III, 4, 5: “Neque enim ferrum est inimici vulnerantis, sed medici secantis.” PL T. 43. Col. 350. Contra litt. Petiliani, III, 4, 5. PL T. 43. Col. 350. Ibid. III, 37, 43. PL T. 43. Col. 370. Ibid. III, 38, 44. PL T. 43. Col. 370–371. Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 20, 39. PL T. 43. Col. 80. Serm. 351, 10. PL 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 unitatis et sine laesione frumentoram fieri potest, cum congregationes Ecclesiae multitudo ab eo crimine quod anathematur, aliena est.” PL T. 43. Col. 92. Cfr.: Brevicius collationis cum Donatistis, dies 3; 9, 16: "Quamvis debeat vigilare ecclesiastica disciplina, ad eos non solum verbis, sed etiam excommunicationibus et degradationibus corripiendos, tarnen non solum in ea latentis nesciantur, sed plerumque propter pacem unitatis etiam cogniti tolerentur." PL T. 43. Col. 632. Ibid. III, 2, 13. PL T. 43. Col. 92: “Tunc etiam ille et timore percutitur, et pudore sanatur, cum ab universa Ecclesia se anathematum videns, sociam turbam cum qua in delicto suo gaudeat et bonis insultet non potest invenire. Contra epist. Parmeniani." Ibid. III, 2, 14. PL T. 43. Col. 92–93. Ibid. III, 2, 14: "Jam propter multitudine non poterant ita corripi, ut ab eorom conjunctione se caeteri continerent, et eos erubescere facerent." P.L. T. 43. Col. 93. Ibid. III, 2.15: “Haec qui diligenter cogitat, nee in conservatione unitatis negligit disciplinae severitatem nee immoderatione coercitionis disrumpit vinculum societatis.” PL T. 43. Col. 94; Contra litt. Petil, III, 3, 4. PL T. 43. Col. 349; In Retract. II, 17: Augustine, based on the Greek text, corrects this in Contra epist. Parmea interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:13: "Potius intelligendum ut homo malus auferatur ex hominibus bonis, quod fit per ecclesiasticam disciplinam." PL T. 32. Col. 637. On ecclesiastical excommunication, according to Augustine, see Romeis C. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. S. 40 ff. De moribus Ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus manichaeorum Hb. I. C 34, 76. PL T. 32. Col. 1342. Contra epist. Parmeniani, III, 2, 8. PL T. 43. Col. 88–89. Epist 93, 10, 36: “Unitatem orbis terrae atque omnium gentium et diligendo tenuit, et disputando defendit.” PL T. 33. Col. 339. Ibid. III, 2, 9. PL T. 43. Col. 90. Ibid. III, 2, 11: “Quid eis prodest quod avaros et rapaces. Modo se vel non habere in congregatione sua, vel incognitos sibi esse mentiuntur, quandoquidem fuerunt tales in illa unitatis Ecclesia, unde isti exortos se sie jaetant, et eam in sua sola societate. Id est, m communione Donati remansisse persuadere conentur? Si enim dicunt per talium communionem perire Ecclesiam, cur eam non dicunt jam Cypriani periisse temporibus?” PL T. 43. CoL 90–91; De bapt, II, 6, 8. PL T. 43. Col. 131; II, 7, 11. Col. 133; De unico bapt C14, 23–24. PL T. 43. Col. 607–608; Epist. 93, 10, 37, 42, 45. PL T. 33. Col. 339, 341, 342. On the origin and character of the circumcellions, see Kutepov: “The Schism of the Donatists.” pp. 38 ff. Augustine 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.” PL 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. From 12, 27. PL. T. 44. Col. 336; De nuptiis et concupisc. C 33, 38; 34, 39.PL. T. 44. Col. 435; Contra dues epist. Pelagianorum, lib. IV. From 7, 17–18. P.L. T. 44. Col. 621–622; De natura et gratia. S 63, 75. PL T. 44. Col. 285; De perfect, just. pp. 15, 34–35. P.L. T. 44. Col. 310; Epist 185, 9, 38–39. P.L. T. 33. Col. 810. Brevicius col.cum Donatistis, d. 3. P. 9.16. P.L. T. 43. Col. 633. Cfr.: ad Donat. post collat., 9, 12. PL. T. 43. Col. 659. De unitatc Eccl. pp. 10, 25: “Teneamus Ecclesiam ex ore Domini designatam, unde coeptura, et quousque perventura esset; coeptura scilicet ab lerusalem, et perventura in omnes gentes.” P.L. T.43. Col.409. Ibid. From 10, 26. PL. T. 43. Col. 409. Ibid. From 11, 27: “Nullus omnino dubitare permittatur, nisi qui de sanctarum Scripturarum fide dubitat, illam esse lerusalem visibilem civitatem, unde coepit Ecclesia post Domini Iesu Christi resurrectionem et ascensionem; nec aliud eum voluisse ostendere, nisi hujus terrae loca, unde illi daret initium, et quomodo eam per cuncta inde diffunderet.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 409–410. Cfr.: from 11, 28 and 24, 70. Col. 441–442. Vgl.: Harnack Α Dogmengeschichte 4, III. S. 147, Anm. 2; V. Guerrier. Blzh. Augustine. P. 610. De unite Eccl. P. 25, 74: “Multi tales sunt in Sacramentorum communione cum Ecclesia, et tarnen jam non sunt in Ecclesia. Alioquin si tunc quisque praeciditur cum visibiliter excommunicatur; consequens erit ut tunc rursus inseratur, cum visibiliter communioni restituitur.” PL T. 43. Col. 444. Cfr.: In Ioan. tract., 5, 7. PL T. 35. Col. 2016; In ep. Ioan., 7, 6. PL T. 35. Col. 2032. De bapt, 1, 10, 14; IV, 3, 4; V, 27.38; VI, 14, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 117, 155, 156,196, 207; In ep. Ioan. tract., 7, 13. PL. T. 35. Col. 2028; In p.s. 25 en., 2, 2. PL. T. 36. CoL 189. De unit. Eccl. C 21, 60: “Nec regenerati spiritualiter in corpus et membra Christi coaedificientur nisi boni; profecto in bonis est illa Ecclesia, cui dicitur. Sicut lilium in medio spinarum, ita proxima mea in medio filiarum (Can. II, 2). In his est enim qui aedificant super petram, id est, qui audiunt verba Christi, et fociunt. Non est ergo in eis, qui aedificant super arenam, id est, qui audiunt verba Christi, et non faciunt.” Col. 436. Cfr.: De bapt., V, 27, 38. PL. T. 43. Col. 195. De baptismo, 1. pp. 17, 26: “Semper ab illius Ecclesiae quae sine macula et ruga est unitate divisus est, etiam qui congregationi sanctorum in carnali abduratione miscetur.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 123. Cfr.: III, 18, 23: "Ad illam gloriosam Ecclesiam non pertineant." P.L. T. 43. Col. 150; IV, 18, 25. Col. 170. Contra litt Petiliani., II, 55, 126. PL. T. 43. Col. 302. De baptismo, III, 18, 23: “Orationes sanctonim, id est columbae gemitus.” PL T. 43. Col. 150; Epist. 98, 5: "Ecclesia, quae in sanctis est." P.L. T. 33. Col. 362; Epist. 187, 12, 41. PL. T. 33. Col. 848. Ibid. III, 19, 26: “Cum intus videntur, ab illa invisibili charitatis compage separati sunt.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 152. Cfr.: Contra litt Petiliani, II, 108, 247. PL. T. 43. Col. 345; In p.s. 131, 13: ''Ille enim ad domum Dei pertinet, qui est in charitate compaginatus lapidibus vivis''. P.L. T. 37. Col. 1721; In p.s. 39, 1.PL. T. 36. Col. 433; In p.s. 95, 2.PL. T. 37. Col. 1228. Ibid. IV, 22, 29. PL. T. 43. Col. 173–174. See also: Romeis S. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. S. 28–30. Vgl.: Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 41–42; Thomasius. Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 593–596; V. Guerrier. Blissful. Augustine. pp. 606–610. “Due to the difference in the composition of the Church,” writes V. Guerrier, “its character at one time or another is 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. Wed. Prof.'s remark N. N. Glubokovsky: “Blessed Augustine in the image of a Russian secular historian.” – Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1911. T. 1. pp. 143–146. Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 77, 172: “Charitas enim christiana nisi in imitate Ecclesiae non potest custodiri... Tenemus autem charitatem, si amplectimur unitatam: amplectimur autem unitatem, si eam non per verba nostra in parte confingimus, sed per verba Christi in unitate cognoscimus.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 312. Cfr.: Contra Cresconium., II, 12, 15. PL. T. 43. Col. 476; II, 13, 16. Idem. De baptismo, 1, 17, 26: “Spiritales... non eunt foras: quia et cunt aliqua vel perversitate vel necessitate hominum videntur expelli, ibi magis probantur, quam si intus permaneant, cum adversus Ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur, sed in solida unitatis petra fortissimo charitatis robore radicantur.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 123–124. Contra Cresconium, IV, 59, 71: “Non est enim alius impiae superbiae tumor apud omnes qui se a Christi unitate discendunt, quam se solos Christianos esse jaetare, et damnare caeteros, non solum quibus eorum lis nota est, verum etiam quibus eorum nec nomen auditum est.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 587–588. Ibid. III, 35, 39. PL. T. 43. Col. 517. See in more detail: Specht Th. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 76–81. De unitate Eccl., 25, 73. PL 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. Compare: Romeis S. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. S. 21–23. Augustine’s teaching on predestination is revealed in detail in the work of L. Pisarev “The Teaching of the Blessed One.” Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, about man in his relation to God." Kazan, 1894. P. 306 ff. On the relation of the doctrine of the Church to the doctrine of grace, see Seeberg'ä Studien zur Geschichte dez Begriffs der Kirche. S. 41–42, 49–50. Augustine very decisively expresses the idea that “saneti regno Dei praedestinati dividi ab Ecclesia nullo modo possunt.” – Contra Crescon. II, 33, 42. PL. T. 43. Col. 491. For more information about the fact that those ordained are not saved without the Church, see: Romeis S. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. It is necessary to recognize as unfounded the reasoning of V. Guerrier that “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.” - Blessed. Augustine. P. 612. Cf. Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4, III. S. 165. See also the remark of N.I. Glubokovsky: “Blessed Augustine in the image of a secular historian.” Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1911. T. 1. P. 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 village. 147, the author expresses himself more decisively and definitely: “For Augustine, the Church was the only open, normal and sanctioned institution for the application of the savingly predetermining will of God to people.” Essentially, S comes to the same conclusion. Romeis, expounding Augustine's view of the possibility of salvation outside the Church (S. 94–115). Salvation outside the Church is, in any case, an extraordinary path, and Augustine does not specifically dwell on this subject (S. 114). Wed: Specht Th. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 66–67, 89–94, 307–312. Specht decisively comes to the conclusion that the doctrine of predestination does not in any way violate the entire ecclesiological system of the blessed one. Augustine. L. Pisarev, cit. op. P. 308. De civit. Dei. I, 35.PL. T. 41. Col. 46. For more details see: Specht Th. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 89–94. Contra litt. PetilianL, 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. Vgl.: Romeis S. Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche. S. 18. Retract. II, 18.PL. T. 32. Col. 637–638. One might think that the question of the dependence of the Sacraments on the personal moral qualities of their performers was already brewing in the Novatian communities, where they were inclined to resolve it in the spirit of Donatism, although independently of it. See: Pseudo-August. Quest. 102.PL. T. 35. Col. 2311; Harnack A. Der pseudoaugustinische Traktat Contra Novatianum. Abhandlungen Alexander von Oettingen gewidmet (München, 1898) S. 85–89. Contra litt. Petiliani, I, 2, 3: "Qui fidem a perfido sumpserit, non fidem porcipit, sed reatum." P.L. T. 43. Col. 247; Epist 89, 5: “De Baptismo solent dicere, tunc esse Baptismum Christi, cum ab nomine justo datur.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 311. Cfr.: Contra ep. Parmen, II, 17, 36. PL. T. 43. Col. 77. Augustine puts the words into the mouth of the Donatist: “Ego baptizo, ego justifico, ego justum facio.” Serm. 292, 4–6. P.L. T. 38. Col. 1323–1324. Cfr.: Contra epist. Pannen., II, 11, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 66. Contra Cresc., IV, 16, 19: "Quam jueti sumus, tarn justum Baptismum esse facia-mus." P.L. T. 43. Col. 559. De unitat. Eccl., 21, 59. PL. T. 43. Col. 435. Contra Cresconium, II, 27, 33. PL. T. 43. Col. 487. Cfr.: II, 16, 19. Col. 559. Ibid. II, 28, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 488. In Ioan. tract., 6, 8. PL. T. 35. Col. 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 illoram mortuis qui baplizantur, 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. Col. 64–65; Epist. 93, 11, 49. PL. T. 33. Col. 345. Ibid. 1, 13, 31. PL. T. 43. Col. 73; II, 15, 34. PL. T. 43. Col. 76. On the Maximianists, see: Ribbeck F. Donatus und Augustinus. S. 206–236. Ibid. II, 10, 21: “Tunc posse a malo baptizari quem quam, si lateat malitia baptizantis.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 64. Cresconius says that the holiness of the Baptist must be judged “secundum famam, non secundum sinceritatem, quae in illa videri non potest.” Contra Cresconium, II, 17, 21. PL. T. 43. Col. 478. Contra litt Petiliani, III, 27.32. PL T. 43. Col. 363. Cfr.: Contra epist. Parmen, II, 11, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 67; Epist. 89, 5.PL. T. 33. Col. 311. Contra epist. Parmen., II, 10, 21. PL. T. 43. Col. 65; II, 13, 31: “Nec ullo modo isti expedire se possunt, cum eis proponitur, cur sanetitas sacramenti et haben et dari possit ab eo, quem intus sceleratum jam Deus damnavit, et tunc incipiat ab eo dari non posse, cum ab hominibus damnatus fuerit, cum tarnen nec tunc eam possit amittere.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 73. Ibid. II, 10, 21, 24. PL. T. 43. Col. 65–67; Contra litt. Petiliani., III, 47, 57. PL. T. 43. Col. 377–378; III, 52, 64. Col. 382; III, 30, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 366; Contra Cresconium, II, 26, 31: “Ita ne quia fictus est mortuus non est?” P.L. T. 43. Col. 485. Ibid. II, 15, 34. PL. T. 43. Col. 76; Contra litt. Petiliani., 1, 2, 3: “Ecce stat perfidus baptizaturus at ille qui baptizandus est, perfidiam ejus ignorat: quid eum accepturum esse arbitraris? Utrum fidem, an reatum? Si dixeris fidem; concedes posse fieri ut a perfido quisque fidem percipiat, non reatum; et falsum erit illud quod dictum est, qui fidem a perfido sumpserit, non fidem percipit, sed reatum. Invenimus enim fieri posse ut etiam a perfido fidem quis percipiat, si perfidiam dantis ignoret... rebaptizent ergo illos quos ab eis baptizatos esse constiterit, qui diu apud ipsos conscelerati latuerunt, et postea proditi convictique damnati sunt.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 247; Contra litt. Petiliani, III, 27, 32 ff. P.L. T. 43. Col. 363 sqq. Ibid. II, 13, 31: "Ouid est hoc aliud, quam quod eorum Tichonius de illis ait, quod volumus sanetum est." P.L. T. 43. Col. 73. Contra litt. Petiliani, 1, 4, 5. PL. t. 43. Col. 248. Cfr.: III, 27, 32. Col. 364. Ibid. III, 32, 37: “Hinc satago, hoc urgenter interrogo, hoc ut respondeatur vehementissime flagito.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 367. Ibid. III, 26, 31. PL. T. 43. Col. 363. Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte, III. S. 154. Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 4, 8. PL. T. 43. Coll. 55–56. Idem. II, 9, 18. PL. T. 43. Col. 61. Idem. II, 7, 12. PL. T. 43. Coll. 57–58. Contra litt. Petiliani I, 7, 8. PL. T. 43. Col. 249. II, 5, 11. PL. T. 43. Col. 261. Contra with Petiliani, II, 103, 237. PL. T. 43. Col. 340; Contra epist. Parmen., II, 10, 20. PL. T. 43. Col. 63. Of 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. Col. 247–248; II, 5, 11. PL. T. 43. Col. 260; III, 28, 33. Col. 364. Cfr.: Epist. 89, 5.PL. T. 33. Col. 311; Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 4, 8. PL. T. 43. Col. 55. Ibid. II, 108, 247. PL. T. 43. Col. 346. Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 8,15–16. P.L. T. 43. Col. 59–60. Ibid. II, 15, 33: “Si et ipse a justo nomine, et de illo ita quaero, donec ab ipso capite ordinis humani ad aliquem perveniam, qui non ab nomine acceperit, atque ita falsum esse doceam, quod non potest homo accipere quidquam, nisi fuerit ei ab nomine darum.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 75. Ibid. II, 15, 34. PL. T. 43. Col. 76. Ibid. II, 15, 34. PL. T. 43. Col. 76; De bapt., IV, 10, 16: "In ista quaestione de baptismo non esse cogitandum quis det, sed qwid 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. Col. 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. pp. 3, 12: “Semper Dei est lila 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, 1, 9, 10. PL. T. 43. Col. 250. Contra Cresconium, III, 11, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 502. Contra litteras Petiliani, 1, 7, 8. PL. T. 43. Col. 249; II, 4, 9. PL. T. 43. Col. 260. Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 11, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 67; Contra Cresconium, II, 25, 30. PL. 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. Col. 1419, 1428. Cfr.: De consensu evang. II, 15, 32. PL. T. 35. Col. 1093. This interpretation of the blessed one. Augustine attaches an important polemical meaning to “omnino eorum (donatistarum) ora claudentur.” – In Ioan. tract., 4, 16. PL. T. 35. Col. 1414. Ibid. 5, 18.PL. T. 35. Col. 1423–1424. Contra litteras Petiliani, II, 6, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 261. Ibid. II, 7, 15. PL. T. 43. Col. 262 Ibid. II, 11, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 66–67; II, 14, 32. PL. T. 43. Col. 74. Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 5, 10. PL. T. 43. Col. 57; II, 8, 15. Col. 59. Contra litteras Petiliani, III, 30, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 365. Cfr.: In Ioan. tract., 5, 15. PL. T. 35. Col. 1422. Ibid. III, 34, 40. PL. T. 43. Col. 368. See, for example: Contra Cresconium, IV, 16, 19: “Non eorum meritis a quibus ministratur nee eorum quibus ministratur, constare Baptismum, sed propria sanetitate atque veritate.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 559. Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 11, 24. PL. T. 43. Col. 67–68. Cfr.: Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 30, 69. PL. T. 43. Col. 281–282; III, 55, 67. PL T. 43. Col. 384–385. Contra litteras Petiliani, III, 34, 39: “Cum ergo Baptismus Christi, sive per iniquum sive per justum ministratus, nihil aliud sit quam Baptismus Christi; ab nomine cauto et bono fideli iniquitas hominis est vitanda, non Dei sacramenta damnanda.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 368. Cfr.: II, 47, 110. T. 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.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 474. In Ioan. tract, 5, 15. PL. T. 35. Col. 1422. Ibid 5, 18.PL. T. 35. Col. 1424. Ibid. 5, 13, 18. PL. T. 35. Col. 1421, 1424. Ibid. 6, 8.PL. T. 35. Col. 1429. Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 6, 11: “Nam unum atque idem sacrificium propter nomen Domini quod invocatur, et semper sanetum 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: Specht Th. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 141, 207–214. This inextricable connection between the recognition of the independence of the Sacrament from the moral qualities of the person performing it and the recognition of the reality of schismatic baptism is very persistently emphasized by Augustine himself. In “De baptismo” we constantly encounter the following reasoning: if the Sacrament performed by a sinner who has not separated from the Church is valid, then the Sacrament performed by a schismatic outside the Church is valid. After all, both of them cannot contribute anything from themselves to the reality of the Sacrament, which is performed by God Himself. To recognize as valid the Sacrament performed by a sinner, and at the same time reject the Sacrament performed by a schismatic, is completely inconsistent. See: IV, 5, 7; IV, 7, 10; VI, 26, 50; VI, 31, 60; VI, 40, 78; VI, 43, 84; VI, 41, 80; VII, 12, 23; VII, 15, 29; VII, 37, 73; VII, 54, 103. PL. T. 43. Col. 158, 160, 215, 217, 221, 222, 230, 231, 236, 244. Cfr.: Epist. 109. P. 11, 48. PL. T. 33. Col. 344. Contra epist Parmeniani, II, 13, 28: “Quae ubicumque sunt, ipsa sunt.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 70; Contra litteras Petiliani, II, 108, 247. PL. T. 43. Col. 345–346; Epist. 87, 9: “Non quaerimus ubi sit, sed ubi prosit.” PL T. 33. CoL 301; Epist. 98, 5.PL. T. 33. Col. 362. De bapt., IV, 10, 16. PL. T. 43. Col. 164; V, 4, 4: "Baptismus Christi per se ipsum reverendissimum atque sanctissimum esse posse credamus." P.L. T. 43. Col. 179. Ibid. I, 1, 2. PL. T. 43. Col. 109; IV, 1, 1; V, 23, 33; VI, 5, 7: “Potest tarnen tradere separatus, sicut potest habere separatus.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 155, 193, 200. Ibid. I, 1, 2: “Sicut autem baptizatus, si ab unitate recesserit, sacramentum Baptismi non amittit, sic etiam ordinatus, si ab unitate recesserit Sacramentum dandi Baptismi non amittit. Nulli enim Sacramento injuria facienda est.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 109. Cfr.: Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 13, 30. PL. T. 43. Col. 72. Epist. 87, 9: “Sacramenta quae non mutastis, sicut habetis approbantur a nobis.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 301; Epist. 93, 11, 46: "Ex catholica Ecclesia sunt omnia dominica Sacramenta, quae sic habetis et datis, quemadmodum habebantur et dabantur, etiam priusquam inde exiretis." P.L. T. 33. Col. 343; Serm. ad caesar. eccl. pleb. 2: "Ecclesiae habent bona". P.L. T. 43. Col. 691. Contra Crescon, II, 12, 14. PL. T. 43. Col. 474. De baptismo, 1, 7, 9: “Si forte veniret ad Ecclesiam non illud quod habebat ibi assiperet, sed in quo aberraverat emendaret.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 115. Cfr.: Col. 114. pp. 8, 10: Augustine gives the example of the centurion Cornelius. Cfr.: epist. 109. P. 11, 46. PL. T. 33. Col. 343; Contra Crescon., II, 12, 14. PL. T. 43. Col. 474; Epist. 93, 11, 46. PL. T. 33. Col. 343. Ibid. I, 1, 2; I, 5, 7. PL. T. 43. Col. 109–110, 113. Cfr.: De haeres. 69.PL. T. 42. Col. 43–44; Epist. 108. P. 2, 6. PL. T. 33. Col. 408; Contra litt. Petiliani, 1, 10, 11; 1, 11, 12. PL. T. 43. Col. 251, 253; Contra Gauden. Hb, 2. C 7. PL T. 43. Col. 745; Contra Cresconium, IV, 5,6. P.L. T. 43. Col. 551; IV, 16, 19. Col. 559. Contra Cresconium, IV, 1, 1. PL. T. 43. Col. 547. Retract. II, 26.PL. T. 32. Col. 641. Ibid. II, 29.PL. T. 32. Col. 642. Ibid. II, 35.PL. T. 32. Col. 645. De baptismo, II, 3, 4: "Vos certe nobis objicere soletis Cypriani litteras, Cypriani sententiam, Cypriani concilium." P.L. T. 43. Col. 128. Ibid. II, 2, 3. PL. T. 43. Col. 128. Ibid. 1, 18,28. P.L. T. 43. Col. 124; II, 8, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 134; II, 5, 6. Col. 129. Ibid. II, 3, 4. PL. T. 43. Col. 128; II, 7, 12: “Tenete nobiscum exempilum Cypriani ad unitatis conservationem.” Col. 132. Ibid. I, 1, 1: "Non solum eos non adjurari auctoritate Cypriani, sed per ipsam maxime convinci atque subverti." P.L. T. 43. Col. 109. Epist. 108, 3, 9. PL. T. 33. Col. 410. Epist. 93, 9, 41. PL. T. 33. Col. 341. Ibid. II, 6, 7, 8; II, 7, 10. PL. T. 43. Col. 130, 131, 132. In another case, Augustine's question sounds more sharply: “Ad ista respondete, lupi rapaces, qui pellibus ovinis indui cupientes, beati Cypriani litteras pro vobis esse arbitramini.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 133. Ibid. II, 5, 6. PL. T. 43. Col. 130. Ibid. II, 1, 2; II, 8, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 126–127, 134. Ibid. II, 4, 5. PL. T. 43. Col. 129. Ibid. II, 7, 12; II, 8, 13; II, 9, 14 PL. T. 43. Col. 133, 134, 135. Ibid. 1, 18, 28. PL. T. 43. Col. 124. Ibid. II, 9, 4. PL. T. 43. Col. 135. Here Augustine probably means the Council of Arelat of 314. Cfr.: Nota a. Col. 135–136. Ibid. II, 6, 7–8. P.L. T. 43. Col. 130–131. empty link (missed in the text, inserted so as not to confuse the numbering) Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 23. CSEL 3, 2. P. 796. Creations. Part 1. P. 347. De baptismo, VI, 28, 39: "Omnes qui corde sunt intus, in arcae unitate per eamdem aquam salvi fiunt, per quam omnes qui corde sunt foris, sive etiam corpore foris sint, sive non sint, tanquam unitatis adversarii moriuntur." P.L. T. 43. Col. 196, 197–198. Cfr.: II, 14, 19. PL. T. 43. Col. 138–139; Contra Cresconium, II, 33, 41. P.L. T. 43. Col. 491. This is how Cresconius reasoned, for example: Contra Cresconium, I, 21, 26; Ι, 26, 31. PL. T. 43. Col. 460, 462. Cfr.: De baptismo, I, 3, 4. PL. T. 43. Col. 111. De baptismo, 1, 2, 3; VI, 40, 78. PL. T. 43. Col. 110, 221; Contra Cresconium, 1, 22, 27. PL. T. 43. Col. 460. Augustine makes a distinction between the concepts of “having” and “having with benefit” (utiliter, salubriter). See De bapt., IV, 17, 24: "Aliud est non habere, aliud non utilitcr habere." P.L. T. 43. Col. 170; Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 13, 28: "Aliud est non habere, aliud perniciose habere, aliud salubriter habere." P.L. T. 43. Col. 71. Contra Cresconium, II, 13, 16; IV, 21, 26. PL. T. 43. Col. 476, 563; De bapt., IV, 10, 16. PL. T. 43. Col. 164; IV, 9, 13. Col. 162; Epist. 108. P. 2, 6. PL. T. 33. Col. 408. Cfr.: p. 6, 16. Col. 415. De unico bapt. contra Petilian. pp. 6, 7; 10, 17.PL. T. 43. Col. 599, 604; Contra Faustum, lib. 12. pp. 17, 20. PL. T. 42. Col. 263, 264, 265. See also De bapt., 1, 2, 3; III, 10, 13; IV, 13, 20; IV, 17, 24; V, 4, 4; VII, 33, 65; VII, 38, 75. PL. T. 43. Col. 110, 144, 167, 170, 179, 235, 236; Contra litt. Petiliani, I, 23, 25; III, 40, 46. PL. T. 43. Col. 257, 372; De unitate Eccl., 22, 61. PL. T. 43. Col. 437; Sermo de Rusticiano, I, PL. T. 43. Col. 756; Epist 61, 1, 2. PL. T. 33. Col. 229. Ibid. I, 22, 27. PL. T. 43. Col. 460. Ibid. I, 23, 28. PL. T. 43. Col. 460. In p.s. 135, 9.PL. T. 37. Col. 1760. De bapt., V, 28, 39. PL. T. 43. Col. 197–198. Cfr.: Contra Faustum, XII, 17. PL. T. 42. Col. 263. Contra Cresconium, 1, 24, 29. PL. T. 43. Col. 46l. The law is discussed in more detail with reference to Rome. 3, 10–19; 7, 7–13: ibid. pp. 25, 30. PL. T. 43. Col. 461. Ibid. I, 25, 30. PL. T. 43. Col. 462; In ep. Ioan. tract., 7, 6. PL. T. 35. Col. 2032. Ibid. 1, 26, 31–27, 32. PL. T. 43. Col. 462. Ibid. II, 13, 16. PL. T. 43. Col. 476. De bapt., III, 16, 21. PL. T. 43. Col. 148. Cfr.: In Ioan. tract., 6. 14: “Quomodo habeat charitatem, qui dividit unitatem.” P.L. T. 35. Col. 1432. Epist 61, 2.PL. T. 33. Col. 229. Contra epist. Parmen., II, 11, 25: "Praecidendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas." P.L. T. 43. Col. 69. Ibid. II, 11, 25: “Non esse quidquam gravius ​​sacrilegio schismatis.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 69. Cfr.: Contra litter. Petiliani, II, 96, 221: “Vos omnes nocentes et sceleratos esse... crimine schismatis, a quo immansissimo sacrilegio nemo vestrum se potest immunem, quamdiu non communicat initate omnium gentium.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 333. Cfr.: De bapt., I, 5, 6. PL. T. 43. Col. 113. For Augustine’s harsh judgments on heresies and schisms, see S. Romeis (“Das Heil des Christen ausserhalb der wahren Kirche.” S. 71–73). Epist. 208, 6: “Ab ea (Ecclesia) separati, quamdiu contra illam sentiunt, boni esse non possunt; quia et si aliquos eorum bonos videtur ostendere quasi laudabilis conversatio, malos eos tacit ipsa divisio.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 952. Cfr.: Contra epist. Parmen., II, 3, 6. PL. T. 43. Col. 54; De bapt., I, 8, 10. PL. T. 43. Col. 115; Epist. 185, 9, 42: “Nemo potest esse justus, quamdiu fuerit ab unitate hujus corporis separatus.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 811; Serm. 312, 6: “Nulla esset charitas christiani, a quo non custodiretur unitas Christi.” P.L. T. 38. Col. 1422. De baptismo, I, 9, 12. PL. T. 43. Col. 116; III, 14, 19. PL. T. 43. Col. 147; III, 16, 21. Col. 148; In Ioan. tract., 6, 21. PL. T. 35. Col. 1435. Ibid. IV, 1, 1; V, 23, 33. PL. T. 43. Col. 155, 193; Senn. 268, 2: “Qui cunque praeter hanc Ecclesiam est, non habet Spiritum sanctum.” P.L. T. 38. Col. 1232; In ep. Ioan. tr., 6, 11. PL. T. 35. Col. 2026. Serm. 71, 19, 32: “Virtus pietatis invisibilis et spiritualis ita in eis non potest esse, quemad-modum sensus non sequitur hominis membrum, quando amputatur a corpore.” P.L. T. 38. Col. 463. Sermo ad caesareensis ecclesiae plebem, 3. PL. T. 43. Col. 692–693. In this speech the interpretation of 1 Cor. 13, 1–3 is particularly lively. See also in 1 Ioan. tract., 5, 6. PL. T. 35. Col. 2015; In Ioan. tract., 32, 8. PL. T. 35. Col. 1646; De bapt, V, 23, 33. PL. T. 43. Col. 193. De baptismo, 1, 10, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 116–117. De baptismo, I, 5, 7; 1, 10,14; VII, 5, 9; VII, 6.11; VII, 44, 87; VII, 54, 103. PL. T. 43. Col. 113, 117–118, 228, 238, 244. Cfr.: 1, 15, 23: “Ecclesia omnes per Baptismum parit, sive apud se, id est, ex utero suo; sive extra se de semine viri sul, sive de se, sive de ancilla.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 121–122. Cfr.: De bapt, IV, 17, 24: “Qui non habet est baptizandus ut habeat qui autem non utiliter habet, ut utiliter habeat corrigendus.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 170; Contra Creson., I, 29, 34: "Non cum ad nos veneritis alterum (baptismum) accipiatis sed ut eum qui jam apud vos erat, utiliter habearis." P.L. T. 43. Col. 463–464; De bapt,, V, 28, 39: “Illic eis aqua incipit prodesse ad salutem.” PL., T. 43. Col. 196; Contra Crescon., II, 12, 14; II, 13, 16. PL. T. 43. Col. 474, 476; De bapt, VI, 31, 60. PL. T. 43. Col. 217; Epist. 108. P. 2, 6: “Quando cum illo ad Ecclesiam vener-it, quod foris oberat, intus proderit; non cum ipse repetitur Baptismum, sed cum corrigitur baptizatus.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 408. Cfr.: p. 6, 16. Col. 415; Epist 93. P. II, 46, PL. T. 33. Col. 343; Contra litt. Petiliani, III, 40, 46. PL. T. 43. Col. 372; Contra Cresconium, II, 28, 34: “Tunc ei prodesse incipire, cum transit ad corpus Christi, quod est Ecclesia Dei vivi.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 487. Cfr.: II, 28, 36. Col. 488; Contra Gaudent., lib. I. S. 12, 13. PL T. 43. Col. 711; De civit Dei XXI, 27, 3. T. 41. Col. 748; In Ioan. tract, 6, 14, 17, 18. PL. T. 35. Col. 1432, 1433, 1434. De baptismo, 1, 11, 15. PL. T. 43. Col. 118. Ibid I, 11, 16. PL. T. 43. Col. 118. Ibid. 1, 12, 18: "Qui tamen tunc prosit ad remissionem peccatorum, cum quis reconciliatus unitati, sacrilegio dissensionis exuitur, quo ejus peccata tenebantur, et dimitti non sinebantur." P.L. T. 43. Col. 119. Ibid. I, 12, 18: “ipsa ei reconciliatione ac race praeastatur, ut ad remissionem peccatorum ejus in unitate jam prodesse incipiat Sacramentum, quod acceptum in schismate prodesse non poterat.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 119. Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 13, 28. PL. T. 43. Col. 71. De baptismo, I, 12, 19; VII, 3, 5. PL. T. 43. Col. 119–120, 227. Ibid I, 12, 20. PL. T. 43. Col. 120. Ibid I, 13, 21; VI, 34, 65. PL. T. 43. Col. 121, 219; Contra Gaudent. Lib. I. S. 12, 13: “Ipsa catholicae unitatis charitate mundari, ut non incipiat eis intus inesse quod et foris inerat, sed incipiat eis prodesse intus quod foris oberat.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 711; Epist. 61, 1: "Sanctum Sacramentum quod foris ab Ecclesia habent ad perniciem, in race Ecclesiae habeant ad salutem." P.L. T. 33. Col. 229. Ctr. Epist. 141, 13.PL. T. 33. Col. 583; Epist. 89, 7.PL. T. 33. Col. 312; Epist 61, 2.PL. T. 33. Col. 229. (LINK IS MISSING IN THE TEXT - PUT IN A RANDOM PLACE) Ibid. I, 15, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 121–122. Contra Cresconium, I, 29, 34. PL. T. 43. Col. 463–464. De baptismo, 1, 1, 2. PL. T. 43. Col. 110. Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 77, 172: “Charitas enim Christiana nisi in unitate Ecclesiae non potest custodire... Tenemus autem charitatem, si amplectimur unitatem.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 312; De bapt, IV, 17, 24. PL. T. 43. Col. 169; Serm. 312, 6: “Nulla esset charitas christiani, a quo non custodiretur unitas Christi.” P.L. T. 38. Col. 1422. Quaest in heptat, 5, 15. PL. T. 34. Col. 755. De unit Eccl, II, 2. PL. T. 43. Col. 392; In p.s. 30, serm. 2, 1.PL. T. 36. Col. 239; In ep. Ioan. tract, 2, 3. PL. T. 35. Col. 1992. Contra Crescon., II, 12, 15; II, 13, 16. PL. T. 43. Col. 476; II, 14, 17: "Nee quemquam accepturum Spiritum sanctum nisi qui ejus (Ecclesiae) unitatem copularetur." Col. 477. Cfr.: In Ioan. tract, 32, 8. PL. T. 35. Col. 1645–1646. Epist. 185, 10, 46. PL. T. 33. Col. 813. Cfr.: Epist 185, 9, 42: “Quemadmodum enim membrum si praecidatur ab hominis vivi corpore, non potest tenere spiritum vitae, sic homo qui praeciditur de Christi justi; corpore, nullo modo potest spiritum tenere justitiae, etiam si figuram membri teneat, quam sumsit in corpore.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 811. Cfr.: serm. 268, 2.PL. T. 38. Col. 1232. Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 77, 172: “Non prosit hominibus, quamvis in eis sint vel Sacramenta vel fides, ubi charitas non est... sine illa (charitate) nihil vos esse, et si Baptismum et fidem teneatis... teneamus charitatem, sine qua et cum Sacramentis et cum fide nihil sumus." P.L. T. 43. Col. 312. Sermo ad caesar. eccl. pleb. P. 6. PL. T. 43. Col. 695. De bapt, IV, 17, 24. PL. T. 43. Col. 170. Epist. 141, 5.PL. T. 33. Col. 579. Ibid. 73–60. P. 24. CSEL 3, 2. P. 797. Creations. Part 1. P. 348. See above: P. 459. You might be interested in: