Saint Augustine of Hippo. On Baptism against the Donatists

Contents From the translator I II III IV Bibliography V VI VII VIII IX Sources and literature Sources Literature In the first half of 303, the first decree of Emperor Diocletian reached the borders of Africa, opening the last Great Persecution of Christians, with demands for the release of liturgical vessels and the Holy Scriptures. And at the beginning of 304, an even stricter decree was issued, commanding all Christians to make symbolic sacrifices as a sign of their devotion to the emperors and the gods of the official cult of the empire. Fearing executions, many Christians, both clergy and laity, began to make these sacrifices and hand out vessels and Scriptures in accordance with the requirements of the previous decree. Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage, as a compromise, was able to agree with fairly tolerant local authorities, instead of performing pagan sacrifices, to stop public Christian worship, and instead of the Holy Scriptures, to issue books of heretics. Despite this, he was criticized by both the episcopate and the laity. Meanwhile, Bishop Mensurius and his deacon Caecilian decided that it was better to hide for now and wait out the storm of persecution 1 . However, the end of Diocletian's persecution did not bring peace to the African Church. Already in the first half of 305, African Christian communities, like most of the Roman Empire, found themselves in a position where it was time to find ways to reconcile and resolve difficult issues. Many bishops began to be accused of “collaborationism.” The transfer (traditio) of sacred books was considered by many as a betrayal, and some began to consider the traditional bishops themselves as having lost all spiritual power and grace 2 . Fierce disputes broke out between those who, being weak, betrayed the Church during the persecution, and those who insisted on applying the strictest canonical punishments to them. Bishop Mensurius of Carthage, being formally not guilty of treason, like once his predecessor at the Carthage See. Cyprian took a much softer position. And if St. Cyprian was able to lead the Church to unity and peace with his strong hand and authority 3, then Bishop Mensurius only managed to cause discontent among the more rigoristic Numidian bishops and laity, dying soon after the easing of the persecution around 305 4. Soon Archdeacon Caecilian was elected as his successor, following much the same moderate line as Mensurius. This situation did not suit many rigorists, and therefore charges of treason (traditio) were brought against himself, the already deceased Bishop Mensurius, and Felix, Bishop of Aptunga, who participated in the episcopal consecration of Caecilian. This was a good enough reason for the 80 Numidian bishops to declare his consecration invalid and elect their own "pure" candidate, who was soon replaced by Bishop Donatus, who gave his name to the entire schismatic movement in Africa, which is often called the Donatist Church, or Donatus's party (pars Donati). By the end of the 4th century. Donatist communities were already spread throughout North Africa, having the greatest influence in Numidia, but even in such a pro-Roman city (civitas Romana) as Ippon Rhegium 7 their influence was very significant 8 . St. Augustine the Blessed, having first become a presbyter and then bishop of Hippo, enters this protracted conflict between Catholics and Donatists as an external person. His hometown of Tagaste has always been a stronghold of Catholics, and he himself was first a Manichaean, and adopted Christianity far beyond the borders of Africa; even the translation of the Bible he used did not coincide with what his opponents read 9 . For him, the idea of ​​the Church as universal and Catholic 10 was one of the most important truths of the Christian confession. Therefore, he was amazed that despite the fact that the Donatists prayed to the same God, believed in the same Christ, listened to the same Gospel, sang the same psalms, answered “Amen” in exactly the same way, and proclaimed “Hallelujah”, celebrated the same Easter 11, they still refused unity with the Catholic Church, which had spread across the face of the whole earth, breaking off communion not only with Catholics bishops of North Africa, but in general with all Catholic bishops, both West and East. Being an excellent orator, and already having considerable experience in discussions with the Manichaeans, St. Augustine hoped to follow the path of public debate in the fight against the Donatists. Quite quickly, he accepted the tradition common to all Christians in Africa, both Catholics and Donatists, but, unlike the latter, he approached it as a well-prepared philosopher and a truly wise shepherd. In many ways, his works directed against the Donatists became the crown of development of ecclesiology of the Early Church 12. The Donatists did not contribute to the public debates that St. so desired. Augustine, only occasionally was he able to meet face to face with the spiritual leaders of his opponents 13. Knowing about his incredible ability to hold his own in disputes, they were even afraid of him, calling him a seducer, a deceiver, a wolf who should be killed to save the herd 14 . Even the most gifted of the Donatist bishops did not want their writings to fall into the hands of the Catholics, and then of St. himself. Augustine, avoided entering into literary polemics 15. At the time of his accession to the see of Ippon Regius, the Catholics in the city were in the minority and were largely oppressed by the followers of Donatus. Thus, around this time, the Donatist bishop could forbid bakers to bake bread for Catholics 16, and representatives of the local aristocracy refused St. Augustine in any support 17. Being in the minority, the Catholics became more and more assimilated among the Donatists, including through mixed marriages. Sometimes it was more profitable to be a Donatist to successfully resolve a lawsuit. Starting from 393 g 18. the new Catholic bishop Ippona, together with his colleagues, begins active action against the Donatists. A ban on mixed marriages is gradually being introduced; clergy are prohibited from leaving property to non-Catholics in a will or in any other way, even if they are related by blood 19 . Later from 393 to 405. The Catholic Church more and more defended its rights with the support of the imperial authorities, who gradually began to persecute everyone who did not belong to the ranks of Catholics 20 . However, before the persecution of the Donatists by the state of St. Augustine writes a number of polemical works aimed, if not at convincing the most convinced Donatists, then at least to return doubters from among them to the fold of the Church and attract those who are undecided, as well as to protect those weak in the faith from among the Catholics. These include “Psalm against the Donatists” (Psalmus contra partem Donati), the now lost work “Against the Party of Donatus” (Contra partem Donati), “Against the letter of Parmenian” (Contra epistolam Parmeniani), “On Baptism against the Donatists” (De Baptismo contra Donatistas) 21. Of which, Psalm 22 was recently translated into Russian, and the rest remain inaccessible to the modern Russian-speaking reader. However, from the entire corpus of anti-Donatist writings, St. Augustine is of particular interest, from our point of view, in his treatise De Baptismo. First, it deals with the most controversial dogmatic issue raised at the time. Namely, the question of the validity of Baptism performed outside the canonical boundaries of the Church, whether by schismatics or heretics. Secondly, this is truly a full-fledged treatise, and not a letter or a sermon, in which there could be omissions or inaccuracies, which means that we have before us a text to which St. Augustine devoted considerable time, and we can be sure that we are dealing with something thoughtful and meaningful, and not some sketch or passing comment. Thirdly, of all the treatises written by St. Augustine against the Donatists, this is the only one that has come down to us that he wrote before the Edict of 405 23. not being a response to anyone's specific emails. It examines in detail the argument of the opposing side, regardless of who expresses it. And finally, in it St. Augustine reaches the very historical origins of the Donatist schism and its theological problems. Accordingly, the treatise contains a huge historical and factual base on the history of the schism, as well as African Christianity 24. In addition, St. Augustine not only analyzes the position of his contemporaries or the founders of the schism, but also those Orthodox theologians on whom the Donatists relied, namely the position of the schmch. Cyprian of Carthage and the Councils he held. In the Russian-language academic tradition, this work was considered within the framework of the work of V.Z. Belolikova “Literary activity of Blessed. Augustine against the Donatist schism" 25. In it, the author gives a brief retelling of the main provisions of the treatise and a brief Orthodox assessment of them. Along with this treatise V.Z. Belolikov also examines the saint’s other anti-Donatist works and, at the conclusion of his work, writes: “unfortunately, Augustine’s writings against the Donatists, despite all their importance, have not been translated into Russian. Russian society expects this from our Almae Matris 26 » 27 . These expectations were not destined to come true; the author’s work itself was published in 1912, and after 5 years such an enterprise, for obvious reasons, became impossible. In the same 1912, “Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church” were also published. Hilarion (Troitsky), in which he pays some attention to the treatise De Baptismo within the chapter devoted to polemics with the Donatists 28. In it, he conveys some of the key provisions of the treatise, in places giving a translation-retelling of some fragments very close to the text 29. The most recent critical edition of the treatise at the moment is the text published in the series Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum in 1908 30 . To date, this publication is the most complete in terms of the use of available manuscripts. It is this publication that forms the basis for the translation proposed below. The most recent translation of the treatise into English is J.R.'s translation, first published in 1887. King as part of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series founded by P. Schaff 31 . Currently, New City Press, in collaboration with the Augustinian Heritage Institute, is re-translating and publishing Augustine’s work in English as part of the project “The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century.” At the moment, the treatise De Baptismo is planned to be translated by 2023 32 . Somewhat earlier, as part of the publication of the complete collection of works of St. Augustine was translated into French in 1870 by the abbot M. Burleraux 33 . Later in 1964, the Institut d'Études Augustiniennes published a new French translation by G. Finaert and G. Bavaud 34 as part of a new edition of the complete works in the Bibliothèque Augustinienne series. The reader is invited to the experience of translating from Latin the first 4 chapters of the first book “On Baptism against the Donatists” by St. Augustine the Blessed. In them, he denotes the theme of the entire treatise, and also denotes the position of the Church regarding Baptism performed outside the Church. The entire first book of the treatise is devoted to justifying the recognition of this Baptism as valid, however, not beneficial while a person is in schism or heresy. Latin words are enclosed in parentheses () to facilitate understanding of some words and fragments of the translation. 1. In the book we wrote against the published epistle of Parmenianus to Tychonius, we promised that after some time we would consider the question of Baptism more thoroughly. Indeed, even if we had not made such a promise, we do not forget the urgent requests of our brothers to fulfill this duty. Therefore, in this work, with God's help, we have undertaken not only to reject the objections raised against us regarding Baptism by the Donatists, but also to develop what God will lead us to say regarding the authority of the blessed martyr Cyprian, whom they are eager to use as a support, in order to forestall their vicious tendency to fall before attacking the truth. And we are going to do this so that those whose judgment is not blinded by loyalty to the party (partium caecati) can understand, since the authority of Cyprian is in their mail, that it leads directly to their refutation and defeat. 2. In the book mentioned above it has already been said that the grace of Baptism can be given outside of Catholic 36 unity 37 just as outside of this unity Baptism can be possessed. None of the Donatists themselves deny that even apostates (apostatas) have Baptism, who, when they return to the fold of the Church, are certainly accepted through repentance, because it is not given to anyone to lose the grace of Baptism. Likewise, those who leave the unity of the Church through the blasphemy (sacrilegium) of the schism definitely retain the grace of Baptism, which they received before their departure, considering that in the event of their return, it is not performed on them again, which proves that the Baptism which they received while in the unity of the Church, they could not lose through their separation. If they can have Baptism outside the Church, why can’t they also give it? You say that “Baptism is given illegally (non recte) outside,” we answer: “Just as Baptism is unlawfully given outside, and yet it is, so Baptism is given illegally outside, but is still given.” Just as with a repentant return (reconciliationem) to unity, the possession of Baptism received before leaving for schism begins to be useful, without bringing benefit outside of unity, so through the same repentance, Baptism received in schism becomes useful, being given without benefit outside of unity. However, it is not permissible to say that Baptism, which was given, was not given, nor should anyone reproach a person for not being given Baptism, recognizing that it was given to him when he accepted it. For the Sacrament of Baptism is something that one who is baptized possesses, and the Sacrament of Baptism is something that one who is ordained possesses. And just as a baptized person, if he is separated from the unity of the Church, does not thus lose the Sacrament of Baptism, so one who is ordained, if he is separated from the unity of the Church, does not lose the Sacrament of Baptism. For no Sacrament can be made invalid (iniuria). If it is invalid in the sinner, it is 38 invalid in both; if it remains 39 in the sinner, then it remains in both. If, therefore, the Baptism of one who could not lose it by separating himself from the unity of the Church is recognized, then the Baptism that is performed by one who has not lost the Sacrament of Baptism with separation should be recognized. In fact, just as those returning to the Church, who, before falling away, were baptized, are not rebaptized, so those returning to the Church, who, before falling away, were ordained, be that as it may, are not ordained again, but either serve as they served, if the benefit of the Church requires it, or even if they do not serve, they nevertheless possess the Sacrament of their ordination, and therefore a hand is not laid on them together with the laity 40 . In fact, Felician did not lose either the Sacrament of Baptism or the Sacrament of Baptism when he separated from the Donatists with Maximian. For now he is one of the Donatists, along with those whom he baptized, being outside 41, in the Maximian schism. That is why others can receive from schismatics, while they have not yet entered into communion (consortium) with us, what they did not lose by separating from communion (consortio) with us. And since it is clear that those who try to rebaptize those in the circle of unity act dishonestly, we also act correctly when we do not reject the Sacraments of God, even if they are committed in schism. For in what the schismatics think with us, in that they are also ours, in that they separate from us, in that they do not agree with us; for this is the connection and separation of non-physical movements, which should not be measured in the same way as spiritual ones 42. For if the connection of bodies is carried out through the continuity of positions (locorum), then the connection of souls is the agreement of wills (uoluntatum). If, therefore, a person who has separated from unity desires to act differently in some way from what he accepted in unity, in that he is separated and different; whatever he then wants to act in, as one acts in unity, where he accepted and was taught, remains in unity and is one with that. 3. Thus, the Donatists are ours in some matters, but in others they actually moved away from us. Accordingly, in what they are ours, we do not forbid them to follow, but in what they are not ours, we, as much as we can, caring from the bottom of our hearts, encourage them, let them come and receive or even return back, returning, let them choose infallibility and be corrected. So we do not say to them: “refuse to give Baptism,” but: “refuse to give Baptism in schism,” nor do we say to those whom we see baptized: “refuse to accept,” but: “refuse to accept in schism.” So if someone, driven by urgent necessity, cannot find a Catholic from whom he could receive Baptism, and keeps the Catholic world in his soul, accepts from someone outside Catholic unity the Baptism that he wanted to receive in Catholic unity itself, if he immediately departs from this life, we consider him to be nothing other than a Catholic. If he, having been freed from bodily death, restores his bodily presence in the Catholic community (congregationi), from which he was never separated in heart, we will not only not condemn what he did, but truly and confidently praise this act, because he believed in the presence of God in his heart, remained in unity and did not want to depart from this life without the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, considering it to belong not to man, but to God, wherever it was found. If someone, having the opportunity to receive Baptism in the Catholic Church itself, for some depravity of mind chooses to be baptized in a schism, even if later he decides to come to the Catholic Church - because, undoubtedly, the Sacrament brings benefit there, which, although it can be received elsewhere, cannot bring benefit, on the contrary, cannot bring benefit - he is without a doubt corrupted and unreliable, and the more he sins the more consciously he does so. After all, if the Catholic Church does not doubt that he will receive benefit even from Baptism, which he received in another place, then let him not doubt that it is legally accepted in it. 4. There are truly two things that we affirm: both that Baptism exists in the Catholic Church, and that only in it is it legally accepted; of which the Donatists deny both. Likewise, there are two other statements: that the Donatists have Baptism, but it is not legally accepted there; Of these two, the Donatists strongly confirm one, that is, that they have Baptism. But they do not want to admit that Baptism is accepted illegally. Of these four provisions, three are only ours; one, indeed, is affirmed by both parties. In fact, what Baptism exists in the Catholic Church and is legally accepted in it, and what is illegally accepted among the Donatists, we only affirm. That there is, indeed, Baptism among the Donatists, they affirm, and it is permitted by us. So, anyone who wishes to be baptized and, despite the fact that he is already confident that our Church provides Christian salvation, and that in her alone the Baptism of Christ benefits, even if it was received somewhere else, still wishes to be baptized in the party of Donatus, because it is not only they, nor we only, but both parties who claim that the Donatists have Baptism, let him reflect on the other three statements. After all, if he decided to follow us in what the Donatists deny, and yet prefers to what we only affirm, what both parties affirm, it is enough for us that he prefers what they deny, and we alone affirm, to what they alone affirm. That there is Baptism in the Catholic Church, we affirm, the Donatists deny; that Baptism is lawfully accepted in the Catholic Church, we affirm, they deny; that Baptism is illegally accepted in the party of Donatus, we affirm, they deny. Consequently, since he rather believes as we alone assert he should believe, then let him rather act as we alone assert he should act. However, if he argues this way, let him be firmer in what both parties consider should be believed than in what we alone affirm. For I am more inclined to believe that there is Baptism of Christ in the party of Donatus, which both our parties affirm, than that there is Baptism in the Catholic Church, which is exclusively affirmed by Catholics. But, on the contrary, he must believe more in the fact that we also have the Baptism of Christ, which we alone affirm, than in the fact that we do not have Baptism, which the Donatists alone assert. For he has already determined and is sure that in those matters on which we differ in opinion, we should be preferred to them. Thus, therefore, one should believe more in what we alone assert—that Baptism is received lawfully among us—than in what only the Donatists assert that Baptism is received illegally among us. In accordance with the same rule, one must believe more in what we alone assert, that Baptism is received illegally among the Donatists, than in what they alone assert, that is, that Baptism is received lawfully among them. Thus, he sees in vain his confidence in accepting Baptism from the Donatists, because although both parties claim that it exists there, not both claim that it should be accepted from the Donatists. However, he himself chose, in a way that not both parties claim, to join us. Let him, therefore, confidently accept Baptism where he is sure that it exists and is legally accepted; there, on the contrary, let him not accept Baptism, where those whose views he chose to obey, although they claim that Baptism exists there, do not claim that it should legally be accepted there. However, even if he doubts that Baptism is illegally accepted among the Donatists, that it is legally accepted in the Catholic Church, he is confident and gravely sins in the matter concerning the salvation of the soul, if only in that he prefers uncertainty to certainty. It is correct, of course, for a person to be baptized in the Catholic Church, about which he himself is confident, because he decided to move into it, even if he is baptized somewhere else. On the contrary, it is wrong for a person to be baptized by the Donatists, at least having uncertainty, and at the same time claiming that he is confident about those whose views he puts above the views of the Donatists, and, preferring certainty to uncertainty, let him be baptized there, where there is confidence that Baptism is legally performed, because he decided to go there, although he was hoping to perform Baptism somewhere else. 5. Moreover, if anyone does not understand how it can be that we admit that the Sacrament exists among the Donatists, but affirm that it is not lawfully conferred there, let him pay attention to the fact that we affirm that Baptism does not exist legally there, just as they affirm the same about those who withdraw from communion with them. Let him also pay attention to the similarity with a military mark 43, which outside the army can be preserved and accepted by fugitives, and yet outside the army should neither be preserved nor accepted, however, for those returning or joining the army, it neither changes nor is updated. And yet it is one thing when we speak of those who without reasoning rush towards these heretics, believing that this is the Church of Christ itself, and another thing when we speak of those who know that there is no Catholic Church except that which, according to the promise, is spread throughout the whole earth and reaches to the very ends of the earth, which grows in the midst of the tares and turns away from temptations, expecting rest in the future, says in the psalms: “from the end of the earth I cried to You, and my soul faints: You brought me up on a rock” (Ps. 61:3) 44. This stone was Christ (see 1 Cor. 10:4) - in whom we are already risen and seated in heaven, as the apostle says, not yet in reality, but in hope (see Eph. 2:6). And therefore the psalm continues and says: “He lifted me up, for he became my hope, a strong tower from the face of the enemy” (Ps. 60:3–4) 45. By means, of course, of His promises, like spears and javelins kept in a fortified tower, which not only terrify, but also subdue the enemy, who dresses his wolves in sheep's clothing, so that they say: “Behold, here is Christ, or there” (Matt. 24:23), so as to separate many from the unity (ab uniuersitate) of the city established on top of the mountain to the fragmentation of their intrigues and destroy those cut off from this unity (iugulatos absumant). And at the same time, these people, knowing all this, choose to accept the Baptism of Christ outside the communion of the unity of the Body of Christ (communionem unitatis corporis Christi), subsequently moving into the same communion (communionem) with the Baptism that they received somewhere else. For they know this even on the very day when, in contradiction with the Church of Christ (aduersus ecclesiam Christi), they receive the Baptism of Christ. For if it is sinful, who is it that will say, “Give me permission to sin for one day”? For if he is going to convert to the Catholic Church, I am looking for a reason (quaero causam). What other answer can be given than that it is evil (malum) to be in the party of Donatus and not to be in the Catholic Unity? In this case, no matter how many days you do this evil, there will be so many evil days, and we can say that more evil comes from a greater number of days, on the contrary, less from fewer days; on the other hand, it is impossible to say that no evil happened at all. But why should one commit this evil, so damnable (execrabile), even for one day or even for one hour? For anyone who desires such permission for himself can demand from the Church or even from God Himself that he be allowed to become an apostate (apostatare) for just one day. Indeed, there is not a single reason to be afraid of being an apostate for one day, and at the same time not to be afraid of being a schismatic or heretic for one day (nulla causa est). 1. Augustine Aurelius. Psalm against the Donatists (translation from Latin and comments by A. A. Tashchian) // Bulletin of the Russian Chemical Academy. – 2017. – No. 2. – P. 15–25. 2. Augustin d'Hippone. Du Baptême Contre les Donatistes // Œuvres complètes de Saint Augustin / ed. M. Raulx; trans. M. l'abbé Burleraux. – Bar-le-Duc: L. Guérin & Cie, 1867. – Vol. XV. – P. 67–190. 3. Augustin d'Hippone. Sept livres sur le baptême // Traités anti-donatistes II / Œuvres de saint Augustin: Bibliothèque augustinienne. /tran. G. Finaert et G. Bavaud. – Paris: Brepols Publishers, 1964. – Vol. 29. – P. 7–575. 4. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. On Baptism, against the Donatists // A Select Library of the Christian Church / Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers / coll. P. Schaff; trans. rev. J.R. King. – USA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995. – Vol. 4: Augustin: The Writings Against the Manichaeans, and Against the Donatists. – Series I. – P. 407–514. 5. Augustinus. De Baptismo contra Donatistas // Sancti Aureli Augustini. Opera (Sect. VII Pars I). Scriptorum contra Donatistas pars I: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum / ed. Petschenig, M. - Wien: Academiae Literarum Caesareae Vidobonensis, 1908. - T. LI. – Col. 143–375. 6. Augustinus. Enarratio in Psalmum LIV // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina / ed. J.-P. Migne. – Paris, 1865. – T. 36. – Col. 628–646. 7. Possidius. Vita Sancti Aureli Augustini, Hipponensis Episcopi, auctore Possidio Calamensi Episcopo // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina / ed. J.-P. Migne. – Paris, 1841. – T. 32. – Col. 35–66. 8. Afanasy (Bukin), priest. Totus Christus (The experience of a systematic presentation of Orthodox patristic ecclesiology on the example of the catholicity of the Church) // Materials of the VIII International Student Scientific and Theological Conference on May 18–19, 2016: collection of reports / St. Petersburg Theological Academy. – St. Petersburg: SPbPDA Publishing House, 2016. – P. 122–129. 9. Belolikov V.Z. Literary activity of Blazh. Augustine against the Donatist split. – Kiev, 1912. 10. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church: in 4 volumes. T. II. History of the Church in the period before Constantine the Great / ed. prof. A. Brilliantova. – M.: Spaso-Perobrazhensky Valaam Stavropegial Monastery, 1994. 11. Gezen A.M. History of the Slavic translation of the creed // A. Gesen, essays and notes from the field of philology, history and philosophy. – St. Petersburg: Printing house of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1884. – P. 1–102. 12. Hilarion (Troitsky), schmch. Essays from the history of the dogma of the Church // Creations: in 3 volumes - M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2004. - Vol. I. - pp. 59–503. 13. Briley A.R. Some Notes on the Donatist Schism // Libyan Studies. – UK: Cambridge, 1987. – No. 18. – P. 29–41. 14. Brown P. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. – USA, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2013. 15. Brown P. Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD. – USA: Princeton University Press, 2012. 16. Chadwick H. Augustine of Hippo. A Life. – USA, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 17. Evers A. Augustine on the Church (Against the Donatists) // A Companion to Augustine / ed. by M. Vessey; with ass. of S. Reid. – UK: Willey-Blackwell, 2012. – P. 375–385. 18. Jensen R.M. Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions. – USA, Michigan: Baker Books, 2012. 19. Listing of Future Publications in The Works of Saint Augustine A Translation for the 21st Century [Electronic resource]. – URL: http://www.newcitypress.com/media/downloads/Listing_of_Future_Publications_in_WSA.pdf (updated: 02/02/2017; accessed: 02/11/2017). 20. The Works of Saint Augustine [Electronic resource]. – URL: https://www.newcitypress.com/augustine-series/the-works-of-saint-augustine.html (updated: 11/02/2017; accessed: 11/02/2017). Hieromonk Afanasy (Mikhail Andreevich Bukin) – Master of Theology, graduate student of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (mabukin@gmail.com) 6. “There,” he says, “I prefer to accept the Baptism of Christ, where it exists according to both parties.” But it is illegal to receive Baptism where you decided to leave; it is legal, really, to receive Baptism where you decided to go. Thus, what those whom you yourself place inferior say, as opposed to those whom you yourself prefer, is either false, or, at least, to put it mildly, doubtful. Therefore, choose the truth over the lie, or at least prefer the doubtful to the certain. Indeed, not only those to whom you are planning to go, having received Baptism elsewhere, but you yourself, who have decided to go to them, confess that only with them is it possible to legally receive Baptism. For if you doubt which of the two parties it is possible to legally receive Baptism, then you should also doubt whether it is worth moving somewhere else. If, therefore, someone is not sure whether there is a sin in receiving Baptism in the party of Donatus, then who can doubt that it is really rather a sin in not accepting Baptism where he is sure that there is no sin? At the same time, of course, those who, being in ignorance, were baptized by the Donatists, believing that this is the Church of Christ itself, although in comparison with those they sin less, are nevertheless damaged by the bad schism, albeit not so severely, because others are more severely. At the same time, it is said to some: “The Sodomites will be more patient on the day of judgment than you” (Matthew 11:24) 46; it is not said, however, that the Sodomites will not be tormented, but that they will be tormented more severely. 7. Even if this, perhaps, was once secret and unreliable. However, why those who listen and are corrected are healed, those who, no longer being in ignorance, are raging in stubbornness to their own destruction are burdened. After all, the condemnation of the Maximianists and the acceptance of those condemned with those who, outside their unity, are blasphemous, as the Council proclaims, were baptized in schism, removes this entire question, eliminates the entire dispute. There remains no disagreement between us and those Donatists who have communion with Primian, whence comes the doubt that it is possible not only to have, but also to receive the Baptism of Christ from those who have separated from the Church. For how they themselves are forced to recognize as true the Baptism received by those whom Felician baptized in the schism, since they now have with them those who have this very Baptism that they received in the schism. Thus, we consider ours that Baptism of Christ, which, even if outside Catholic unity, is given by those who are separated from this very unity, since they did not lose it by separating. And that they themselves consider those whom Felician baptized in the schism to be united with those with whom they were reunited; it is not that they will receive what they did not have, but that what they received and had in schism without benefit would be beneficial, this is truly given and guaranteed by God through Catholic unity. Those who come from any heresy or schism, where they received the Baptism of Christ, do not begin to have the Sacrament of Baptism, which they did not have, but begin to benefit from the one they had. 8. Therefore, between us and those who, to a certain extent, can be considered the main Donatists, of whom Primian is bishop in Carthage, there is now no disagreement on this matter. For God wished to complete this through the Maximianists, so that by their own example they would be forced to recognize what they did not want to be convinced of through love. But in this connection we still have to find out how they will be regarded by those who consider themselves to be in some degree out of communion with the Primian party, who insist that sincere adherence to Donatism is maintained the greater the smaller their number. Even if there were only Maximianists, we should not neglect their salvation. How much more, therefore, should we bear in mind that this same party of Donatus is divided into many minute parts, each of which condemns this single much larger party, headed by Primian, for their acceptance of the Baptism of the Maximianists; and alone tries to claim that only with them the true Baptism is preserved and does not exist anywhere else, neither in the whole world where the Catholic Church spreads, nor in the largest party of Donatus, nor in any other except this one of the smallest parties! For if all these parties wish to conquer the bitter spirit of their vicissitudes and listen not to the voice of man, but to the voice of the clearest truth, then they will certainly return not to the party of Donatus the Great, of which they are the smallest part (praecisa praecisae), but to the freshness of their own root, the Catholic Church 47, i.e. from a withered branch to a genuine one. For all who are not against us are for us (see Mk 9:40), but those who do not gather with us scatter (spargunt) (see Mt 12:30). 9. So, truly, lest it seem that I rely on human arguments, - since there is so much vagueness in these questions that in the days of the early Church, preceding the schism of Donatus, great men and gifted with great love (caritate) 48 father bishops, preserving the ecclesiastical peace (pace) intact, until then in their Councils they discussed and questioned among themselves the various definitions (statuta) opposed to each other, until at a full-fledged Ecumenical Council (plenario totius orbis concilio) 49, at which, having examined everything in the most healthy way, and also having eliminated all doubt, they did not confirm a single opinion, I cite well-known evidence from the Gospel, with which, with God's help, I show that, perhaps, in the eyes of God it is right and true that in any schismatic or heretic, church medicine should heal the wound due to which they separated, but so that, on the other hand, On the other hand, what remained healthy in them would be recognized as such by research, and would not be damaged as a result of condemnation (inprobatum). Truly, the Lord says in the Gospel: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me scatters” (Matthew 12:30). However, when the disciples told Him that they had seen a certain man cast out demons in His name, and that they had forbidden him to do this because he did not follow Him with them, He said: “Do not forbid it. He who is not against you is for you. For no one can do anything in My name and curse Me” 50 (Mark 9:39–40). If nothing in him needed correction, then everyone would be safe who, placing himself outside of church communion, gathers in the name of Christ, separating himself from Christian society; in that case, the following would be false: “Whoever is not with Me is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me scatters” (Matthew 12:30). If he needed correction, then why, when the disciples wanted to do this out of their ignorance, did the Lord say: “Do not forbid” (Mark 9:39), for what reason does He forbid? And how will it be true that He says: “Whoever is not against you is for you” (Mark 9:40)? For then he did not work against them, but for them, when he performed miracles in the name of Christ. Therefore, both positions are true, since what says is true: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me scatters” (Matthew 12:30), but what he says is also true: “Do not forbid. He who is not against you is for you” (Mark 9:39–40); Should we not understand, moreover, that his worship of such a great Name was genuine, in which he was not against the Church, but for the Church, but that his separation should be condemned, for so his gathering became a waste, and that if in the future he comes to the Church, he should not receive what he already had, but should be corrected in that in which he was mistaken? 10. After all, the prayers of the pagan Cornelius also did not go unheard and the works of mercy of the pagan Cornelius were not accepted (see Acts 10); on the contrary, he was honored that an angel had been sent to him, and that he was to see a messenger through whom he would certainly be able to learn everything he needed, although he did not ask anyone about it 51 . However, since, no matter how wonderful his prayers and works of mercy, they could not benefit him, until he was introduced into the Church through participation in the Christian union and peace (societatis et pacis), he is commanded to send for Peter, and through him he recognizes Christ, being baptized by him, he joins the Christian community, becoming involved in it, with which until then he was connected only by the semblance of good works. After all, it would be disastrous to neglect the good that he did not yet have, being proud of the one that he had. Likewise, those who separate themselves from the community of others, thus committing violence against love (caritate), and thereby breaking the bonds of unity, if they do nothing of what they accepted in this community, find themselves separated in everything, and therefore if the one whom they added to their community wishes to come to the Church, they will have to receive everything that they did not receive. If they really do some things just like us, then they are not separated in this part, and in this part they are still woven into the fabric, but in other respects they are detached. Accordingly, the one whom they have joined to themselves is in that part united with the Church in which they are not separated from it, and therefore, if he wishes to come to the Church, in that he must be healed, in which he was so terribly (laniatus) mistaken, in which he was truly completely (sanus) united, must not be healed, but recognized, for we do not want to heal something healthy, but rather wounds. Thus, those whom they baptize, they heal from the wounds of idolatry or unbelief, but inflict on them a more serious wound in the form of schism. For the sword destroyed the idolaters among the people of God (see Exodus 32), while the schismatics were swallowed up by the abyss of the earth (see Numbers 16). And the Apostle says: “If I have all faith, so much so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2) 52. 11. If a man is brought to a doctor who has one of the necessary parts of his body damaged by a serious wound, and the doctor says: “He will die if this member is not healed,” I do not think that those who brought him are so crazy as to propose to count the other healthy members of his body and say to the doctor in response: “Aren’t so many healthy members enough for him to live, and this one damaged one is enough for him to die?” Be that as it may, they do not say this, but they offer to cure him. And, since they offer to cure him, they do not ask the doctor to also treat healthy members, but ask him to intensively apply treatment to this one place, because of which death also threatens other whole members if healing does not occur. What good is it for a man to have a sound (sana) faith, or even just a sound (sanum) Sacrament of faith 53, if the mortal wound of schism has destroyed his sound love (sanitas caritatis), the destruction of which is sufficient (see 1 Cor. 13:2) to put to death everything that was perfect (integra)? To prevent this, God's mercy does not cease, through the unity of the Holy Church, to call them to come and be healed through the medicine of repentance (reconciliationis), tying themselves to her with bonds of peace (per uinculum pacis). And let them not consider themselves healthy, because we say that they have something healthy, and on the contrary, let them not think that what is healthy needs healing, because we show that something is damaged in them. So, in a healthy Sacrament, in which they are not against us, they are for us (see Mark 9:40), but in the wound of schism, everyone who does not gather with Christ scatters (see Matt 12:30). Let them not be proud of what they have. Why do they proudly display (superbos oculos ducunt) only what is sound in them? Let them humbly pay attention to their wound and take care not only of what they have, but also of what they do not have. 12. Let them see how many things, even important things, do not bring any benefit; if one specific thing is missing, let them see what kind of thing it is. And let them listen not to me about this, but to the Apostle: “If I speak in the tongues of men,” he says, “and in the tongues of angels, but do not have love (caritatem), then I am a ringing brass or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries, and have all knowledge and all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:1-2). What is the benefit to them from the fact that they master both angelic languages ​​in the sacred Sacraments and the gift of prophecy, just like Caiphas (see John 11:51) and Saul (see 1 Samuel 10:10; 18:10), because sometimes even those about whom the Holy Scripture testifies that they are worthy of condemnation can prophesy; from the fact that they not only know the Sacraments, but also have them, just as Simon the Magus had them (see Acts 8:18); from the fact that they have faith, just as the demons confessed Christ - after all, they could not help but believe, saying: “What have You to do with us, Son of God? We know who You are” (Mark 1:24) 55 - from the fact that they distribute their property 56 to the poor, which many do not only in the Catholic Church (catholica), but also in various heretical communities (haeresibus); from the fact that during some sudden persecution, together with us, they hand over their bodies to be burned for the faith (see 1 Cor 13:3), which they confess in the same way as us? However, since they do this being separated, not “bearing one another with love” (in dilectione) and not “trying to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:2-3) 57, especially not having love (caritatem), they cannot achieve eternal salvation, even despite all this, for none of this benefits them. 1. Augustinus. De Baptismo contra donatistas // Patrologiae cursus completus (Series latina – PL) / ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1865. T. 43. Col. 107–244. 2. Augustinus. De Baptismo contra donatistas // Sancti Aureli Augustini. Opera (Sect. VII Pars I). Scriptorum contra Donatistas pars I. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum – CSEL / ed. M. Petschenig. Wien: Academiae Literarum Caesareae Vidobonensis, 1908. Vol. 51/2. P. 143–375. 3. Augustinus. De Civiate Dei, 15 // Sancti Aureli Augustini. Opera (Sect. V Pars 2). De Civitate Dei libri XXII. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum – CSEL/ed. E. Hoffmann. Wien: Academiae Literarum Caesareae Vidobonensis, 1900. Vol. 40/2. P. 58–122. 4. Concile d’Arles (314) // Conciles Gaulois du IVe siècle. Sources Chrétiennes / ed. J. Gaudemet. Paris, 1977. Vol. 241. P. 35–67. 5. Afanasy (Bukin), priest. Blessed Augustine of Hippo. On Baptism against the Donatists. Book I:I–IV // Works and translations. 2018. No. 1. pp. 108–119. DOI: 10.24411/2587–7607–2018–10011. 6. Butler I. Kh. Latin-Russian dictionary. M., 1976. 7. Hilarion (Troitsky), schmch. Essays from the history of the dogma of the Church // Creations: in 3 volumes. M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2004. T. I. P. 59–503. 8. Geenen G. Fidei Sacramentum // Bijdragen: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology. 1948. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 245–270. DOI: 10.1080/00062278.1948.10600737. Cf.: Evers A. Augustine on the Church (Against the Donatists) / A Companion to Augustine / ed. by M. Vessey; with ass. of S. Reid. – UK: Willey-Blackwell, 2012. – P. 375–376. Cf.: Brown P. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography / USA, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2013. – P. 210. Cf.: Briley A.R. Some Notes on the Donatist Schism // Libyan Studies. – UK: Cambridge, 1987. – No. 18 – P. 30. Traditionally, the date of the death of Mensurius, and the associated date of the beginning of the schism, are indicated as 311–312, but already in V.V. Bolotov we see a note in which it is indicated. that this date raises doubts among researchers, and some of them establish an earlier date of death - 307 (See: Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church: in 4 volumes / [Rep. ed.] / edited by Prof. A. Brilliantov. - M.: Spaso-Perobrazhensky Valaam Stavropegic Monastery, 1994. - Vol. II. History of the Church in the period before Constantine the Great - C. 398., n. 1.). Modern researchers push it back to an even earlier date - to 305. This is due to the dating of the summons of Mensurius to Rome regarding his sheltering of a deacon who wrote a libel against the emperor. The date is determined according to the writings of St. Optata of Milevius, which states that the lampoon was "de tyranno imperatore", without specifying his name. Previously, the word “tyrannus” meant the usurper Maxentius, but in St. Optata it apparently means “persecutor,” which was not Maxentius, but Maximian. At the same time, the episcopal consecration of Caecilian, from which the beginning of the schism is usually counted, dates back to 307 (Cf.: Briley A. R. Some Notes on the Donatist Schism. - P. 31–32.) Cf.: Evers A. Augustine on the Church. – P. 376. Cf.: Brown P. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. – P. 210. The city of Hippo Regius was located in the northwestern part of the African continent. By the end of the 4th century. the city had been inhabited mainly by Roman citizens for two centuries (Cf.: Brown P. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. – P. 183). And the name itself most likely comes from the Punic ûbôn - port and the Latin regius - royal (Cf.: Brown P. Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD. - Princeton University Press, 2012. - P. 326). Cf.: Evers A. Augustine on the Church. – P. 377. Cf.: Brown P. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. – P. 211. It should be noted that for St. Augustine’s concept of ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία primarily denotes the universal spread of the Church, but also its integrity, truth and openness for every person, regardless of the social, national, gender, age or other identity of a person. For more information about this, see: Afanasy (Bukin), Hierom. Totus Christus (The experience of a systematic presentation of Orthodox patristic ecclesiology on the example of the catholicity of the Church) / Materials of the VIII international student scientific and theological conference on May 18–19, 2016: collection of reports / St. Petersburg Theological Academy. – St. Petersburg: SPbPDA Publishing House, 2016. – pp. 122–129. Cf.: Augustinus. Enarratio in Psalmum LIV // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina / ed. J.-P. Migne. – Paris, 1865. – T. 36 – P. 639: “Fratres sumus, unum Deum invocamus, in unum Christum credimus, unum Evangelium audimus, unum Psalmum cantamus, unum Amen respondemus, unum Alleluia resonamus, unum Pascha celebramus: quid tu foris es, et ego intus sum?” Cf.: Brown P. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. – P. 213. Cf.: Possidius. Vita Sancti Aureli Augustini, Hipponensis Episcopi, auctore Possidio Calamensi Episcopo. IX // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina / ed. J.-P. Migne. – Paris, 1841. – T. 32 – col. 41: “...atque seductorem et deceptorem animarum Augustinum esse, et privatim et publice conclamabant; et ut lupum occidendum esse in defensionem gregis sui..." See: Belolikov V.Z. Literary activity of Blazh. Augustine against the Donatist split. / Kiev, 1912. – P. 64. Cf.: Chadwick H. Augustine of Hippo. A Life / USA, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. – P. 112. Cf.: Brown P. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. – P. 222. Cf.: Brown P. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. – P. 222. Cf.: Evers A. Augustine on the Church. – P. 379. Augustine Aurelius. Psalm against the Donatists (translation from Latin and comments by A. A. Tashchian) // Bulletin of the Russian Chemical Academy. – 2017. – No. 2. – P. 15–25. On February 12, 405, the imperial authorities published the so-called. “Edict of Unity”, according to which the Donatists were declared heretics, for whom the general provisions of the law on heretics were henceforth applied (Cf.: Brown P. Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. – P. 229–230). See: Belolikov V.Z. Literary activity of Blazh. Augustine against the Donatist split. – C. 40. i.e. from the Kiev Theological Academy. Belolikov V.Z. Literary activity of Blazh. Augustine against the Donatist split. – P. 146. See: Hilarion (Troitsky), sschmch. Essays from the history of the dogma of the Church / Creations: in 3 volumes - M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2004. - Vol. I - pp. 309–350. See, for example: Ibid. – P. 332, 340–344. Augustinus. De Baptismo contra Donatistas // Sancti Aureli Augustini. Opera (Sect. VII Pars I). Scriptorum contra Donatistas pars I: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum / ed. Petschenig, M. - Wien: Academiae Literarum Caesareae Vidobonensis, 1908. - T. LI. – 143–376. Cf.: Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. On Baptism, against the Donatists / trans. rev. J.R. King. // A Select Library of the Christian Church / Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers / ed. by P. Schaff. – USA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995. – Series I. – Vol. 4: Augustin: The Writings Against the Manichaeans, and Against the Donatists. – P. 407–514. Cf.: The Works of Saint Augustine [Electronic resource] / URL: https://www.newcitypress.com/augustine-series/the-works-of-saint-augustine.html (update date: 11/02/2017; access date: 11/02/2017); Listing of Future Publications in The Works of Saint Augustine A Translation for the 21st Century [Electronic resource] / URL: http://www.newcitypress.com/media/downloads/Listing_of_Future_Publications_in_WSA.pdf (update date: 02.02.2017; access date: 02.11.2017). Cf.: Augustin d'Hippone. Du Baptême Contre les Donatistes / trad. M. l'abbé Burleraux // Œuvres complètes de Saint Augustin / ed. M. Raulx. – Bar-le-Duc: L. Guérin & Cie, 1867. – Vol. XV – P. 67–190. Cf.: Augustin d'Hippone. Sept livres sur le baptême / tran. G. Finaert et G. Bavaud // Traités anti-donatistes II / Œuvres de saint Augustin: Bibliothèque augustinienne. – Paris: Brepols Publishers, 1964. – Vol. 29 – P. 5–575. catholicam (Latin catholicus - universal, all-encompassing, Catholic). Due to the fact that the presented text dates back to the beginning of the 5th century, the adjective “Catholic”, often used when translating the word “catholicus,” seems to us chronologically and terminologically incorrect. Although five years earlier the Roman Empire had already been divided into two parts - Eastern and Western, church communion remained the same. Moreover, at present, in Russian-language literature, the term “Catholic” primarily refers to everything connected specifically with the Roman Catholic Church after the Great Schism, and therefore its use in such an ancient text can unwittingly introduce semantic connotations that are alien to it. Therefore, we decided to use a more ancient form of transliteration of this word, once adopted in the first edition of the Slavic translation of the Creed, i.e. “catholic” and derivatives from it (see: Gezen A.M. History of the Slavic translation of the Creed / A. Gesen, essays and notes from the field of philology, history and philosophy. – St. Petersburg: Printing house of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1884. – Issue. 1. – P. 44). In addition, similar terminology is used by e.g. V.V. Bolotov when describing the Donatist schism, with the difference that due to the fact that he uses pre-reform spelling, he uses the letter “f” instead of the letter “f” (See: Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. Vol. II. – pp. 395–423.). communionem (Latin communio - community; church community, unity). It could be translated as community, however, due to the fact that the work is polemical in nature with the Donatists, we considered it appropriate to translate this particular unity. In the future, unless otherwise specified, we will translate the phrase catholica communio - Catholic unity. Most likely, this means a sinner who is in the Church, and a schismatic who is outside the Church. The laying on of hands upon acceptance into communion meant relegation to the position of penitents, which means defrocking and the impossibility of holding clergy positions (See: Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. Vol. II. – P. 400, sn. 1). those. out of communication with the Donatists. "non enim accessus iste adque discessus corporalibus motibus et non spiritalibus metiendus est." Due to the fact that this phrase seems difficult to translate, we decided to also present the options presented in the English and French translations of this treatise. Per. from French: “Let us remember that we are talking here about essentially spiritual things and that it would be absurd to want to apply to them the laws governing bodily movements in their approach or distance” (translated by priest M. Nikulin). FR: "Rappelons nous qúil s'agit ici de matières essentiellement spirituelles, et qúil serait absurde de vouloir leur appliquer les lois qui régissent les mouvements corporels dans leur rapprochement ou leur éloignement" ( Augustin d'Hippone. Du Baptême Contre les Donatistes / Œuvres complètes de Saint Augustin / ed. M. Raulx; tran. M. l’abbé Burleraux. – Bar-le-Duc: L. Guérin & Cie, 1867. – Vol. Per. from English: “For connection and rupture should not be measured in accordance with different laws in the case of material or spiritual intimacy.” EN: For contact and disunion are not to be measured by different laws in the case of material or spiritual affinities ( Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. On Baptism, against the Donatists / A Select Library of the Christian Church / Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers / coll. P. Schaff; tran. rev. J.R. King. – USA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995. – Vol. 4: Augustin: The Writings Against the Manichaeans, and Against the Donatists - Series I - P. 412). nota militaris - a sign of belonging to the army. In the Roman army, this mark or sign was indelible, it could not (and should not) be repeated or renewed. Therefore, this image was used not only by St. Augustine, but also other theologians of that time. In general, the use of military metaphors in relation to the Sacrament of Baptism is very characteristic of both Eastern and Western theology of late Antiquity (Cf.: Jensen R.M. Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions / ed. 2nd. - USA, Michigan: Baker Books, 2012. - P. 67). Ps. 60:3: a finibus terrae ad te exclamaui, cum taederet anima mea: in petra exaltasti me (Aug.) / a finibus terrae ad te clamavi, dum anxiaretur cor meum; in petra exaltasti me (Vulg.) / From the ends of the earth I cry to You in the despondency of my heart; take me to the rock (Sin.) ἀκηδιάσαι τὴν καρδίαν μου· ἐν πέτρᾳ ὕψωσάς με (LXX) / from the ends of the earth I cried to you, when my heart was always depressed: I lifted me up on stones thou art (TSYA, Elisav.). St. Augustine clearly himself translates the line of the psalm from Greek, and, as can be seen only in his case, the word καρδία is translated not literally “heart”, but in meaning - “soul”. Otherwise, his translation is similar to all others. Ps. 60:3–4: deuxisti me, | Quia factus es spes mea, turris fortitudinis a facie inimici. (Aug.) / Deduxisti me, | quia factues es spes mea: turris fortittudinis a facie inimici (Vulg.) / unattainable for me, | for You are my refuge, You are a strong defense from the enemy (Sin.) / ὡδήγησάς με, | ὅτι ἐγενήθης ἐλπίς μου, πύργος ἰσχύος ἀπὸ προσώπου ἐχθροῦ (LXX) / you have instructed me, | For you were my hope, a pillar of strength from the face of the enemy (TSYA, Elisav.). Translation of St. Augustine coincides with what is available in the Vulgate and is fully consistent with the LXX text, as is the Church Slavonic translation, in contrast to the Synodal translation, which at the end of verse 3 lacks the verb ὡδήγησας (instructed, directed, accompanied), instead of which the phrase “unattainable for me” is used, which is more of an interpretation than a translation. Matthew 11:24: tolerabilius erit Sodomis in die iudicii quam uobis (Aug.) / terræ Sodomorum remissius erit in die judicii, quam tibi (Vulg.) / it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you (Syn.) / γῇ Σοδόμων ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως ἢ σοί. (NA28) / the land of sodomy will be more pleasant on the day of judgment than it is for you (TSYA). Some elements of the translation of St. Augustine. Firstly, he uses, as it seems to us, the Latin “tolerabilius”, which is closer, as it seems to us, to the Greek word “ἀνεκτότερον”, since both of them are translated “more tolerant, more tolerable,” while the “remissius” in the Vulgate is more likely to mean “more relaxed, softer.” In the Russian and Slavic translations the meaning is closer to that in the Vulgate. Secondly, unlike the original and other translations, he speaks directly about the inhabitants of Sodom, using the dative plural “Sodomis”, i.e. To the Sodomites, not to the land of Sodom. This does not correspond to the Semitic tradition, but it is more understandable to a representative of the Greco-Roman culture, as well as to us. This translation also affects the last word in the line - “to you”, and not “to you”, since in the original Christ addresses the city of Capernaum, and therefore says “than you”, St. Augustine implies that He is addressing the inhabitants, and accordingly uses the second person plural. The original is “catholicae”, i.e. “Catholics,” but we considered it more appropriate to replace this with the phrase “Catholic Church.” The Latin word "caritas" from St. Augustine, although often synonymous with “amor” and “dilectio” (Augustinus, De Civ. Dei, 15.22, CSEL 40/2, P. 109), here still has, from our point of view, a terminological meaning. This is not just some kind of romantic love or similar to that which happens between people in a family, but rather like the Greek “ἀγάπη” as love for goodness and virtue, but also combines love-charity. Here it is primarily the love of Christians for each other and the desire for unity. As noted by Sschmch. Hilarion (Troitsky), here we are most likely talking about the First Council of Arelat in 314 (see: Hilarion (Troitsky), smch. Essays from the history of the dogma of the Church // Creations: in 3 volumes. M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2004. T. I. C. 483, n. 264). A similar opinion is shared by the author of the comments to the Latin text of the treatise in the Patrology of Min, who, however, admits that we can talk about either this very First Council of Arelates or the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (Augustinus, De Baptismo contra donatistas, PL 43, col. 135, n. (a)). At the Council in Arles, Donatism was recognized as a heresy, and the principle of the Church’s attitude to the Sacrament of Baptism, performed outside its borders, was first proclaimed. One of the canons adopted at the Council reads: “9 (8). In relation to the Africans, who use their own special law because they rebaptize, it was decided that if anyone comes to the Church from heresy, then let them question him about the Creed and, if they understand that he was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then let them only lay hands on him so that he may receive the Holy Spirit. If, when questioned, he does not confess the Trinity, let him be baptized” (Concile d’Arles, 9 (8), SC 241, P. 50). Mark 9:39–40: nolite prohibere. Qui contra uos non est pro uobis est. non potest enim quisquam in meo nomine facere aliquid et male loqui de me (Aug.) / nolite prohibere eum nemo est enim qui faciat virtutem in nomine meo et possit cito male loqui de me | qui enim non est adversum vos pro vobis est (Vulg.) / do not forbid him, for no one who has performed a miracle in My name can quickly slander Me. | For whoever is not against you is for you (Sin.) / μὴ κωλύετε αὐτόν. οὐδεὶς γάρ ἐστιν ὃς ποιήσει δύναμιν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου καὶ δυνήσεται ταχὺ κακολογῆσαί με· | ὃς γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν καθ’ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐστιν (NA28) / do not scold him: there is no one who will do power in my name, and may soon slander me. | What is not for you, is for you (TSYA). In all likelihood, St. Augustine here retells the text, rearranging some phrases in the lines. In addition, it should be noted that in the Vulgate and the Greek text (as well as in the Synodal and Church Slavonic translations) there is a difference in the numbering of these verses. In the Vulgate it is verses 38–39, and in the Greek text it is verses 39–40. In the critical text which we follow the reference is given according to the Vulgate; in the translation we give the reference according to the Greek text. Let us also note that mostly St. Augustine here follows the Vulgate translation, sometimes changing the forms of the words somewhat, but the most significant difference is that he leaves out the word "virtutem", using instead the vague "aliquid". In the original text, the last part of the sentence is an expression with a supine “sine hominis alicuius accessu”, which could be literally translated: “without addressing any person.” 1 Cor. 13:2: si habeam omnem, inquit, fidem, ita ut montes transferam, caritatem autem non habeam, nihil sum (Aug.) / si habuero omnem fidem ita ut montes transferam caritatem autem non habuero nihil sum (Vulg.) / if I have ... all faith, so that I can move mountains, but have not love, then I am nothing (Syn.) / ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν ὥστε ὄρη μεθιστάναι, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐθέν εἰμι (NA 28) / even if an imam gives up all faith, even as he gives up mountains, but I am not an imam for love, I am nothing (TSYA). There is one interesting point here from the point of view of philology, which does not have a specific form of expression in the Russian language. In the Greek text, the word “ἔχω” is a verb of the first person singular present tense of the subjunctive mood of the active voice, as well as in the translation of St. Augustine's Latin word "habeam" is a verb in the same form, but in the traditional Latin Vulgate translation for some reason there is the word "habuero", which coincides in everything with the previous two words, except for tense and mood. The word "habuero" is a verb of the future perfect (perfect) indicative mood. In Russian, this difference can be conveyed not entirely accurately in the form of two constructions: “si habeam” - “if I have” (for the subjunctive in Russian the conjunction “if” is sufficient); “si habuero” - “if I received” (it is not possible to get rid of the subjunctive due to the same conjunction “if”, however, “would” here rather indicates the future, and the verb “received” is in the perfect form). fidei sacramentum - under the Sacrament of Faith of St. Augustine undoubtedly implies the Sacrament of Baptism; later in the Latin tradition, this meaning of this phrase will be fully recorded by Thomas Aquinas, including on the basis of its use in this sense by St. Augustine (Cf.: Geenen G. Fidei Sacramentum // Bijdragen: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology. 1948. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 245–270. DOI: 10.1080/00062278.1948.10600737). It's interesting that St. Augustine here used the word “aeramentum” to designate copper shavings, or a copper vessel; in the more traditional Latin translation of the Vulgate, the word “aes” was used, which can denote both the material copper itself and products made from it, incl. coins. It can be said that in the Augustinian translation these lines take on an even more ironic connotation, because the sound of copper shavings has even less meaning than the sound of the cheapest copper coins. However, in the Russian translation we decided to leave the more traditional and general version - copper. Mark 1:24: quid nobis et tibi est, fili dei? Scimus qui sis (Aug.) / quid nobis et tibi Iesu Nazarene... scio qui sis (Vulg.) / what do you care about us, Jesus of Nazarene? ... I know You who You are (Sin.) / τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; … οἶδά σε τίς εἶ (NA 28) / what to us and to you, Jesus of Nazareth? ... we know who you are, Holy One of God (TSYA). Note that here St. Augustine probably quotes from memory, and he not only replaces in the Gospel text the address to Christ from “Iesu Nazarene” (i.e. Jesus of Nazarene) with “fili dei” (i.e. Son of God), but also makes the text more grammatically consistent, firstly, by adding the verb “to be” (est), which is missing both in the Greek original and in the Vulgate, and, secondly, by making the entire speech of the demoniac addressed in the first person plural, which again does not correspond to either the original or the traditional Latin translation. substantiam (Latin substantia – essence, being, property, property). It should be noted that St. Augustine here clearly refers the reader to the parable of the prodigal son (see Luke 15:13), where the word property is also denoted through the word essence (διεσκόρπισεν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ (NA28) / dissipavit substantiam suam (Vulg.)), because he could use other words to denote property, for example: copia, entheca. Eph 4:2–3: sufferentes inuicem in dilectione … studentes seruare unitatem spiritus in uinculo pacis (Aug.) / subportantes invicem in caritate | solliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis (Vulg.) / condescending to each other with love, | trying to maintain the unity of the spirit in the union of peace (Sin.) / ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ, | σπουδάζοντες τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης (NA 28) / enduring each other with love, | diligently maintain the unity of the spirit in the union of peace (CUYA). Translation of St. Augustine turns out to be much closer in many ways to the Greek original than the more traditional Vulgate. This is especially noticeable in the word pairs “sufferentes – ἀνεχόμενοι” and “students – σπουδάζοντες”. The dictionary entries of the corresponding words in a pair are very similar not only in the main meaning, but also in less significant ones. It can also be noted that even their paths in new languages ​​coincide. Thus, the ancient Greek “ἀνέχω” turns into the modern Greek “αντέχω”, and the Latin “suffero” into the English “suffer”, both with the meaning of suffering, enduring, enduring. No less similar are the ancient Greek “σπουδάζω” and the Latin “studeo”, which, having acquired the main meaning of teaching, studying, turn into the modern Greek “σπουδάζω” and the English “study”, respectively. This cannot be said from the “subportantes” and “solliciti” found in the Vulgate. However, St. Augustine does change one word, namely, instead of the more familiar caritas, when translating the word “ἀγάπη” he uses the Latin “dilectio”, which, although also translated as love, does not have the same theological connotations. Probably, he does this purposefully, to strengthen the further statement that the Donatists are deprived of such a conditionally more understated love as “dilectio”, and even more so they do not have the more elevated “caritas”.