Dogmatic Polemic with Donatism (5)

By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya

Having demonstrated the internal contradictions and inconsistencies of the Donatist view, Blessed Augustine, generally following Optatus,207 elaborates on the ecclesiastical view of the importance of hierarchy for the Church’s sanctifying activity. The Donatists asserted that there are sinful bishops in the Church, and therefore the people cannot be holy. To this, Augustine responds that a people can be good even where the bishops are bad. On the contrary, the Jewish people turned out to be evil, despite having Moses as their leader. After all, Christ also said of the scribes and Pharisees: “Do whatever they tell you, but do not do what they do, for they say and do not” (Matt. 23:3). Good can be heard even from the wicked, and a good deed is beneficial regardless of who taught it—good or wicked. Furthermore, Augustine notes that the Donatists do not apply this criterion to themselves: he cites the example of the Donatists’ bishop, Optatus, who was corrupt, but the Donatists did not conclude from this that his entire flock was sinful. 208 And of any bishop, even if he were not a traditionalist, one can still say that he is sinful, like every human being. 209 Therefore, one should not make one’s entire salvation dependent solely on the always unknown moral qualities of those who perform the Sacraments—this is contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture, which says: It is better to trust in the Lord than to put one’s confidence in man (Ps. 118:8). Cursed is the man who trusts in man (Jer. 17:5). Such a curse is incurred by all who make the Sacrament dependent not only on God, but on man. 210 Salvation based on man is worthless. Salvation comes from the Lord (Ps. 3:9), and vain is the salvation (salus) of man (Ps. 60:13). Therefore, cursed is he who places his hope in man, even though he may know him to be righteous and blameless. That is why the Apostle Paul rebukes those who called themselves Paul’s, saying: Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:13)211. We must trust in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and not in Peter or Paul, and especially not in Donatus or Petilian.212. A priest is not a necessary mediator between God and man. The Apostles John and Paul say that there is one mediator between God and man—Jesus Christ (see 1 John 2:1–2), who was symbolically represented in the Old Testament by the high priest. The Apostle Paul says that all, as members of one Body, should pray for one another, and not think of themselves as mediators between God and man.213. It cannot even be said that a mediator is generally necessary for the communication of grace, because in the beginning there had to be a direct communication of grace.214. Holy Scripture speaks of instances when God’s grace is poured out on people directly. From whom did John the Baptist receive grace? No one laid hands on the one hundred and twenty men upon whom the Holy Spirit had descended (cf. 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, along with all those around him, so that even the Apostle Peter himself was astonished (cf. Acts 10:44). 215

It is true that without a giver no one can receive anything, but the giver is not man, but God. At the Sacraments, God, who gives, and man, who receives, are present. God gives either Himself, or through an angel, or through a holy man, through Peter or John, or through an unworthy person—of whom there are many, secret or open. 216 If the celebrant is evil, then he performs only the visible form of the Sacrament, while God Himself grants invisible grace. 217 For even the pagans think that they receive their imaginary sanctification not from the priests, but from the gods. 218 And do not the Donatists themselves, considering the baptism performed by a secret impious person to be valid, admit that in these cases everything comes only from Christ, and not from the unworthy minister. 219 “I,” writes Augustine, “believe not 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 of Him: He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (cf. John 1:33). 221 Interpreting these words, Blessed Augustine proves in detail that at the baptism of the Lord and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, John the Baptist was convinced of the very truth that the power of baptism (potestas dominici baptismi) belongs only to Christ and does not pass to any man. Only the ministry passes to men—and to both the evil and the good. The power of baptism, however, was possessed by the Lord Himself while on earth, and will be possessed by Him when He departs bodily to heaven. 222 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 baptizandi) was possessed by Christ, while the disciples performed only the ministry (ministerium). There was indeed a baptism performed by Judas. 223 So now man, no matter who he is, cannot impart sanctification, because he is not God. 224 Only Christ lives eternally, and therefore the sanctification given by Him is always valid. 225 Christ, sending His apostles to preach, breathed on them and said: Receive ye the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). By this He clearly showed that it would not be they themselves who would forgive sins, but the Holy Spirit through them, as it is said elsewhere: It is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit who is in you (Matt. 10:20). Parmenianus 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 Augustine’s Orthodox perspective, these words in no way apply to baptism by an unworthy minister. The minister does not himself beget spiritual children. Spiritual children are begotten by the Holy Spirit, 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 certainly without harm to the believers. Although the Holy Spirit abandons unworthy celebrants of the Sacrament, children of God can still be spiritually begotten through them. The presence of corrupt 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 up for our offences and was raised for our justification (Rom. 4:25). Of course, before admitting someone to the celebration of the Sacraments, one must first test (1 Tim. 3:10), in accordance with the Apostle Paul’s admonition, but no testing can completely protect against unworthiness. 228 After all, even the Donatists themselves were found to have unworthy bishops. 229

Through such reasoning, Blessed Augustine arrives at a clear and definite formulation of the proposition: the sanctity of a Sacrament does not depend on the sanctity of its celebrant. 230 The Holy Spirit in the Church is so united with the celebrant or minister that if he is not a hypocrite (fictus), the Holy Spirit acts through him, bringing eternal reward and regeneration to those dedicated or instructed by him. If he is a hypocrite, he loses his salvation, but his ministry remains valid and provides salvation to others. Therefore the apostle says: If I do this voluntarily, I will have a reward; but if involuntarily, I am only fulfilling the ministry entrusted to me (1 Cor. 9:17), that is, this ministry is beneficial for those who use it, but not for me, because I am a hypocrite. He did not say that his ministry is of no importance 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, even the demons confessed Christ in the same way as the Apostle Peter (cf. Matt. 16:16; 8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 8:28). So the Sacrament of Christ, whether it is performed unworthily or righteously, is nothing other than the Sacrament of Christ. The wickedness of the person performing the Sacrament should be judged only by his personal unworthiness, but the Sacrament itself cannot be condemned.232 The spiritual action of the Sacrament is like a sunbeam, which is not polluted even if it passes through unclean places.233 “I fear neither the adulterer, nor the drunkard, nor the murderer,” writes Augustine, “for it has been said to me: He is he who baptizes;234 I have 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 name of the Lord and is always holy, and it is so for everyone, depending on the heart with which he approaches its reception.237 He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1 Cor. 11:29). It does not say “condemnation to all,” but to himself. 238 Thus, the Sacrament retains its sanctity even with an unworthy celebrant. 239

This point in Blessed Augustine’s teaching is extremely important. The sanctity of the Church does not depend on the sanctity of hierarchical persons. The Church is holy in its Sacraments. The celebrant of a Sacrament may be unworthy, but the Sacrament does not lose its sanctity. A member of the Church hierarchy imparts grace in the Sacraments by virtue of their ecclesiastical position, their ecclesiastical office, and not by virtue of their moral qualities, which are always, of course, relative. This conclusion was the most natural, because the opposing view of the Donatists was clearly untenable and inconsistent—otherwise, it would inevitably lead to absurdity. It is extremely significant that in his polemic against Donatism, Blessed Augustine was able to resort to immanent criticism. In the previous history of the dogma of the Church, as we have seen, the doctrine of the sanctity of the Church had not been fully thought out or precisely formulated. Even Cyprian apparently contains some passages that make the holiness of the Church somewhat dependent on the personal holiness of hierarchical figures. St. Augustine, like Optatus, provides a definition of the holiness of the Church that does not contradict the Church’s inevitable earthly state, where no one is without sin.

But the recognition of the complete independence of the Sacraments from the person of their celebrant logically entailed the recognition of the Sacraments outside the Church as well; the baptism of schismatics must be recognized as valid, because their confession is the same as that of the Church. 240 Blessed Augustine also recognizes the baptism of the Donatists as fully valid. He devoted a special work in seven books to the question of baptism, which is directed against the Donatists.

The Sacraments, wherever they are, remain Sacraments. 241 They are holy in themselves. 242 Outside Catholic communion, baptism can not only be preserved but can also be administered. 243 Blessed Augustine substantiates this position theoretically. One baptized in the Catholic Church retains baptism even if he falls into schism. But one who has received ordination also retains the grace of the priesthood, and this grace includes the right to impart baptism. One should not be unfair in one’s attitude toward any of the Sacraments. It would be inconsistent to acknowledge the preservation of baptism but deny schismatics the right to administer it, or to consider baptism administered by schismatics invalid. The right to administer baptism is not some new right—it is part of the rights of another Sacrament—the priesthood, which is preserved by schismatics just as baptism itself is.

* * *

Notes:

207.Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte, III. S. 154.

208.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.

209.Contra with Petiliani, II, 103, 237. PL. T. 43. Col. 340; Contra epist. Parmen., II, 10, 20. PL. T. 43. Col. 63.

210.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.

211.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.

212.Ibid. II, 108, 247. PL. T. 43. Col. 346.

213.Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 8,15–16. P.L. T. 43. Col. 59–60.

214.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.

215.Ibid. II, 15, 34. PL. T. 43. Col. 76.

216.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.

217.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.

218.Contra litt. Petiliani, 1, 9, 10. PL. T. 43. Col. 250.

219.Contra Cresconium, III, 11, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 502.

220.Contra litteras Petiliani, 1, 7, 8. PL. T. 43. Col. 249; II, 4, 9. PL. T. 43. Col. 260.

221.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.

222.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. Blessed Augustine ascribes to this interpretation an important polemical significance: “omnino eorum (donatistarum) ora claudentur.” – In Ioan. tract., 4, 16. PL. T. 35. Col. 1414.

223.Ibid. 5, 18. PL. T. 35. Col. 1423–1424.

224.Contra litteras Petiliani, II, 6, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 261.

225.Ibid. II, 7, 15. PL. T. 43. Col. 262

226.Ibid. II, 11, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 66–67; II, 14, 32. PL. T. 43. Col. 74.

227.Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 5, 10. PL. T. 43. Col. 57; II, 8, 15. Col. 59.

228.Contra litteras Petiliani, III, 30, 35. PL. T. 43. Col. 365. Cfr.: In Ioan. tract., 5, 15. PL. T. 35. Col. 1422.

229.Ibid. III, 34, 40. PL. T. 43. Col. 368.

230.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.

231.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.

232.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.

233.In Ioan. tract, 5, 15. PL. T. 35. Col. 1422.

234.Ibid 5, 18.PL. T. 35. Col. 1424.

235.Ibid. 5, 13, 18. PL. T. 35. Col. 1421, 1424.

236.Ibid. 6, 8.PL. T. 35. Col. 1429.

237.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.

238.In Ioan. tract., 6, 15. PL. T. 35. Col. 1432.

239.See also: Specht Th. Die Lehre von der Kirche. S. 141, 207–214.

240.This inseparable connection between the recognition of the independence of the Sacrament from the moral qualities of the person performing it and the recognition of the validity of schismatic baptism is most persistently emphasized by Augustine himself. In “De baptismo” we constantly encounter the following reasoning: if a Sacrament performed by a sinner who has not separated from the Church is valid, then a Sacrament performed by a schismatic outside the Church is also valid. After all, neither one nor the other can contribute anything of their own to the validity of the Sacrament, which is performed by God Himself. To recognize as valid a Sacrament performed by a sinner, while at the same time rejecting a 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.

241.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.

242.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.

243.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.

Source in Russian: Troitsky, V.A. The Question of the Church in the Dogmatic Polemics with Donatism. / Theological Herald, 1912, Vol. 3, No. 9, pp. 247–271. (2nd pagination)

(to be continued)