Dogmatic Polemic with Donatism (6)

By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya

Furthermore, Blessed Augustine cites several passages from Holy Scripture in defense of schismatic baptism: he recalls and comments on the Gospel account of a man who, in the name of Jesus Christ, cast out demons without being His disciple. Christ then said to the disciples, “He who is not against you is for you” (Luke 9:50). From this we must see that those who stand outside the Church in certain matters are not against the Church and possess some of the Church’s treasures. They also possess the Church’s Sacraments. 245 These Sacraments are, as it were, stolen from the Church by them. 246 When they turn to the Church, they no longer need to receive what they do not need, because they already had it; they must only correct what they have deviated 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, and therefore with the Church. 247 Finally, Augustine points out to the Donatists that, while rebaptizing Catholics, they do not rebaptize their schismatics, for example, the Maximianists. 248 Blessed Augustine even views the schism of Maximian 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 case of the Maximianists. 250 Augustine also wrote a short, special work, “Admonitio Donatistarum de Maximianistis”251, which has not survived, and then another, “Librum de Maximianistis contra Donatistas, non brevissimun sicut antea, sed grandem, multo diligentius”252. This work, too, has not survived.

But the Donatists had another argument in favor of schismatic baptism: they cited the teaching of St. Cyprian of Carthage on this subject, known to us, and the decree of the entire Council of Carthage. Reference to Cyprian was a favorite and commonplace among the Donatists.253 Apparently, Blessed Cyprian himself… Augustine attached particular importance to this Donatist argument—he devotes almost the entirety of his work “On Baptism” to elucidating 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. Blessed Augustine acknowledges that St. Cyprian did indeed view the baptism of schismatics differently. However, the Donatists have no right to cite Cyprian’s authority. Augustine cites St. Cyprian’s famous speech at the opening of the Council of Carthage in 256, in which he refuses to compel anyone to agree with him.

Cyprian allows for the possibility of differences of opinion and urges not to break church unity because of differences of opinion. 254 He was a particular champion of church peace: he himself did not separate himself from those who thought differently, and he urged others to adhere to church unity. 255 And therefore Augustine turns to the Donatists with the question: why do they, so often referring to the opinion and definition of Cyprian, not follow his example of how firmly one must adhere to church peace. 256 Thus, Cyprian denounces the Donatists with his example. 257 And Blessed 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 By expounding in detail Cyprian’s letters to Jubaianus and Quintus, Augustine shows how far Cyprian was from the Donatists. Moreover, St. Cyprian himself, in a letter to Quintus, cites the example of the Apostle Peter, who, having been 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, and was willing to accept whatever was shown to him as the best. 260 The question of the baptism of schismatics was highly controversial, and only amidst disagreements could it be resolved, among the discussions of bishops. 261 In his decision on the matter, Cyprian relied on the decision of the earlier Council under Agrippina and on local custom. 262 At that time, the general consensus of the Church (totius Ecclesiae consensio) had not yet been established on this issue; the opinion of a general Council (plenarii concilii) had not been expressed. 263 Therefore, Cyprian did not consider it possible to demand the consent of everyone to this custom. Subsequently, amidst much debate and investigation from various angles, not only was another established, but also determined 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, then, consequently, 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 are wrong in separating from the Catholics. They separate, of course, because they consider communion with them to be ruinous for the true Church. But St. Cyprian did not separate himself from those who thought differently; therefore, the Church perished even in Cyprian’s time, and Donatus received both baptism and ordination outside the true Church. And if the Church did not perish under Cyprian, then the Donatists are in vain in separating themselves from the Catholic Church.265

But most important from a historical-dogmatic perspective is the fact that Augustine does not consider St. Cyprian’s dogmatic teaching on the Church to be completely complete and consistently revealed: he even reveals in Cyprian some elements of the very teaching he himself so decisively expresses. Augustine266 draws particular attention to the following words of Cyprian in a letter to Jubaian: “What will become of those who, having previously converted from heresy to the Church, were received into the Church without baptism?” asks Cyprian and answers: “The Lord, in His mercy, is able to grant them forgiveness, and not to deprive those who were received into the Church and who have also died in the Church of the gifts of His Church.”267 Obviously, St. Cyprian nevertheless considered such people baptized. They could not have been saved if they had not been in the ark, that is, in the Church. But how could they be in the ark if they had not been reborn in water? Because of their union with the Church, the water of baptism, performed outside the Church, served for their salvation. All those who are in the Church in their hearts, in the unity of the ark, are saved by the same water that serves for the destruction of all opponents of unity, those who stand outside the Church in their hearts, whether they are actually separated from the Church or not.

Such is St. Augustine’s defense of schismatic baptism. But if baptism is truly schismatic, and if more than one Church possesses the Sacraments, is salvation not possible both outside the Church and without the Church? Doesn’t this allow for the existence of many Churches, mutually divided, even hostile to one another? How can the validity of baptism outside the Church be reconciled with the unity of the Church? St. Augustine had to answer these questions, especially since the Donatists sometimes objected thus: “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 fully guarantees their salvation.”269

How does St. Augustine answer these questions?

The baptism of schismatics, says Augustine, is the same baptism, but it brings them no benefit; Moreover, it only brings them harm: it does not lead to eternal life, but to eternal punishment. Gold is certainly good, and it remains gold in the hands of robbers, but it serves evil purposes; he who has gold should not associate with robbers. Many good things have a good purpose; however, they are truly good only in the hands of those who use them well.

Light is a help (adjumentum) to healthy eyes, but a torment to the sick. The same food nourishes some, but harms others; the same medicine heals some, but weakens others; weapons protect some, but only hinder others; clothing conceals some, but entangles others. So, too, baptism leads some to the Kingdom, others to condemnation, just as the waves of the Red Sea served for the salvation of the Israelites, but for the destruction of Pharaoh. During the flood, the water destroyed those outside the ark, and by the same token, good members of the Church (boni catholici) are saved, while the wicked (mali catholici) or heretics perish. 275 The Apostle Paul says of the law: The law is good, if anyone uses it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8). If anyone uses the law unlawfully, then the law will obviously remain good, but will be evil to destruction. 276 Even about the Body and Blood of the Lord, this only Sacrifice for our salvation, the Apostle says: Whoever eats this bread and drinks this 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 of baptism? Is everyone who receives baptism necessarily good? Although baptism is a good thing, it does not benefit everyone who receives it. 278 But why does schismatic baptism bring condemnation rather than justification? Augustine answers this decisively and insistently: because heretics lack love; this is what their separation from the Church demonstrates. He who has love cannot be a heretic or a schismatic. 279 He who has separated from the Church lacks love. He who does not love the unity of the Church lacks the love of God. 280 He who does not adhere to unity vainly claims to have the love of Christ. 281 There can be no legitimate reason to separate from the Church, 282 and therefore schism itself is necessarily a grave sin, 283 which deprives one of all saving grace in the Sacraments. He who is outside the Church can no longer be good. Separation from the Church itself makes him evil. 284 Blessed Augustine cites a sublime speech by the Apostle Paul, in which he says that no matter what gifts he may possess, 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. So, too, the Sacraments cannot save schismatics, for they have no love. 285 Without love and unity, there is no Holy Spirit, and without the Spirit, the Sacraments are of no benefit, 286 and true virtue is impossible. 287 The Apostle says that if I know all the mysteries (sacramenta) but do not have love, I am nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). What is baptism? A sacrament (saсramentum). Obviously, without love, it will bring no benefit. He did not say that without love, all he listed is nothing, but that he himself is nothing. All of the above is great, and I have great things, and yet I am nothing if I do not have love. Only love makes everything useful to me. I can have all that is great, but without love it will be of no use to me. 288

Augustine reiterates this fundamental principle in answering various questions about the Sacraments outside the one Church. It was asked: does the Donatist baptism produce children of God? If it does, then Donatism is the true Church, but the Church is one; there cannot be two true Churches. If it does not produce children of God, then they must be rebaptized upon their conversion. 289 Augustine resolves this perplexity as follows. Schismatics separate themselves from the Church not by baptism—their baptism is ecclesiastical—but precisely by their separateness. It is not separation from the Church that produces them, but the baptism they retained even in separation from the Church. However, they are born in vain. One reborn in baptism derives no benefit from it if he does not retain love at all, even if he does not visibly separate himself from the Church; even more so, outside the Church, all the Sacraments are useless. One who lacks love or is a schismatic equally derives no benefit from baptism as long as he remains such. For a sinner in the Church, baptism begins to be salvific when he acquires love, but for a schismatic, when he unites with the Church. But just as the first is not rebaptized, so the second should not be baptized. He has baptism, but without benefit. But when he joins the Church, what he already had becomes useful for him. The Church bears children both from her own womb (per uterum suum) and from the wombs of her handmaidens (per uteros ancillarum), and gives birth through the same Sacraments, from the seed of her Husband. It is not without reason that the Apostle Paul says that Hagar and Sarah are examples (see 1 Cor. 10:11). Proud schismatics who refuse to join their legitimate mother are like Ishmael, who was not Abraham’s heir (see Gen. 21:10). Schismatics who turn to the Church are like Jacob’s sons, who, though born of servants, were his heirs (see Gen. 30:3). Those born in the Church but who neglect grace are like Esau, Isaac’s son, but rejected (see Gen. 25:24; Mal. 1:2-3). 290

It has also been asked: are sins forgiven at baptism among Donatists? If so, then the Donatists have the Holy Spirit and their community—the Church. If they are not forgiven, their baptism is not true, and they must be rebaptized. 291 But can sins be forgiven where there is no love? He who is baptized has clothed himself with Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27), but he who hates his brother is in darkness (1 John 2:11); therefore, he has not clothed himself with Christ, and therefore, he is not baptized. 292

In response to this, Augustine asks: What happens if a hypocrite (fictus) approaches baptism? Are his sins forgiven or not? If they are not forgiven, then he should be rebaptized when he ceases to be a hypocrite, but even the Donatists do not do this. Therefore, we must think this way: Christ’s baptism regenerates a person, but his heart, stubborn in evil or schism (sacrilegio), does not allow the remission of sins to occur. In societies separated from the Church, people receive baptism, but the grace of baptism, which absolves sins if the baptized person is in union with the Church, is, in this case, paralyzed, so that the sins of the baptized person are retained and cannot be remitted. If, however, someone baptized in societies separated from ecclesiastical unity turns to the true Church, the reason holding back the forgiveness of sins is removed, and forgiveness of sins occurs without a new baptism; the grace of baptism, previously held back by stubborn obstinacy and unwillingness to unite with the Church, comes into effect, so to speak. Baptism serves the perdition of schismatics until they have the love of unity. Baptism serves as a death sentence for schismatics as long as they lack the love of unity. One can also imagine the effect of baptism among schismatics in this way. The sins of the baptized person are forgiven, but they immediately return to them. The sacrament is holy in itself (per se ipsum), and one baptized outside the Church passes, as it were, through a narrow strip of light, reentering darkness. For a time, while he passes through this strip of light, he is cleansed of sins, for baptism belongs to the Church. But since immediately after baptism he reenters the darkness of his schism (ad dissensionis suae tenebras), his sins immediately return. And that forgiven sins return if there is no brotherly love was clearly demonstrated by the Lord when He spoke of the slave whose master forgave him ten thousand talents. When this slave did not take pity on his fellow slave, who owed him a hundred denarii, the master commanded him to pay back everything he owed. Just as that slave received temporary forgiveness of his debt, so too is one baptized outside the Church temporarily freed from his sins. But since even after baptism the schismatic lacks love for his brothers and remains outside the Church, all the sins committed before baptism are again imputed to him. 297 The sins of schismatics are forgiven only when they lovingly unite with the Church. Then there is no need to rebaptize them; their baptism was the same as in the Church, in which they were no different from members of the Church, but they lacked love. When this deficiency is replenished, they begin to benefit from what they already had. Love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). 298

* * *

Notes:

244.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.

245.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.

246.Contra Crescon, II, 12, 14. PL. T. 43. Col. 474.

247.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.

248.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.

249.Contra Cresconium, IV, 1, 1. PL. T. 43. Col. 547.

250.Retract. II, 26.PL. T. 32. Col. 641.

251.Ibid. II, 29.PL. T. 32. Col. 642.

252.Ibid. II, 35.PL. T. 32. Col. 645.

253.De baptismo, II, 3, 4: “Vos certe nobis objicere soletis Cypriani litteras, Cypriani sententiam, Cypriani concilium.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 128.

254.Ibid. II, 2, 3. PL. T. 43. Col. 128.

255.Ibid. 1, 18,28. P.L. T. 43. Col. 124; II, 8, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 134; II, 5, 6. Col. 129.

256.Ibid. II, 3, 4. PL. T. 43. Col. 128; II, 7, 12: “Tenete nobiscum exempilum Cypriani ad unitatis conservationem.” Col. 132.

257.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.

258.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.

259.Ibid. II, 5, 6. PL. T. 43. Col. 130.

260.Ibid. II, 1, 2; II, 8, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 126–127, 134.

261.Ibid. II, 4, 5. PL. T. 43. Col. 129.

262.Ibid. II, 7, 12; II, 8, 13; II, 9, 14 PL. T. 43. Col. 133, 134, 135.

263.Ibid. 1, 18, 28. PL. T. 43. Col. 124.

264.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.

265.Ibid. II, 6, 7–8. P.L. T. 43. Col. 130–131.

266.empty link (missed in the text, inserted so as not to confuse the numbering)

267.Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 23. CSEL 3, 2. P. 796. Creations. Part 1. P. 347.

268.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.

269.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.

270.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.

271.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.

272.Ibid. I, 22, 27. PL. T. 43. Col. 460.

273.Ibid. I, 23, 28. PL. T. 43. Col. 460.

274.In p.s. 135, 9.PL. T. 37. Col. 1760.

275.De bapt., V, 28, 39. PL. T. 43. Col. 197–198. Cfr.: Contra Faustum, XII, 17. PL. T. 42. Col. 263.

276.Contra Cresconium, 1, 24, 29. PL. T. 43. Col. 46l. The law is discussed in more detail with reference to Rom. 3:10–19; 7:7–13: ibid. pp. 25, 30. PL. T. 43. Col. 461.

277.Ibid. I, 25, 30. PL. T. 43. Col. 462; In ep. John. tract., 7, 6. PL. T. 35. Col. 2032.

278.Ibid. 1, 26, 31–27, 32. PL. T. 43. Col. 462.

279.Ibid. II, 13, 16. PL. T. 43. Col. 476.

280.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.

281.Epist 61, 2.PL. T. 33. Col. 229.

282.Contra epist. Parmen., II, 11, 25: “Praecidendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 69.

283.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).

284.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.

285.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.

286.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.

287.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.

288.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 John tract., 5, 6. PL. T. 35. Col. 2015; In John tract., 32, 8. PL. T. 35. Col. 1646; De bapt., V, 23, 33. PL. T. 43. Col. 193.

289.De baptismo, 1, 10, 13. PL. T. 43. Col. 116–117.

290.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.

291.De baptismo, 1, 11, 15. PL. T. 43. Col. 118.

292.Ibid I, 11, 16. PL. T. 43. Col. 118.

293.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.

294.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.

295.Contra epist. Parmeniani, II, 13, 28. PL. T. 43. Col. 71.

296.De baptismo, I, 12, 19; VII, 3, 5. PL. T. 43. Col. 119–120, 227.

297.Ibid I, 12, 20. PL. T. 43. Col. 120.

298.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 AN ARBITRARY PLACE)

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)