Dogmatic Polemic with Donatism (7)

By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya

Schismatics are not deprived of hope for salvation because their baptism is invalid, but only because they are outside the Church and in enmity with her. Esau, although born of a woman, was separated from the people of God for his discord with his brother. Asher, through the power of a woman, but born of a servant, inherited the land of promise for his brotherly love. Ishmael was excommunicated from the people of God not because he was born of a slave, but because he hated his brother. Even the power of his wife, by whose will he was born of a slave, was of no avail to him. So too, in baptism, all are born, and if they are in love with their brothers, they inherit the land of promise, not being born anew from their mother’s womb, but by virtue of their father’s seed. But if they are at enmity with their brothers, their fate will be the fate of Ishmael.299

In the above-stated teaching of Blessed Augustine on schismatic baptism, one cannot help but notice a somewhat different assessment of schismatics than that found in St. Cyprian. Denying baptism outside the Church, St. Cyprian justified this by citing that heretics have a different faith—that is, he was speaking of heretics with whom he identified schismatics. For St. Cyprian, the one Church within its borders entirely coincides with Christianity in general. Blessed Augustine considers it entirely possible to admit that the true faith can be preserved outside the Church. As proof, Augustine even cites several passages of Holy Scripture: the words of the Apostle Paul on the Areopagus in Athens (see Acts 17:23) and the testimony of the Apostle James that even demons believe (James 2:19), and they, of course, are outside the Church.300 Thus, the Church is a narrower concept than Christianity, understood in the sense of certain theoretical propositions. One can be in agreement with these theoretical propositions, but not be in the Church. Union with the Church also requires consent of the will (consensio voluntatum)301. Anyone outside the Church cannot have love302, this grace of the New Testament303. Only the love of unity binds the members of the Body of Christ to each other and to Christ, the Head of the Body of the Church304, and only through unity of love are the gifts of the Holy Spirit305 received, Who animates only the one Body of the Church306. Therefore, without unity with the Church, mere theoretical agreement with Christian truth is completely useless307, and outside the Church there is no salvation. Everything can be had outside the Catholic Church308, except salvation. One may have the Sacraments, the Gospel, faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but salvation can be found nowhere except in the Catholic Church.308 Augustine cites the opinion of St. Cyprian: salus extra Ecclesiam non est, and adds: Quis negat?309 He who has separated from the Church, no matter how praiseworthy his life, will not have life for the mere crime of separating from the unity of Christ, but the wrath of God will abide upon him.310 While St. Cyprian applies a strictly dogmatic yardstick to assessing schism, Blessed Augustine shifts the question to a more practical, moral realm. It is quite understandable that St. Cyprian’s view of schismatics could not easily become universally accepted by the Church, because it always remains extremely difficult to prove that every schismatic has a different faith. On the contrary, it is always clear that a schismatic lacks love; this is evidenced by his very separation from the Church. For St. Augustine, a schismatic is almost equated with a hardened sinner, even one in visible communion with the Church: they both equally share a common faith and common sacraments with the Church, but all this leads only to their condemnation.

Thus, in comparison with St. Cyprian, only one difference can be noted among fourth-century writers: they are more lenient toward schismatics. According to Optatus, schismatics separated from the Church ex parte, non ex toto; for Augustine, they separated from the Church in quibusdam rebus nobiscum sunt, and according to Basil the Great, they are ἔτι ἐκ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.

But in essence, fourth-century writers are in complete agreement both with each other and with St. Cyprian. St. Cyprian rejected any life of grace outside the Church; I completely agree with him and the canonical answer of St. Basil the Great, according to which those who have departed from the Church and through schism (διὰ σχίσματος) do not have the grace of the Holy Spirit, their hierarchy is the laity (λαϊκοὶ γενόμενοι), who cannot impart the grace of the Holy Spirit (? αὐτοὶ (ἐκπεπτώκασι). And if, at the same time, Basil the Great considers it possible to receive schismatics without baptism, and Saint Augustine demonstrates the validity of baptism outside the Church, then one cannot see here a contradiction or allowance for a truly grace-filled life outside the Church. After all, according to Augustine, the grace of baptism begins to act only from the moment of joining the Catholic Church, which is why there is no salvation outside the Church. The correct performance of baptism outside the Church is, according to both Augustine and Saint Basil the Great, only the basis by which the Church can receive a schismatic into its bosom even without baptism, and the incentive for such reception is seen in the benefit of ecclesiastical peace, as Saint Augustine [believes]. Basil (οἰκονομίας ἕνεκα τῶν πολλῶν), and the 79th rule of the Council of Carthage (σιὰ τὴν τῆς Εκκλησίας ?? ειρήνῃ φανείῃ). Obviously, [such] a possibility is allowed for the sake of ecclesiastical peace and a change in practice, since the conditions of this peace may be completely different. St. Cyprian, in his letter to Jubaian, indeed demanded the rebaptism of the Novatians for the benefit of the Church.311 St. Cyprian and Firmilian considered the determination of the benefit of the Church and the practice dependent on it to be the business of the bishop, thus admitting the possibility of different methods of receiving heretics and schismatics into the Church at different times and in different Churches. Basil the Great and Amphilochius of Iconium, to whom St. Basil wrote his canonical letter, do not deny this possibility. This is, of course, because the Fathers considered all those standing outside the Church equally ungraceful, but found it may be possible, depending on the circumstances of time and place, to refrain from requiring baptism from schismatics if this is deemed beneficial to the Church. St. Augustine explains that joining the Church, by erasing through repentance the mortal sin of schism, grants the schismatic the grace of baptism he was deprived of and completely lacked. Union with the Church makes a person a Christian, and outside of this union, he is nothing, even if baptized. Nevertheless, in the judgments of Optatus and Augustine on schismatic baptism, one can discern the beginnings of the doctrine of opus operatum, which are not found in the epistle of Basil the Great.

In the system of Blessed Augustine, the doctrine of the holiness of the Church was finally developed, clarified, and substantiated. The question of the holiness of the Church, as we have seen, was frequently discussed, primarily in the polemical literary struggle with Montanism, Novatianism, and Donatism. That the holiness of the Church is not the holiness of its members was already established in the first six decades of the third century. Blessed Augustine only further substantiates this truth, which had already become the foundation of Church practice, with data from Holy Scripture. The holiness of the Church was understood as the holiness of the entire set of sanctifying means, facilitating the attainment of personal holiness by each individual member of the Church. The Church is the spiritual union in which alone sanctifying means are effective. The foundation of this union is not merely external membership in it or recognition of Church teaching, but the moral unity of all members in love: outside the Church, outside love, and vice versa. The Church, as a visible institution, does not guarantee absolute salvation, but only facilitates it. Separation from the Church leads to certain destruction. This point of doctrine on the Church was clearly stated in early church literature, but it was only fully developed in the writings of Blessed Augustine (and Optatus), where the doctrine of the sanctity of the Church as the sanctity of the Sacraments was clearly and definitely formulated.

But the Donatists made this sanctity dependent on the personal qualities of hierarchical individuals; thereby, of course, undermining the sanctity of the Church itself. Church writers have long struggled with this view. As early as the third century, primarily in the struggle against Montanism and Novatianism, the “power of the keys” of the bishop was definitively established, but the dogmatic foundations of the sacramental activity of the hierarchy in general remained insufficiently clarified. In the struggle against Donatism, the question was directly posed and demanded a theological resolution: does the validity of a Sacrament depend on the personal qualities of the celebrant? Optatus and Blessed Augustine (and Optatus) Augustine’s answer was a decisive “no”; even the Sacraments administered by schismatics were recognized. A Sacrament is the property not of an individual, but of the Church; schismatics can preserve the Sacraments, just as they preserve Church teaching. A member of the hierarchy, by virtue of his ecclesiastical position and office, can administer the Church’s Sacraments. The Church possesses the Sacraments that sanctify man, regardless of the moral qualities of its ministers, and in this lies its holiness—this is the result that Church theological thought arrived at during the fourth century as it developed the doctrine of the holiness of the Church.

* * *

Notes:

299.Ibid. I, 15, 23. PL. T. 43. Col. 121–122.

300.Contra Cresconium, I, 29, 34. PL. T. 43. Col. 463–464.

301.De baptismo, 1, 1, 2. PL. T. 43. Col. 110.

302.Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 77, 172: “Charitas enim Christiana nisi in unitate Ecclesiae non potest custodire… Tenemus autem charitatem, si amplectimur unitatem.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 312; De bapt, IV, 17, 24. PL. T. 43. Col. 169; Serm. 312, 6: “Nulla esset charitas christiani, a quo non custodiretur unitas Christi.” P.L. T. 38. Col. 1422.

303.Quaest in heptat, 5, 15. PL. T. 34. Col. 755.

304.De unit Eccl, II, 2. PL. T. 43. Col. 392; In p.s. 30, serm. 2, 1.PL. T. 36. Col. 239; In ep. Ioan. tract, 2, 3. PL. T. 35. Col. 1992.

305.Contra Crescon., II, 12, 15; II, 13, 16. PL. T. 43. Col. 476; II, 14, 17: “Nee quemquam accepturum Spiritum sanctum nisi qui ejus (Ecclesiae) unitatem copularetur.” Col. 477. Cfr.: In Ioan. tract, 32, 8. PL. T. 35. Col. 1645–1646.

306.Epist. 185, 10, 46. PL. T. 33. Col. 813. Cfr.: Epist 185, 9, 42: “Quemadmodum enim membrum si praecidatur ab hominis vivi corpore, non potest tenere spiritum vitae, sic homo qui praeciditur de Christi justi; corpore, nullo modo potest spiritum tenere justitiae, etiam si figuram membri teneat, quam sumsit in corpore.” P.L. T. 33. Col. 811. Cfr.: serm. 268, 2.PL. T. 38. Col. 1232.

307.Contra litt. Petiliani, II, 77, 172: “Non prosit hominibus, quamvis in eis sint vel Sacramenta vel fides, ubi charitas non est… sine illa (charitate) nihil vos esse, et si Baptismum et fidem teneatis… teneamus charitatem, sine qua et cum Sacramentis et cum fide nihil sumus.” P.L. T. 43. Col. 312.

308.Sermo ad caesar. eccl. pleb. P. 6. PL. T. 43. Col. 695.

309.De bapt, IV, 17, 24. PL. T. 43. Col. 170.

310.Epist. 141, 5.PL. T. 33. Col. 579.

311.Ibid. 73–60. P. 24. CSEL 3, 2. P. 797. Works. Part 1. P. 348. See above: P. 459.

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)