Letters 7.1–10.20

I would wish always, dearest brothers, to announce joys to the sincerity of your love and peace, so that, as letters ran back and forth, you might be helped by news of our well-being. But since the ancient enemy does not allow us to be free from his assaults in quiet, he who is a liar from the beginning, the enemy of truth, the rival of man, whom he deceived himself first in order to deceive him; the adversary of chastity, the teacher of luxury, he feeds on cruelties; deserving to be punished by abstinence, he hates fasts, saying through his ministers who preach it that they are superfluous, having no hope of things to come. He is struck back by the sentence of the Apostle, who says: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

O unhappy audacity! O cunning of a desperate mind! The hitherto unknown talk of the heretics was creeping within the church like a cancer, so that, seizing the breast, it might cast the whole man headlong into death. And had not the Lord of hosts broken the snare which he had prepared, the stage-play of so great an evil and the hypocrisy, made public, would have drawn the hearts of many simple people into ruin; because the human mind is easily led over to the worse part, wishing to flit about through wide spaces rather than to travel with labour the road of the narrow way.

On this matter it was quite necessary, my dearest ones, to send what has been done here to your knowledge, lest through the ignorance of any priest the contagion of the worst of men, breaking into the church under a religious name, should violate it; as it is written, the Lord saying: "Many will come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves; by their fruits you will know them." These are the men, namely, who subtly boast themselves Christians, so that, walking under the veil of a devout name, having entered the house of prayer, they may pour out the speech of serpentine disputation, "to shoot in the dark at the upright of heart," and, turning them away from the catholic truth, lead them over in the devil's manner to the madness of their own teaching, and cheat the simplicity of the sheep. We have indeed learned from the apostles until now, and found by experience, the malignity of many heresies; but never have such dogs wearied the mystery of the church with their barking as these enemies of the faith who have now suddenly broken out, and, a doctrine of faithlessness having sprouted, have revealed by the fruits of their words whose disciples they are. For whereas other heretics, by misunderstanding, have set themselves to tear up and pluck at single kinds of questions in the divine institutions, these men, not having the wedding garment, wounding catholics, perverting, as I said, the continence of the New and Old Testaments and interpreting it by a diabolical spirit, have begun with enticing and feigned speech to lay waste some Christians already and to make them partners of their madness, while keeping within themselves the poison of their wickedness. But, being found out, they made their blasphemies public by a rash writing, and, driven by the fury of a desperate mind, published them everywhere to win the favour of the pagans. But by most faithful Christians, men of the best family and distinguished in religion, a horrifying writing was suddenly brought to my humility, so that, having been detected by priestly judgment as contrary to the divine law, it might be blotted out by a spiritual sentence. We indeed do not spurn but accept the vows of marriage, at which we are present with the veil; but virgins, whom marriages produce, devoted to God, we honour with greater esteem. A presbytery having therefore been held, it was established that their teaching was contrary to ours, that is, to the Christian law.

Hence, following the Apostle's precept, since they were preaching otherwise than what we have received, know that the sentence of all of us, presbyters and deacons as well as the whole clergy, was one: that Jovinian, Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Plotinus, Martianus, Januarius and Ingeniosus, who were found to be the instigators of the new heresy and blasphemy, condemned for ever by the divine sentence and by our judgment, should remain outside the church. Not doubting that your holiness will keep this, I have sent this writing through my brothers and fellow presbyters Crescens, Leopardus and Alexander, who can fulfil with fervent spirit the devout office of faith.

I have received your letter about Bishop Bonosus, in which you wished to ask our sentence, whether for the sake of truth or of modesty. But since the judgment of the council of Capua was of this kind, that the neighbouring bishops should be given as judges to Bonosus and his accusers, and above all the Macedonians, who with the bishop of Thessalonica were to examine his deeds, we have noted that the form of judging could not belong to us. For if the synod were still sitting today, we would rightly decide about the things which the content of your letter covers. It is for you, then, who have received this judgment, to pass sentence on everything, and not to give either the accusers or the accused the chance of escaping or slipping away. For you have received the place of the synod, you whom the synod chose to examine the case.

Finally, when Bishop Bonosus, after your judgment, had sent to our brother Ambrose to consult his opinion whether he might break into and enter the church that had been forbidden him, he was answered that nothing should be rashly done, but all things carried out modestly, patiently, and in order, and that nothing should be attempted against your sentence; so that you might decide what seemed to you to accord with justice, you to whom the synod had given this authority. Therefore the first thing is that those should judge to whom the power of judging has been given; for you, as we have written, decide in the place of the whole synod; it does not befit us to judge as though by the synod's authority.

We certainly cannot deny that he was rightly reproved concerning the sons of Mary, and that your holiness rightly shrank in horror from the claim that from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh another offspring was poured forth. For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born through a virgin had he judged that she would be so incontinent as to defile with the seed of human intercourse that birthplace of the Lord's body, that hall of the eternal King. For he who asserts this asserts nothing other than the faithlessness of the Jews, who say that he could not have been born of a virgin. For if they receive this authority from priests, that Mary is seen to have brought forth many children, they will strive with greater zeal to attack the truth of the faith.

And where is that which is written, when the Lord said to his mother of John the evangelist, "Woman, behold your son," and again to John of Mary, "Behold your mother"? What does it mean that when the Lord, set on the cross, was taking away the sin of the world, he also made a pronouncement about his mother's integrity? Or what else is said, except that faithlessness should close its mouth and be dumb, so as not to dare to violate the Lord's mother with any insult? The same judge, then, the same defender of his mother's chastity, is witness that she was only betrothed to her husband Joseph, yet knew the rights of the marriage bed by no custom of conjugal intercourse. For he would not have wished to separate from her husband's company one who was going to receive sons from Joseph. But if this is too little, the evangelist added a testimony, saying that the disciple took her to his own. Did he, then, make a divorce? Did he take her away and remove her from her husband? How, then, does one who reads this in the Gospel stagger and waver like a shipwrecked man? This, then, is the son's testament about his mother's integrity; this is Mary's rich inheritance of whole chastity; this is the end of the whole consummation. Finally, he said this, and gave up his spirit, consummating every mystery with a good end of piety.

We have also read and gone through everything, both about Senecio's having been given to our brother and fellow bishop Bassus as a partner in ruling the church, and about the other matters on which we await the rule of your sentence.

The Lord, among the other saving commandments by which he exhorts and admonishes his disciples the apostles to the hope of life, as the words of the Gospel have taught us too, commands this also: that we should labour with care to come to the knowledge of the truth. And first, that we should come to know what is unknown not by empty progress but by labour and care, and that what is not yet known must be searched out by prayers. Things better known but difficult he commanded to be sought insistently; things that are shut, knocking by the power of faith, we ought to ask in prayer to have opened to us. For so it is written: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." Certainly no one who does not ask receives, nor does one who does not seek find; nor can it be opened to one who has not knocked. On this matter, since what is asked in faith is granted, and what was obscure, while it is searched out, is gained as plain to the understanding, and what was shut to us is revealed by knocking more often, that is, by asking ("for everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened"), to repeat the same things is not burdensome to me, and for you it is necessary.

We know, dearest brothers, that many bishops in various churches, to the very bad repute of their name, have hastened by human presumption to change the tradition of the fathers, and for this reason have fallen into the darkness of heresy, delighting in the glory of men rather than seeking to have the rewards of God. Now, then, since your holiness has deigned to ask, on the authority of the apostolic see, about the knowledge of the law or the traditions, not for the sake of testing but to confirm faith, wishing us to set out more freely the exposition of the questions proposed, which you seek sincerely and with longing: hear what, as far as the divine favour will fill me, I shall say, in plain speech but with firm sense, things to be held, in order to correct all the differences in which arrogance alone has presumed to disagree; as the divine Scripture says: "You have rejected the commandment of God so as to establish your traditions." If, then, you desire with whole faith to know the true observances, deign to attend willingly to what I say. In the first place the matter of modesty and chastity is set before me. Then, how many questions heaped together are put forward. To each proposition, therefore, the traditions must be returned in their order.

It is asked about veiled virgins who have changed their purpose, what has been judged in this regard. If a virgin already veiled to Christ, who, having professed integrity by public testimony, received the veil of blessing from the priest with prayer poured out, either has committed incest secretly, or, wishing to cover her crime, has put the name of husband on an adulterer, taking the members of Christ and making them members of a harlot, so that she who had been the bride of Christ is called a man's wife: in a woman of this kind there are as many guilts as there are causes: the purpose of integrity changed, the veil lost, the first faith corrupted and made void. What kind and how great a satisfaction is needed here! How great a penance for one who has incurred the destruction of the flesh! It is no small fault to have left God and gone after a man. Hence she must weep for very many years, so that, having borne the fruit of a worthy penance, she may at some time come to pardon, provided that, as a penitent, she does what penitents must do.

Likewise, a girl who has not yet been veiled, but had purposed to remain so: although she has not been veiled in Christ, yet because she so purposed, and she has not been veiled in marriage either, her marriage is called clandestine, because she did not keep the precept of the heavenly marriage, love hastening to the blindness of lust. For these too a time of penance must be fixed: since, whether carried off or willing, she consented to go to a man in perverse order, and, without the testimony of relatives or priests having been sought, such persons did not keep with chaste modesty the order of the solemnity of the veil; but they acted against the precept of the Old Testament. Those whom the law commanded to be stoned are now, that punishment having ceased, struck spiritually, so that they cannot enter the church, as if dead. They have, however, a place for doing penance; they do not quickly have pardon; since if the girl had cried out according to the law, and, protesting for a long time, had held out, she would surely have been free from fault. It is expedient, then, for both to be suspended from communion under the same appointed time, to do worthy penance, and to redeem the crime committed by weeping, humility, fasting and mercy.

And indeed our word on such matters has often spread through many churches, especially about priests, whose merit requires that they be a pattern of their good works to the peoples. But, as far as I understand, since Scripture says, "Speak to the ears of those who hear," we shall pour it into the ears by instruction, while they often repeat the same things, which are neglected by individuals; truly this is what was said of the adulterous sex: "Always learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth." For when what is usefully admonished is not kept, the apostolic commands are despised as if unknown; yet the judgment on what they have committed cannot be changed. So much concerning priests. In the first place it has been laid down concerning bishops, presbyters and deacons, who must be present at the divine sacrifices, through whose hands both the grace of baptism is handed on and the body of Christ is consecrated: not only we but the divine Scripture compels them to be most chaste, and the fathers too commanded that they ought to keep bodily continence. On this matter let us not pass over but state the reason as well. With what shame does a bishop or presbyter dare to preach integrity or continence to a widow or a virgin, or urge her to keep a chaste bed, if he himself has been more intent on begetting children for the world than for God? Adam, who did not keep the commandment, was cast out of paradise and lost the kingdom; and do you think that a transgressor can come to the heavenly kingdom? For which reason Paul says: "You are no longer in the flesh, but in the spirit"; and again: "And let those who have wives be as though they had none." Would he who exhorts the people thus offer licence to Levites and priests, flattering them, to engage in the work of the flesh, he who himself says, "And make no provision for the flesh in its desires," and elsewhere, "I would that all were as I myself am"? He who serves as Christ's soldier, who sits in the teacher's seat, can he not keep the discipline of his service?

Of these three grades, then, which we read of in the Scriptures, cleanness is commanded to be observed by the ministers of God, for whom necessity is always at hand. For either baptism must be given or the sacrifices must be offered. Will an unclean man dare to defile what is holy, when holy things are holy for the holy? Finally, those who offered sacrifices in the temple, in order to be clean, remained in the temple for the whole year by the sole merit of observance, not knowing their homes at all. Certainly idolaters, in order to practise their impieties and sacrifice to demons, impose on themselves continence from women, and wish to be purified from foods too; and you ask me whether a priest of the true God, who is to offer spiritual sacrifices, ought to be purified perpetually, or, wholly in the flesh, ought to make provision for the flesh? If intercourse is pollution, surely the priest must stand prepared for the heavenly office, he who is to intercede for the sins of others, lest he himself be found unworthy. For if it is said to laymen, "Abstain for a time, so that you may be free for prayer," and they at least serve the creature by begetting, priests may have such a name, but they cannot have the merit. And if this is so, and the presumption persists, the order of bishops or presbyters or deacons must now be associated with the life of publicans. Therefore, my dearest ones, I admonish that the mystery of God ought not to be entrusted to men of this kind, defiled and unbelieving, in whom the holiness of the body seems to have been polluted by filth and incontinence, as reverence for religion itself urges. For just reason too sets them apart. Let them hear indeed: "For flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God, nor corruption incorruption." And does a presbyter or deacon dare to strive to lie down in the manner of animals?

Likewise, concerning one who, already one of the faithful, has served in secular military service, it is known that he makes use of public freedom. For who can watch over him? Who can deny either that he has been present at the shows, or that, driven by the advantage of money, he could not have been free from violence and injustice?

The Roman church keeps this in particular: that if someone baptized as a small child has kept the integrity of his body, he may be admitted to the clergy; or if someone was baptized as an adult and has remained chaste, the husband of one wife, he may become a cleric, if he is bound by no other chains of crimes. But one who has corrupted the sacrament of the water by carnal vices, even if after sexual immorality he marries a wife, how can he assist in the ministry for forgiving sins, he who has gone back to the blindness of his former life? How is this to be understood, "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters" and others such "will possess the kingdom of God," if there is no difference between good and evil, between the just and the impious, between the luxurious and the chaste, between one who keeps the law and a publican? Such men will become ministers or priests not of Christ but rather of Antichrist. And where is that which the holy apostle Paul, who gave the pattern of what kind of bishop should be ordained, commanded beforehand, saying, "blameless, sober and chaste," and so on? How is he blameless who could not keep the sacrament of baptism? O new presumption! The priesthood is entrusted to one to whom penance alone is owed, so that, soiled as he is, he may wash away by a long satisfaction and obtain the benefits of pardon.

Apostolic discipline has established that the confession of catholic bishops ought to be one. If, then, faith is one, tradition too ought to remain one. If tradition is one, one discipline ought to be kept through all the churches. Churches have indeed been founded in different regions; but through the whole world, by the unity of the catholic faith, it is called one. For so we read: "One is my dove, one is my perfect one, one is she to her mother." I am not writing back now about the meaning of baptism, then, but about the person of those who administer it.

At the time of Easter the presbyter and the deacon are accustomed to give remission of sins in the parishes and to fulfil the ministry; even when the bishop is present they also go down into the font themselves; they are in the office, but the chief credit of the deed is granted to his name. At other times, however, when the necessity of illness compels anyone to seek it, leave is given specially to the presbyter to give the forgiveness of sins through the grace of the saving water, since he too may offer the gift for the sake of cleansing; but no leave is found to have been granted to deacons. But what they happened once to usurp, they are said to be excused through necessity, but are not to commit it again with security in future.

Concerning the exorcized oil, whether a small number of days must be taken, much discussion bears fruit on this. For each one is cleansed by his own full faith. For if the chrism poured on the head imparts its grace to the whole body, nonetheless, if one who has been examined at the third scrutiny has been touched with the oil, not often but once, God works by his power in due time.

Concerning one who has married his wife's sister: it is written in the law of the Old Testament that one ought to marry in order to raise up seed for a dead brother, provided, however, that he had left no children by her. For this is why John the Baptist contradicted Herod, because it was not lawful for him to take her as wife, since his brother had left children by her. Yet the constitution of the Law commanded this to be done by a man for the sake of male offspring; concerning women it is nowhere read, but perhaps presumed. For the Law says: "Cursed is he who sleeps with his wife's sister." Is the Christian now not permitted to have what Jacob had, who had two sisters as wives at one time, for the sake of a mystery, and concubines, and all who were born were called patriarchs? Or those who had wives and concubines? But now the Testament does not allow this to be done, where integrity is treated more fully and chastity is praised by Christ's teaching, when he says: "Not all receive the word of God, but those to whom it is given."

Moreover, it is manifest that those who, having obtained secular power, have exercised the law of the world cannot be free from sin. For while the sword is drawn, or an unjust judgment is given, or tortures are applied for the needs of cases, or they take care to prepare pleasures, or are present at those prepared, associating themselves again with the things they renounced, they have changed the discipline of observance that was handed down. They do much for themselves if they do not aspire to the episcopate; but, doing penance for all these things, when a fixed time has been completed, they may deserve to be joined to the altars. The council of Nicaea, with the divine Spirit assenting, when the confession of faith had been rightly confirmed, the bishops gathered together wished the apostolic traditions also to come to the knowledge of all, defining among other things that a eunuch should not become a cleric, since "the eunuch and the effeminate shall not enter the sanctuary of God." Then they commanded that, after the grace of baptism, after the forgiveness of sins, one who has gloried in the service of the world, or one who has delighted in the purple and the fasces, should by no means be admitted to the priesthood by any irruption. For it is by merits and the observances of the law that men come to the summit of such a dignity; no one will be able to reach it by the money of Simon, or by influence, or by popular favour. For what is sought is not what the people wish, but what the discipline of the gospel requires. The people then has the value of a testimony when, rejecting the breeze of favour, it bestows it on the merit of someone worthy.

Likewise concerning one who has married his maternal uncle's wife. It is not lawful to marry the daughter of one's maternal uncle, since the like cause, by the degrees of the father, is separated and purified as from a stranger; but to go back is not lawful. For one who has presumed to violate the bed of father or mother, this is not called marriage but sexual immorality. Whoever, however, has presumed to act against the apostolic canons is to be deprived of the priesthood if he is obstinate; but if he has corrected himself, let what was presumed be abolished, so that, reconciled, he may have our fellowship.

Concerning ordinations it must be observed above all that bishops should always be made from the clergy. For so it is written: "And let these first be proved, and so let them minister." One who is not proved to have ministered in a lesser office in the preceding time, how is he set over the clergy? It is unheard of that a recruit not yet a soldier should take command. That man, then, ought to be made bishop whom age, time, merit and life commend. Or why does the Apostle forbid a neophyte and not allow hands to be laid quickly on anyone?

Likewise concerning those who pass from church to church, they were ordered to be regarded as though they had left their wife and gone to another's; which cannot be unpunished. Such a bishop, an invader of another's chastity, they commanded to be deprived of the episcopate.

Likewise concerning other churches' clerics, it has often been discussed and confirmed in synod, and just reason constrains it, that clerics cast out of the church by their own bishop cannot receive even lay communion in another church; this has been confirmed and made plain, since even an innocent cleric cannot minister in another church without the letters of his bishop, or a formata. But if anyone presumes to do this, to the injury of a priest, and is willing to receive or promote a condemned cleric, let him know that he has shared in other men's sins and has incurred the sentence of the Apostle, who says that guilty are not only those who act against the law but also those who consent to those who do so. Hence it must be left to the conscience of him who judged his own cleric, knowing that God will judge his judgment hereafter. Hear the Lord saying: "Whatever you wish men to do to you, do the same to them." Why do you arm yourself to the injury of a brother and fellow priest? For when a cast-out cleric is not only received but even promoted, the bishop is judged unjust. Whoever does this, let him know that he is shut out from the fellowship of catholics and can no longer have the communion of the apostolic see.

This moreover is very grave, and against the episcopal moderation of the apostolic see: to exceed one's own bounds, to go into another's region, to hasten to celebrate ordinations, not to allow by one's precepts the metropolitan bishop to act in his own diocese together with the neighbouring bishops, as the three hundred and eighteen bishops confirmed, that three or more priests ought to ordain a bishop or appoint the most worthy as successor. If anyone indeed invades the bounds of another's possession, he is judged guilty of violence. Why the running? Why the haste, so that the church's rule may be trampled underfoot? Human laws are kept, and divine precepts despised. The present sword and temporal punishment are feared, but the divine vengeance, which has the perpetual flames of Gehenna, is neglected. You will see what presumption has done. From now on, if anyone dares to presume to make an ordination in another's diocese, let him know that he who has presumed to invade another's church may be endangered in his own standing. It is nothing secular; these are not worldly promotions. Let us hear the Apostle saying: "Lay hands hastily on no one, nor share in other men's sins; keep yourself chaste." If the writings were read and divine fear were in us, all scandals could be put away, and unanimity could stand among all the brothers, peaceful and full of love.

Moreover, it is said that even laymen excluded from communion after their case has been examined have been made clerics by another bishop: this is now beyond every evil. Hence either let those who have dared to do such things be summoned and correct it, so that those on whom orders were unworthily conferred are removed, or let their names be brought to us, so that we may know from whom we ought to abstain.

Let your sincerity know, then, that if all these things are observed in their order as they are established, God is not offended, schisms are not produced, heresies do not arise; but the Gentiles will say that truly God is among us, Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit for eternal ages of ages. Amen.