To Rusticus of Narbonne, with Replies to His Questions

Leo the bishop to Rusticus, bishop of Gallia Narbonensis.

I have gladly received your letter, brother, which Hermes your archdeacon brought. The number of different matters it contains makes it long indeed, but not so tedious to me, reading it patiently, that I would pass over any point amid the cares that press on me from every side. So, having grasped the substance of your charge and reviewed what took place at the inquiry held by the bishops and the leading men, we gather that Sabinian and Leo, presbyters, lacked confidence in your action, and that they no longer have any just cause for complaint, since they withdrew of their own accord from the hearing that had begun. What form or what measure of justice you ought to give them I leave to your own judgment. But I advise you, with the encouragement of love, that you ought to apply spiritual medicine to heal the sick. Remember the Scripture that says, “Do not be overly righteous,” and act with mildness toward these men, who in their zeal for chastity seem to have gone beyond the limits of vengeance, so that the devil, who deceived the adulterers, may not triumph over the avengers of the adultery. [a]

But I am surprised, beloved, that you are so disturbed by the opposition that comes from offenses, whatever their cause, that you say you would rather be relieved of the labors of your office as bishop and live in quiet and ease than continue in the office entrusted to you. Yet since the Lord says, “Blessed is he who perseveres to the end,” where will this blessed perseverance come from, if not from the strength of patience? For as the apostle declares, “All who want to live godly lives in Christ will suffer persecution.” And it is not only to be counted persecution when sword or fire or other open force is used against the Christian religion. The cruelest persecution is often inflicted by refusal to conform in practice, by stubborn disobedience, and by the barbs of spiteful tongues. All the members of the church are always open to these attacks, and no part of the faithful is free from temptation, so that neither a life of ease nor a life of labor is without danger. Who, then, will steer the ship through the waves of the sea if the helmsman leaves his post? Who will guard the sheep from the treachery of wolves if the shepherd himself is not on watch? Who, in short, will resist the thieves and robbers if love of quiet draws the watchman, who was set to keep the lookout, away from the strictness of his watch? One must remain, then, in the office entrusted to him and in the task he has taken up. Justice must be steadfastly upheld and mercy lovingly extended. It is not men but their sins that must be hated. The proud must be rebuked and the weak must be borne with, and those sins that call for sterner correction must be dealt with in a spirit not of vindictiveness but of a desire to heal. And if a fiercer storm of trouble falls on us, let us not be terrified, as if we had to overcome the disaster by our own strength. For Christ is both our counsel and our strength. Through him we can do all things, and without him nothing. To strengthen the preachers of the gospel and the ministers of the mysteries, he says, “See, I am with you all the days, even to the end of the age.” And again he says, “I have spoken these things to you so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble, but take heart, because I have overcome the world.” We ought not to let any causes of offense weaken these promises, which are as plain as they can be, or we would seem ungrateful to God for making us his chosen vessels, since his help is as powerful as his promises are true. [c]

As for the points of inquiry, beloved, which your archdeacon has brought me written out separately, it would be easier to reach conclusions on each of them face to face, if you could give us the benefit of your presence. Since some questions seem to go beyond the limits of ordinary diligence, I see that they are better suited to conversation than to writing. For just as there are certain things that can by no means be disputed, so there are many things that have to be adjusted either for reasons of age or by the necessities of the case. But we must always remember that, in things that are doubtful or obscure, we are to follow whatever is found to be neither contrary to the commands of the gospel nor opposed to the decrees of the holy fathers.

Question 1. About a presbyter or deacon who falsely claims to be a bishop, and about those whom such men have ordained. Reply. No consideration allows men to be counted among the bishops who have not been elected by the clergy, requested by the laity, and consecrated by the bishops of the province with the consent of the metropolitan. So, since the question often comes up about advancement wrongly obtained, who can doubt that what is not shown to have been conferred on them can by no means be theirs? And if any clergy have been ordained by such false bishops in churches that have bishops of their own, and their ordination took place with the consent and approval of the proper bishops, it may be held valid, on condition that they remain in those same churches. Otherwise it must be held void, since it is attached to no place and rests on no authority. [d]

Question 2. About a presbyter or deacon who, once his crime is known, asks for public penance: is it to be granted him by the laying on of hands? Reply. It is contrary to the custom of the church that those who have been dedicated to the dignity of the presbyterate or the rank of the diaconate should receive the remedy of penance through the laying on of hands for any crime. This custom no doubt comes down from the tradition of the apostles, in keeping with what is written: “If a priest has sinned, who will pray for him?” So when such men have fallen, they must seek private seclusion in order to obtain God’s mercy, where their atonement may be both fruitful and sufficient. [e]

Question 3. About those who minister at the altar and have wives: may they lawfully live with them as husbands? Reply. The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar as for bishops and priests. When they were laymen or readers, they could lawfully marry and have children. But when they reached the ranks we have named, what was lawful before ceased to be so. So, in order that their marriage may become spiritual instead of fleshly, they must not put away their wives but must “have them as though they had them not.” In this way the love of their wives is kept, and the acts of marriage cease. [f]

Question 4. About a presbyter or deacon who has given his unmarried daughter in marriage to a man who already had a woman joined to him, by whom he had also had children. Reply. Not every woman who is joined to a man is his wife, just as not every son is his father’s heir. The bond of marriage is lawful between the freeborn and between equals. The Lord laid this down long before Roman law had its beginning. So a wife is different from a concubine, just as a slave woman is different from a free woman. That is why the apostle, to show the difference between these persons, quotes from Genesis, where it is said to Abraham, “Drive out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not be heir with my son Isaac.” Since, then, the bond of marriage was so established from the beginning that, beyond the joining of the sexes, it symbolizes the mystical union of Christ and his church, there is no doubt that a woman has no part in marriage when it is shown that the mystery of marriage has not taken place in her case. So a clergyman of any rank who has given his daughter in marriage to a man who has a concubine must not be considered to have given her to a married man, unless the other woman should turn out to have been made free, to have been given a lawful dowry, and to have been honored with a public wedding. [g]

Question 5. About young women who have married men who have concubines. Reply. Those who are joined to husbands by their fathers’ will are free from blame, if the women their husbands had were not their wives in marriage. Question 6. About those who leave the women by whom they have children and take wives. Reply. Since a wife is different from a concubine, to send a slave woman away from one’s bed and take a wife whose free birth is certain is not bigamy but an honorable step.

Question 7. About those who accept the terms of penance in sickness and, when they have recovered, refuse to keep them. Reply. Such men’s neglect is to be blamed, but they are not to be given up for good, so that they may be urged on by frequent exhortations to carry out faithfully what they asked for under the pressure of need. For no one is to be despaired of as long as he remains in this body, because sometimes what hesitation puts off at one age is carried out later by riper judgment. Question 8. About those who promise repentance on their deathbed and die before receiving communion. Reply. Their case is left to the judgment of God, in whose hand it lay whether their death would be put off until the very time of communion. But we cannot be in communion with those who are dead, with whom we were not in communion while they lived.

Question 9. About those who, under the pressure of great pain, ask for penance to be granted them, and then, when the presbyter has come to give them what they ask for, make excuses and refuse to accept what is offered if the pain has eased somewhat. Reply. This evasion cannot come from contempt for the remedy, but from fear of falling into worse sin. So when the penance that was put off is sought more earnestly, it must not be denied, so that the wounded soul may in one way or another reach the healing of absolution.

Question 10. About those who have professed repentance, if they begin to go to law in the public courts. Reply. To demand just debts is indeed one thing, and to think nothing of one’s own property out of perfect love is another. But one who begs pardon for unlawful deeds ought to keep away even from many things that are lawful, as the apostle says, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful.” So if the penitent has a matter that perhaps he ought not to neglect, it is better for him to turn to the judgment of the church than to the public courts. [h] Question 11. About those who carry on trade during or after penance. Reply. The nature of his gains either excuses or condemns the trader, because there is an honorable kind of profit and a shameful kind. All the same, it is better for the penitent to suffer loss than to be caught up in the risks of trading, because it is hard for sin not to enter into dealings between buyer and seller.

Question 12. About those who return to military service after doing penance. Reply. It is altogether contrary to the rules of the church to return to military service in the world after doing penance, as the apostle says, “No soldier in God’s service entangles himself in the affairs of the world.” So anyone who wants to entangle himself in the military service of the world is not free from the snares of the devil. [i] Question 13. About those who take wives or join themselves to concubines after penance. Reply. Suppose a young man has done penance out of fear of death or the dangers of captivity, and afterward, afraid of falling into youthful incontinence, has chosen to marry a wife so that he would not be guilty of sexual immorality. He seems to have done something pardonable, as long as he has known no woman at all except his wife. Yet in this we lay down no rule, but give an opinion about what is less objectionable. For, to see the matter truly, nothing suits one who has done penance better than lasting chastity of both mind and body.

Question 14. About monks who take up military service or marriage. Reply. A monk’s vow, taken up of his own will or wish, cannot be given up without sin. For what a man has vowed to God he also ought to pay. So the one who abandons his profession of the single life and takes himself off to military service or to marriage must make atonement and clear himself in public. For although such service may be innocent and the married state honorable, it is a transgression to have forsaken the higher choice. Question 15. About young women who have worn the religious habit for some time but have not been dedicated, if they marry afterward. Reply. Young women who were not forced by their parents’ command but took the vow and habit of virginity of their own free will act wrongly if they afterward choose marriage, even though they have not received dedication. They would surely not have been cheated of it if they had kept their vow.

Question 16. About those who were left as infants by Christian parents: if no proof of their baptism can be found, ought they to be baptized? Reply. If no proof exists among their kin and relations, or among the clergy or neighbors, by which those in question may be shown to have been baptized, steps must be taken for their rebirth, so that they do not plainly perish. For in their case reason does not allow that what is not shown to have been done should be thought to be repeated. Question 17. About those who have been captured by the enemy and do not know whether they have been baptized, but know that they were taken to church several times by their parents: can they be baptized, or ought they to be, when they come back to Roman territory? [j] Reply. Those who can remember that they used to go to church with their parents can remember whether they received what used to be given to their parents. But if this too has escaped their memory, it seems that what is not known to have been given them must be given them, because there can be no presumptuous rashness where the most faithful care has been taken. [k]

Question 18. About those who have come from Africa or Mauretania and do not know in what sect they were baptized: what ought to be done in their case? [l] Reply. These persons are not in doubt about their baptism, but say they do not know the faith of those who baptized them. So, since they have received the form of baptism in one way or another, they are not to be baptized, but are to be united to the catholics by the laying on of hands, after calling on the power of the Holy Spirit, which they could not receive from heretics. Question 19. About those who were baptized in infancy and then captured by the Gentiles, and lived with them in the Gentile way: when they come back to Roman territory while still young men, if they ask for communion, what is to be done? [m] Reply. If they have only lived with Gentiles and eaten sacrificial food, they can be cleansed by fasting and the laying on of hands, so that from now on they may abstain from things offered to idols and share in Christ’s mysteries. But if they have either worshiped idols or been defiled by killing or sexual immorality, they must not be admitted to communion except by public penance.