To Augustine, Bishop of the Angles, Answering His Questions

Here begins the letter of the blessed Gregory, pope of the city of Rome, explaining various matters, which he sent across the sea to Saxony, to Augustine, whom he had himself sent in his own place to preach. [a]

Preface. Through my most beloved son Laurentius the presbyter and Peter the monk I received your fraternity’s letter, in which you took pains to question me on many points. But my sons whom I have named found me suffering the pains of gout, and when they pressed me to send them off quickly, they were allowed to go, leaving me still in the same pain. So I have not been able to answer every single point at greater length, as I ought to have done. [c]

Augustine’s first question. Most blessed father, I ask about bishops: how should they live with their clergy? And about the offerings of the faithful that are received at the altars: into what portions should they be divided, and how should the bishop deal with them in the church?

The answer of Saint Gregory, pope of the city of Rome. Holy Scripture, which you no doubt know well, bears witness to this, and especially the letters of the blessed Paul to Timothy, in which he took pains to teach him how he ought to conduct himself in the house of God. Now it is the custom of the Apostolic See, when bishops are ordained, to give them a charge that all income that comes in should be divided into four parts: one for the bishop and his household, for hospitality and the receiving of guests; another for the clergy; a third for the poor; and a fourth for the repair of churches. But your fraternity was trained under the rules of a monastery, and you ought not to live apart from your clergy in the church of the Angles, which by God’s guidance has lately been brought to the faith. So it will be right to establish the way of life that our fathers lived at the beginning of the infant church. Among them no one said that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. [d]

Augustine’s second question. I wish to be taught whether clerics who cannot practice self-control may marry, and, if they marry, whether they should return to the world. [f]

The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. If, however, there are any clerics not in sacred orders who cannot practice self-control, they ought to take wives and receive their allowances separately. For we know it is written of those same fathers we mentioned before that distribution was made to each one as he had need. So thought must be given and provision made for their allowances, and they should be kept under the rule of the church, so that they may lead good lives, give their attention to singing the psalms, and by the help of God keep their heart and tongue and body from everything unlawful. But as for those who live in community, what more need we say about assigning portions, or showing hospitality, or doing works of mercy? For whatever remains over and above their needs is to be spent on pious and religious uses, as the Lord and Master of us all says: “Of what is left over, give alms, and see, all things are clean for you.” [g]

Augustine’s third question. Since there is only one faith, why are the customs of the churches so different, one custom of the mass being kept in the Roman church and another in the churches of Gaul?

The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. Your fraternity knows the custom of the Roman church, in which you were brought up. But I approve of your carefully choosing anything you have found that may be more pleasing to Almighty God, whether in the Roman church or in that of Gaul or in any church whatever, and of your bringing into the church of the Angles, which is still new in the faith, as an order of its own, what you have been able to gather from many churches. For we ought not to love things for the sake of places, but places for the sake of things. So choose from each church whatever is pious, religious and right, gather it together as though into a bundle, and plant it in the minds of the Angles to be their custom.

Augustine’s fourth question. Tell me, please, what punishment should someone suffer who has taken anything from a church by theft?

The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. In this case your fraternity can consider, with regard to the person of the thief, how he may best be corrected. For there are some who steal though they have means, and there are others who offend in this matter out of need. So some must be corrected by fines and some by beatings, some more severely and some more lightly. And when anyone is dealt with rather severely, it should be done in love and not in anger, since the punishment is given to the man who is corrected so that he will not be handed over to the fires of hell. For we ought to keep discipline toward believers as good fathers do toward their sons. They strike them with blows for their faults, and yet they want the very ones they hurt to be their heirs, and they keep what they own for the very ones they seem to attack in anger. So this love must be kept in mind, so that nothing at all is done beyond the rule of reason. You also ask how they should restore what they have taken from churches by theft. But far be it from us that the church should take back with increase what it seems to lose of its earthly goods, and look for gain out of its losses. [h]

Augustine’s fifth question. I beg to know whether two brothers may marry two sisters who are far removed from them in descent. The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. This may certainly be done. For nothing at all is found in Holy Scripture that seems to be against it.

Augustine’s sixth question. To what generation may believers be joined in marriage with their own kin? And is it lawful to be married to stepmothers and to brothers’ wives?

The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. There is a certain earthly law in the Roman state that allows the son and daughter of a brother and sister, or of two brothers, or of two sisters, to marry each other. But we have learned by experience that offspring cannot come from such marriages. And the sacred law forbids uncovering the nakedness of kindred. It follows that only believers of the third or fourth generation may lawfully be joined together. For the second generation, which we have spoken of, ought by all means to keep apart from each other. But to have intercourse with a stepmother is a grave offense, since it is also written in the law, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father.” Not that a son can in fact uncover his father’s nakedness. But since it is written in the law, “The two shall be one flesh,” the man who has dared to uncover the nakedness of his stepmother, who has been one flesh with his father, has truly uncovered his father’s nakedness. It is also forbidden to have intercourse with a brother’s wife, since through her earlier union she has become the brother’s flesh. It was for this very thing that John the Baptist was beheaded and crowned with holy martyrdom. He was not ordered to deny Christ, and yet he was killed for confessing Christ. For our same Lord Jesus Christ had said, “I am the truth”; and because John was killed for the truth, he shed his blood for Christ. [i]

Augustine’s seventh question. I ask to have it declared whether those who are joined together in this shameful way should be ordered to separate, and be refused the offering of holy communion. [k]

The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. But since there are many among the nation of the Angles who, while they were still in unbelief, are said to have been joined in such unholy marriages, they should be warned, when they come to the faith, to keep apart from each other, and be made to understand that this is a grievous sin. Let them fear the awesome judgment of God, so that they do not, for the sake of the pleasure of the flesh, bring on themselves the pains of eternal torment. Yet they should not on this account be deprived of the communion of the Lord’s body and blood, so that we do not seem to punish them for what they bound themselves to in ignorance before the washing of baptism. For at this time holy church corrects some things with fervor, tolerates some things with gentleness, and overlooks and bears with some things after careful consideration, so that often, by bearing and overlooking, she holds back what she opposes. But all who come to the faith are to be warned not to dare to do any such thing. And if any should do it, they must be deprived of the communion of the Lord’s body and blood. For as the fault should be tolerated to some extent in those who did it in ignorance, so it should be punished severely in those who are not afraid to sin knowingly. [l]

Augustine’s eighth question. I ask whether, when a great distance lies between them and bishops cannot easily gather, a bishop may be ordained without other bishops present.

The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. In the church of the Angles, where you are so far the only bishop, you cannot ordain a bishop in any other way than without bishops. For when bishops come from Gaul, they will attend you as witnesses at the ordination of a bishop. But we wish your fraternity to ordain bishops in England in such a way that the bishops are not separated from one another by long distances, so that there may be no unavoidable reason why they should not come together when any bishop is to be ordained. For the presence of some other pastors too is of great benefit, and so they ought to be able to come together as easily as possible. When, therefore, by God’s gift, bishops have been ordained in places not far from one another, no ordination of a bishop should in any case take place without three or four bishops gathered together. For even in spiritual things, so that they may be ordered wisely and with mature thought, we may draw an example from things of the flesh. Certainly, when marriages are celebrated in the world, some married people are invited, so that those who have gone before in the way of marriage may share also in the joy that follows. Why then, in this spiritual ordination too, in which a man is joined to God through a sacred mystery, should not such men come together as may both rejoice at the advancement of the one ordained bishop and pour out prayers to the Almighty Lord for his protection? [m]

Augustine’s ninth question. I also ask how we should deal with the bishops of Gaul and of the Britons.

The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. Over the bishops of Gaul we give you no authority, for from the ancient times of my predecessors the bishop of Arles has received the pallium, and we ought by no means to deprive him of the authority he has gained. If, then, your fraternity should happen to cross into the provinces of Gaul, you should act together with this same bishop of Arles in such a way that any vices among bishops may be corrected. And if he should happen to be lukewarm in the vigor of discipline, he must be stirred up by your fraternity’s zeal. We have also written letters to him, telling him to help you with his whole soul whenever your holiness is present in Gaul, so that together you may hold back in the conduct of bishops everything that is contrary to the command of our Creator. But you yourself will not have power to judge the bishops of Gaul by any authority of your own. You are to do it by persuading them, by winning them over, and also by showing your own good works for them to imitate, and so shaping the minds of wrongdoers toward a concern for holiness. For it is written in the law, “One who passes through another man’s standing grain must not put in a sickle, but may rub the ears in his hand and eat.” So you cannot put the sickle of judgment into the crop that is seen to be entrusted to another. But by kind and good services you can strip the Lord’s grain of the chaff of its faults, and by warning and persuading turn it, as though by chewing, into the body of the church. But whatever is to be done by authority, let it be done together with the bishop of Arles we have mentioned, so that nothing the ancient order of the fathers has provided may be disregarded. But all the bishops of the Britons we entrust to your fraternity’s care, so that the unlearned may be taught, the weak strengthened by persuasion, and the perverse corrected by authority. [n]

Augustine’s request. I ask that the relics of Saint Sixtus the martyr be sent to us. [p]

The grant of Gregory. We have done what you asked. Our purpose is that the people who used to say that they venerated in a certain place the body of Saint Sixtus the martyr, which seems to your fraternity to be neither the true body nor truly holy, may receive certain benefits from the most holy and approved martyr, and not revere what is uncertain. Yet it seems to me that if the body which the people believe to be that of some martyr is not made famous among them by any miracles, and if, further, none of the older people declare that they heard the story of his martyrdom from their forefathers, then the relics you asked for should be placed apart, in such a way that the place where that body lies is completely blocked up, and the people are not allowed to leave what is certain and venerate what is uncertain.

Augustine’s tenth question. Should a pregnant woman be baptized? Or, when she has given birth, after how long should she be allowed to enter the church? Or, so that her child may not be overtaken by death, after how many days may it receive the sacrament of holy baptism? Or after how long may her husband have intercourse with her? Or, if she is having her monthly period, may she enter the church or receive the sacrament of holy communion? Or may a man, after intercourse with his wife, enter the church before he has washed with water, or even go to the service of holy communion? It is right that all these things should be made known to us for the sake of the untaught nation of the Angles. [q]

The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. I do not doubt that your fraternity has been asked these questions, and I think I have already supplied you with answers to them. But I believe you want what you are able to say and think for yourself to be confirmed by my reply. Why should a pregnant woman not be baptized, since the fruitfulness of the flesh is no fault in the eyes of Almighty God? For when our first parents had sinned in Paradise, they lost, by the just judgment of God, the immortality they had received. So, because Almighty God would not utterly wipe out the human race for their fault, he took immortality away from man for his sin, and yet in the kindness of his pity he kept for him fruitfulness in offspring. What reason, then, can there be for shutting out from the grace of holy baptism what has been preserved for the human race by the gift of Almighty God? It is indeed very foolish to suppose that a gift of grace could be at odds with that mystery in which all human sin is entirely wiped out.

As for how many days after giving birth a woman may enter the church, you have learned that by the direction of the Old Testament she ought to stay away thirty-three days for a male child and sixty-six for a female. It should be known, however, that this is to be taken mystically. For if she enters the church in the very hour in which she has given birth, she puts herself under no burden of sin. It is the pleasure of the flesh that is at fault, not the pain. The pleasure lies in the intercourse of the flesh; in the bearing of children there is pain and groaning. That is why it is said even to the first mother of all, “In sorrow you shall bring forth children.” If, then, we forbid a woman to enter the church after giving birth, we count her very punishment against her as a fault. Moreover, it is by no means forbidden for either a woman who has given birth or the child she has borne to be baptized without delay if in danger of death: she in the very hour in which she gives birth, or the child in the very hour in which it is born. For while the grace of the holy mystery should be provided with great discernment for those who are living and able to understand, it should be offered without any delay to those in immediate danger of death. Otherwise, while time is being sought to give the mystery of redemption, death may quickly intervene, and no way may be found to redeem the time that has been lost. [r]

Further, her husband ought not to sleep with her until the child she has borne is weaned. But a bad custom has arisen in the ways of married people: women disdain to nurse the children they bear, and hand them over to other women to nurse. This custom seems to have been invented for no other reason than lack of self-control: being unwilling to restrain themselves, they disdain to suckle their children. So those women who, following a bad custom, hand their children to others to nurse ought not to have intercourse with their husbands until the time of their purification has passed. For even apart from childbirth they are forbidden to have intercourse with their husbands during their monthly periods, so much so that the sacred law punishes with death any man who goes in to a woman during her period. Yet a woman ought not to be forbidden to enter the church during her monthly period, since the overflow of nature cannot be counted against her as guilt, and it is not just that she should be kept out of the church for what she suffers against her will. For we know that the woman who suffered from a flow of blood came humbly up behind the Lord and touched the hem of his garment, and at once her illness left her. If, then, one who had a flow of blood could touch the Lord’s garment and be praised for it, why should it be unlawful for one who suffers the monthly flow of blood to enter the Lord’s church? [s] “But that woman,” you will say, “was driven by illness, while these are subject to their usual periods.” Yet consider, dearest brother, that all we suffer in this mortal flesh comes from the weakness of nature, ordained after sin by the fitting judgment of God. For to be hungry and thirsty, to be hot, to be cold, to be weary, comes from the weakness of nature. And to look for food against hunger, drink against thirst, cool air against heat, clothing against cold, and rest against weariness, what is this but searching out remedies against illnesses? For in women, too, the monthly flow of their blood is an illness. If, then, the woman who touched the Lord’s garment in her weakness did well to dare it, why should what is granted to one person in illness not be granted to all women who are weak through the defect of their nature?

Further, during these same days she ought not to be forbidden to receive the mystery of holy communion. If, however, out of great reverence she does not dare to receive it, she is to be praised; but if she does receive it, she is not to be judged. For it is the mark of good minds in some way to acknowledge their sins even where there is no sin, since often a thing is done without sin which comes from sin. So when we are hungry we eat without sin, though it has come from the sin of the first man that we are hungry at all. The monthly period in women is no sin, since it happens naturally. Yet that nature itself has been so corrupted that it is seen to be defiled even without the intention of the will: that is a defect that comes from sin. By it human nature may see what it has become through judgment, so that man, who sinned willingly, bears the guilt of sin unwillingly. So women, when they consider their condition during their period and do not dare to approach the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, are to be praised for their right thinking. But when, out of the habit of a religious life, they are seized with love for the same mystery, they are not to be held back, as we have said. For as in the Old Testament outward acts were attended to, so in the New Testament it is not so much what is done outwardly as what is thought inwardly that is examined closely, so that it may be punished with searching judgment. For while the law forbids eating many things as unclean, the Lord nevertheless says in the Gospel, “Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but the things that come out of the heart, these are what defile a man.” And soon after he added, by way of explanation, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts.” This shows abundantly that what Almighty God shows to be defiled in act is what springs from the root of defiled thought. That is why Paul the apostle also says, “To the pure all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure.” And at once, to declare the cause of this defilement, he adds, “For their mind and conscience are defiled.” If, then, food is not impure to one whose mind is not impure, why should what a woman with a pure mind suffers from nature be counted against her as impurity? [t]

Further, a man who has slept with his own wife ought not to enter the church unless he has washed with water; and even when washed, he ought not to enter at once. Now the law commanded the ancient people that a man after intercourse with a woman should both wash with water and not enter the church before sunset. This may be understood spiritually: a man has intercourse with a woman when his mind is joined in thought, with delight, to unlawful craving; and unless the fire of craving in his mind has cooled, he ought not to think himself worthy of the gathering of his brothers, since he sees himself weighed down by the lewdness of wrong desire. For although different nations of men think differently in this matter, and some are seen to keep one practice and some another, yet the custom of the Romans from ancient times has always been that a man, after intercourse with his own wife, both seeks the cleansing of the bath and reverently refrains for a while from entering the church. [u]

Nor in saying these things do we count marriage as sin. But since even the lawful intercourse of married people cannot take place without the pleasure of the flesh, they should refrain from entering a holy place, because the pleasure itself can by no means be without sin. For the one who said, “Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sin my mother brought me forth,” had not been born of adultery or sexual immorality, but of lawful marriage. Knowing that he had been conceived in iniquities, he groaned at having been born in sin, because the tree carries in its branch the corrupt sap it has drawn from its root. Yet in these words he does not call the intercourse of married people iniquity in itself, but only the pleasure of the intercourse. For there are many things that are allowed and lawful, and yet in doing them we are to some extent defiled. For example, we often attack faults in anger and disturb the calm of our own mind. And though what is done is right, it is not to be approved that the mind is disturbed in doing it. For instance, the one who said, “My eye is troubled because of anger,” had been angry against the vices of wrongdoers. For since the mind cannot lift itself up to the light of contemplation unless it is calm, he grieved that his eye was troubled in anger. Though he was attacking evil deeds from above, he still could not help being confused and disturbed and drawn away from the contemplation of the highest things. And so his anger against vice is praiseworthy, and yet it troubles him, because he felt that he had incurred some guilt in being disturbed. The lawful union of the flesh, therefore, ought to be for the sake of offspring, not of pleasure; and the intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, not for satisfying weaknesses. If, then, anyone has relations with his wife not because he is seized by the desire for pleasure but only for the sake of producing children, he is certainly to be left to his own judgment as to entering the church or receiving the mystery of the body and blood of the Lord. For we ought not to forbid one to receive it who feels no burning though he is in the midst of fire. But when it is not love of producing children but pleasure that rules in the act of intercourse, married people have something to mourn over in their intercourse. For holy preaching grants them this, and yet in the very granting shakes the mind with fear. When the apostle Paul said, “Whoever cannot practice self-control, let him have his own wife,” he at once took care to add, “But I say this by way of concession, not by way of command.” For what is just and right is not conceded; what he spoke of as a concession he showed to be a fault. [v]

Furthermore, it must be carefully considered that the Lord on Mount Sinai, when he was about to speak to the people, first ordered the same people to abstain from women. And if there, where the Lord spoke to men through a created thing under his command, purity of body was required with such careful provision that those who were to hear the words of God should not have intercourse with women, how much more ought those who receive the body of the Almighty Lord to keep purity of the flesh in themselves, so that they are not weighed down by the greatness of that mystery beyond all price! That is also why the priest said to David about his servants that if they were pure from women, they might eat the consecrated bread; and they could not receive it at all unless David first declared them pure from women. Still, a man who after intercourse with his wife has washed with water may receive even the mystery of holy communion, since, by the judgment stated above, he was allowed to enter the church. [w]

Augustine’s eleventh question. I also ask whether, after an illusion such as often happens in dreams, anyone may receive the body of the Lord, or, if he is a priest, celebrate the sacred mysteries. [x]

The answer of the blessed pope Gregory. Such a man the Testament of the old law, as we have already said in the section above, declares to be defiled, and does not allow him to enter the church until evening, or without being washed with water. But one who understands this not only as applying specially to that people at that time, but also spiritually, will see it in the same way of understanding we spoke of before: that a man has, as it were, an illusion in a dream when, being tempted by uncleanness, he is defiled in thought by true images. And he is to be washed with water in the sense that he washes away the sins of thought with tears. And unless the fire of temptation has passed away, he should consider himself guilty, as it were, until evening.

But in this same illusion careful judgment is very necessary, for it ought to be weighed exactly from what cause it comes upon the mind of the sleeper. Sometimes it comes from overeating, sometimes from the overflow or weakness of nature, sometimes from thoughts. When it has come about from the overflow or weakness of nature, it is not at all to be feared, since the mind is to be pitied for having suffered it unknowingly rather than as having done it. But when the appetite of gluttony is carried beyond measure in taking food, and so the vessels of the humors are overloaded, the mind does have some guilt, yet not so much that it is forbidden to receive the sacred mystery, or to celebrate the solemn rites of the mass, when perhaps a feast day requires it, or necessity itself requires the mystery to be offered because there is no other priest in the place. For if others able to carry out the mystery are present, an illusion caused by overeating ought not to keep a man from receiving the sacred mystery, though I think he ought humbly to refrain from offering the sacred mystery in sacrifice; provided only that a foul imagining has not shaken the soul of the sleeper. For there are some to whom the illusion usually comes in such a way that their mind, though in a sleeping body, is not defiled by foul imaginings. In this matter there is one case in which the soul itself is shown to be guilty, not being free even from its own judgment: that is, where, although it remembers having seen nothing while the body was asleep, it still remembers having fallen into lewdness while the body was awake. But if the illusion comes upon the soul of the sleeper from foul thoughts while he was awake, the mind’s guilt is plain to itself. For a man sees from what root that defilement came, if he has suffered unknowingly what he knowingly thought about. But it must be considered whether the thought came from suggestion, from delight, or from sinful consent. For there are three ways in which all sin is completed: by suggestion, by delight and by consent. Suggestion comes through the devil, delight through the flesh, consent through the spirit. For in the first sin the serpent suggested it, Eve, as the flesh, delighted in it, and Adam, as the spirit, consented to it. And great discernment is needed, so that the mind may sit as judge over itself to distinguish between suggestion and delight, and between delight and consent. For when the evil spirit suggests a sin to the soul, if no delight in the sin follows, no sin at all is committed. But when the flesh has begun to take delight, then sin has its beginning. And if it sinks to deliberate consent, then sin is known to be complete. So in suggestion is the seed of sin, in delight its nourishment, in consent its completion. And it often happens that what the evil spirit sows in the thought, the flesh draws into delight, and yet the mind does not consent to this delight. And while the flesh cannot take delight without the soul, still the mind, though struggling against the pleasures of the flesh, is in some way bound against its will in the delight of the flesh. So by the force of reason it protests against it and does not consent to it, and yet it is bound by the delight, but still groans deeply at being bound. That is why that chief soldier of the heavenly army groaned, saying, “I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” Yet if he was a captive, he did not fight. But he did fight too, and so he was not a captive. And so he fought by the law of the mind, which the law in the members fought against. If he fought in this way, he was not a captive. See, then: man is, so to speak, both captive and free: free with regard to the righteousness he loves, a captive with regard to the delight he endures against his will. [y]