Sermons & Letters 175 part 3/4

Then, in order to satisfy the two other monuments, he believed that two bishops must be added to the said catalogues — namely, one John, who lived under Simplicius, and a third Peter, who lived under Symmachus — as if Agnellus and the other writers of the ancient catalogues had confused two Johns and two Peters into the John surnamed Angeloptes and the second Peter. These things a man must introduce quite arbitrarily who does not suspect that things and times were wrongly assigned. 5. To place Ravennius of Arles under the superscription of Leo's letter fights against the testimony of all the codices.

Not only were the Gauls devastated by Attila, but he also penetrated into Italy itself as far as the Po, beyond which river the province of Ravenna, and even part of the diocese, extended. What of the fact that this letter, from its context, appears to be encyclical, addressed to many, so that no special reason need be sought for Ravenna? Moreover, the addition of the two bishops John and Peter would be probable, if no other means of reconciling everything were available. But when some certain error exists in the catalogues, and it can be healed by the mere emendation of the deeds and times — which were established from the discretion of authors as adventitious, or from prejudices — the order of the bishops, which took its origin from the most ancient diptychs, is not to be abandoned or disturbed by additions.

By this rule, sufficiently evident, which will be found most useful in the other catalogues of other Churches, you will discover that in the present matter the whole difficulty and confusion introduced from the catalogues proceeds from this: that things which ought to have been assigned to the first Peter of Ravenna were ascribed to the second; for thus they attributed an earlier age to Neo and the rest. But if this error be corrected, and the first Peter — not the second — be believed to be St. Peter Chrysologus, at once everything will be found healed and to agree perfectly. For he it will be who sent the famous letter to Eutyches. To him then succeeded Neo, to whom the holy Pontiff wrote the following letter.

Then, after Exuperantius, the successor of Neo, John under Simplicius, and finally another Peter under Symmachus, follow most fittingly. If Agnellus and the authors of the ancient catalogues had seen these monuments, we have no doubt that, the order of the bishops being preserved, they would have reconciled the same monuments in like manner, as Rubeus and Ughellus did; and thus the true age of Neo would be confirmed from the very same sources. But the ignorance of the monuments, which then prevailed, cannot prejudice the certain testimony of the codices, which inscribe this letter to Neo of Ravenna.

Frequently indeed, when the hearts of the brethren wavered amid the doubt of diverse questions, we have, by the instruction of the Spirit of God, given them firmness, gathering the form of our reply either from the teachings of the Holy Scriptures or from the rules of the Fathers. But recently, in synod, a new and hitherto unheard-of kind of consultation arose. For, at the suggestion of certain brethren, we learned that some of the captives, returning freely to their homes — those, that is, who had fallen into captivity at that age which could have had no firm knowledge of anything — do indeed implore the remedy of baptism;

but whether they received the mystery and sacraments of that same baptism, they cannot recall, owing to the ignorance of infancy; and therefore, under this uncertainty of a hidden recollection, their souls are brought into peril, while, under the appearance of caution, that grace is denied to them which is not bestowed precisely because it is thought to have been bestowed. Since therefore the dread of certain brethren not unreasonably hesitated to grant the sacraments of the Lord's mystery to such persons, we received in the synodal assembly, as we have said, the form of a consultation of this kind, which, examining it more diligently, we resolved to treat with careful reasoning according to the judgment of each, that by employing the knowledge of many we might arrive more surely at the truth.

The same things, therefore, which came into our understanding by divine inspiration, the frequent assent of the brethren also confirmed. First of all, therefore, we ought to take care lest, while we hold to a certain appearance of caution, we incur the loss of souls to be regenerated. For who is so given over to his own suspicions as to declare that to be true which, when all manifestation is lacking, he suspects from a doubtful opinion? Since, therefore, neither does he who is desirous of regeneration remember himself to have been baptized, nor can another testify concerning him, who does not know him to have been consecrated, there is nothing in which sin could creep in; since in this respect of his own conscience neither is he guilty who is consecrated, nor he who consecrates.

We know indeed that it is an inexpiable crime whenever, according to the practices of heretics condemned by the holy Fathers, anyone is compelled to undergo twice the washing which was bestowed once for the regenerated — the apostolic doctrine crying out against it, which proclaims to us one Godhead in the Trinity, one confession in faith, one sacrament in baptism (Eph. IV, 5). But in this case nothing of the sort is to be feared, since it cannot come into the crime of repetition; for it is altogether unknown whether it was ever done. And therefore, whenever such a person shall come to hand, first examine with careful inquiry, and over a long time — unless perhaps the final end be imminent — investigate whether there is absolutely no one who by his testimony can assist the ignorance of the one who knows not.

And when it shall have been established that this person, who needs the sacrament of baptism, is being hindered by an empty suspicion alone, let him approach undismayed to obtain that grace, of which he knows there is no trace in himself. Nor let us fear to open the gate of salvation to him whose entrance is never proved to have taken place before. CHAP. II. — But if it shall have been established that someone was baptized by heretics, toward such a one let the sacrament of regeneration in no way be repeated; but let only that be conferred which was lacking there, so that through the episcopal imposition of hands he may obtain the power of the Holy Spirit. This matter, dearest brother, we wish to come to the knowledge of all of you generally, lest, while more than is right is feared, the mercy of God be denied to those desiring to be saved.

Given on the ninth day before the Kalends of November, in the consulship of Majorian Augustus. 1. Quesnel, on grounds judged very slight by Tillemont, put forward the following date, about the years 442, 443, and 444; whereas Sirmond and Baluze, though bringing forward no document, fixed it to the year 452. Quesnel conjectured that they thought so because they supposed that in this letter, where mention is made of those who were captured by the enemy in infancy, reference is had to that devastation which the Huns brought upon the Gauls in 451. But he contends that the passage of this letter is to be referred not to the incursion of the Huns, but to the persecution of the Vandals, who, having gained possession of Africa under Genseric, attacked the Catholics; for in inquiry 18 the following is set forth:

Concerning those who came from Africa or from Mauritania, and know not in what sect they were baptized. Then, the Vandal persecution being described, which was brought upon the Christians in Africa after the year 439, he supposes that on this occasion not a few betook themselves to Gaul, concerning whom there is mention in this same letter; and therefore he believes it to have been given about the indicated years 442, 443, and 444, in which that persecution raged. 2. But first we bring forward an evident argument, by which this letter is shown to be later even than the year 445 itself. Hermes, who brought Rusticus's letter to Leo, is called a deacon in the inscription of the Church of Narbonne, reprinted by Quesnel in his notes. But this same inscription Quesnel, with Pagi agreeing, [assigns] to the year 445, no.

24 and 25, most rightly interprets against Baluze, and most correctly proves it to have been inscribed in the year 445. Moreover, the same Hermes, in the opening of Leo's letter to Rusticus, is called archdeacon. Therefore this letter was composed after that inscription, that is, after the year 445, when Hermes had been advanced from the diaconate to the archdiaconate. 3. Then, although the African persecution of the Vandals blazed up after the year 439, Mauritania nevertheless remained in the power of the Romans until the death of Valentinian, which fell in the year 455. Therefore, if those who came from Mauritania into Gaul crossed over for the sake of persecution, as Quesnel supposes, that must be placed after the year 445. 4.

But to blow away Quesnel's conjecture, and to establish the true time of this letter, other clearer and more luminous facts are supplied from Rusticus's own Inquiries. For not only in inquiry 18 is there mention of those who came from Africa or from Mauritania, but also in inquiry 17 of those who as little children were captured by the enemy, and afterward came to the Roman world; in inquiry 19 of those who as little children were captured by the heathen, and came to the Roman world while still young men. Granted that the case of inquiry 18 concerns those who withdrew themselves from Africa into Gaul for some reason in the time of the Vandal persecution, yet the cases of inquiries 17 and 19 cannot belong to the same matter:

for here are indicated those who as little children were captured by the enemy and those heathen; assigned outside the Roman empire, and at last, while still young men, returned into the Roman world, that is, into the Roman empire; and of these some [came] into the province of Narbonne, on whose account the inquiries were put forward by Rusticus. Therefore it is not a question of Africans exiled or fugitive for the sake of persecution, nor of Vandals, who were not heathen but Arians. We must therefore understand the Huns and other barbarian heathen, the same being the enemies of the Romans, who, after they had ravaged the Gauls, carried off with them from the same lands boys as captives.

Now their famous incursion into the Gauls, and into the province of Narbonne itself, is celebrated, which Jerome mentions in his letter to Ageruchia in the year 409. But if the question had been about little children captured at this time, Rusticus would hardly, it seems, have written about the year 442, in inquiry 19, that they came to the Roman world while still young men. The Huns likewise fought against the Goths in Gaul in the years 437 and 439. But then they were auxiliaries of the Romans, not enemies. Rusticus, however, speaks of heathen enemies, and of captives who, while still young men, returned from among the enemy into the Roman world. More justly, therefore, is understood the incursion of the Huns into Gaul in the year 451, when they fought, not as auxiliaries, but as enemies, against Aetius the Roman general.

But if Rusticus's inquiries are believed to be understood of little children captured in this war, then, in order to leave a fitting interval in which those same little children, captured by the heathen, might return as young men to their homeland, this letter cannot be fixed to the year 452. 5. It seems more probable, however, that it should be placed about the year 458. For, first, in two letters of the year 458 — one, letter 159, to Nicetas of Aquileia, chapter 5; the other, letter 166, to Neo of Ravenna, chapter 1 — mention occurs of Romans returning to their own from the captivity of the infidels, some of whom had cast doubt about baptism, about things offered to idols, others, just as is read in the letter to Rusticus of Narbonne.

Since, moreover, all these letters suit the captives who had been taken under Attila, king of the Huns, when he was devastating Italy and the Gauls, then indeed the letter to Rusticus, no less than the two others, is most justly recognized to have been written about the same year 458. 6. Then, in the letter to Neo, chapter 1, Leo says: Recently, in synod, a new and hitherto unheard-of kind of consultation arose. For at the suggestion of certain brethren we learned that some of the captives, returning freely to their homes — those, that is, who had fallen into captivity at that age which could have almost no knowledge of anything — do indeed implore the remedy of baptism; but whether they received the mystery and sacraments of that same baptism, they cannot recall, owing to the ignorance of infancy.

This question is the very same which Rusticus of Narbonne proposed. But how could Leo, in the year 458, in letter 166 to Neo, have affirmed this to be a new and hitherto unheard-of kind of consultation, if the same question had long since been proposed to him by Rusticus? How, in the same letter 166, could he have added that a longer and more diligent discussion had been necessary in resolving it, if he had long since resolved it in like manner in the letter to Rusticus? It is therefore perceived that Neo, or rather some other person who gave occasion for the sending of the letter to Neo, wrote to Leo about this question earlier than Rusticus; and therefore this letter to Rusticus is known to have been composed after the ninth day before the Kalends of November of the year

458, on which the letter to Neo was given. This letter, therefore, we append to the letter to Neo, because we do not at all doubt that it is later; yet not so that we would wish to affirm it to have been written in the same year 458, since it could have been written somewhat later. It must not, however, be said to have been composed much later; since Hermes, who in this letter is called archdeacon, was given as bishop to the people of Béziers while Rusticus was still alive; and when he had not been received by them, he returned to Narbonne, and concerning this matter the same Rusticus and Hermes sent letters to Leo, as may be gathered from letter 8 of Pope Hilary. But so that a fitting time may be allotted to these things, before the death of Leo, which occurred in the year 461, Hermes seems to have been promoted to the see of Béziers about the year 460;

but this letter, while Hermes was still acting as archdeacon at Rome, must be said to have been written rather later, in the year 459. 7. But these things concerning the time of this letter having been premised, it becomes manifest how empty are the two conjectures of Quesnel, by which, since he had observed that some of those doubts which Rusticus proposed had been decided in the First Council of Orange, the First of Vaison, and the Second of Arles, he concludes one or the other in note 1: namely, either that Rusticus wrote to Leo before those difficult questions were ventilated and untied in the aforesaid councils — for it would seem superfluous, and contrary to Gallican custom, that, after doubts had been resolved in several provincial, or even greater synods, another consultation should be held about the same;

or else, if Rusticus's letter did not precede these synods, it is not to be thought to recede much from their date; but perhaps Rusticus judged that he ought not to abide by their statutes, both because in many points a harsher discipline appeared, and because there was some grudge between himself and Hilary, bishop of Arles, by whose authority and presidency the canons had been framed, on account of the great authority of this man over the Churches of Gaul, which obscured the splendor of the metropolitan of Narbonne and of the other metropolitan bishops. The first is recognized as utterly false in respect of the time of this letter. But the Second Council of Arles, which is destitute of every chronological mark, is wrongly believed to have been held in Rusticus's age:

for it presents a collection of the canons of earlier synods, proper to the plan of St. Caesarius of Arles; so that P. Sbaraglia rightly proved this council to have been celebrated by Caesarius — which we can confirm from the manuscript Gallican collections, which we have examined in the Vatican and Veronese libraries, where this synod is placed immediately before the Councils of Agde and the Second of Orange convened by Caesarius at the beginning of the sixth century. Of the reason which Quesnel adds we shall speak presently. But the other, as to the grudge between Rusticus and Hilary, is likewise evidently fabricated.

For at the time of this letter, when Rusticus wrote to Leo, there could be no grudge for Rusticus with Hilary, who had long before departed from among the living — especially since, by Leo's decree, the boundaries of the ecclesiastical provinces were now certain, and the rights of each metropolitan, now established, were peacefully preserved. The true reason, therefore, why Rusticus wrote to Leo about these doubts also, which had been defined in the Gallican synods, was this: that by the authority of the Apostolic See a more certain definition might be furnished.

Hence it is also clear that it was not foreign to the custom of the bishops of Gaul, after doubts had been resolved in the Gallican councils, to consult the Roman chair, because from the tradition of their forefathers they had learned how much this authority and judgment avails, and how great a certainty it produces in doubtful matters. 8. From the established time of this letter, those two things are also detected as false, which the same Quesnel thought he could bring forward in confirmation of the year asserted by him. For, first, let us understand that the proceedings which are mentioned at the beginning of the letter, drawn up in the examination of bishops and men of honor on account of the case of the presbyters Sabinianus and Leo, do not pertain to the First Council of Orange in the year 441, nor to the First of Vaison in the year

442, in which, as Quesnel himself observes, Rusticus was not present as bishop of those presbyters, but to another assembly — perhaps that of Narbonne — held a little before this letter to Rusticus, that is, about the year 458. Hence Baluze, in his new collection of Councils, rightly built up a Council of Narbonne, in which the case of those presbyters was examined, and only wrongly fixed it to the year 452.

Then, since this letter to Rusticus was written so late, that dejection of spirit, by which the same bishop, troubled by the occasion of scandals, signified to Leo that he greatly longed for release from the labors of the episcopate, fell not upon the beginning of his episcopate, nor upon his youth, as Quesnel thought, but upon his old age, when, heavy with years, he was drawing near to death. 9. Now it remains to say something about the codices. We have found this letter in the manuscripts of seventeen collections — namely, 1, 3, and the rest up to 13, and also in 18 and 21 up to 24, and besides in a peculiar and most ancient manuscript of the chapter of Verona, 58.

But this letter is presented in two ways in collections of this kind. For in all the collections later than Dionysius, Rusticus's inquiries themselves are lacking. Dionysius, that is, having omitted the inquiries, prefixed in their place the titles of the letter, by which he sometimes joined together two of Leo's replies into one less aptly, as we shall note in its place. These same titles of Dionysius we have found only in the codices of the other later collections — the Hispanic, the Hadrian, etc. — which are known to have received this letter from Dionysius. These titles we shall exhibit, along with Quesnel, in the synopsis prefixed. But the inquiries, without which Leo's replies for the most part cannot be understood, Sirmond first edited.

We have found these in four manuscript collections older than Dionysius — namely, in the codex of Vatican Regina, collection 1; in the Vatican and Barberini, collection 3; in the Lucca, collection 4; in the Vienna, collection 5; and finally in the peculiar manuscript of Verona, 58. Thus, besides the codices of the later collections, which lack the inquiries, six most excellent exemplars of diverse origin, furnished with the inquiries, were at hand for us, whereas Quesnel could find only two of a single collection, 5.

The letters of your fraternity, which Hermes your archdeacon delivered, I received gladly, manifold indeed through the interweaving of diverse causes, yet not so burdensome to the patience of the reader that anything of them was passed over amid the concerns crowding in on every side. Whence, the plea of your whole discourse having been grasped, and the proceedings, which were drawn up in the examination of bishops and men of honor, having been reviewed, [concerning] Sabi-

nianus and Leo the presbyters, we have understood that confidence in your action was lacking to them, and that no just complaint remains to those who of their own accord withdrew themselves from the disputes once begun. Concerning them, what form and what measure of justice you ought to keep, I leave to your own moderation; yet advising, by the exhortation of charity, that you ought to apply spiritual medicine to the healing of the sick; and, as Scripture says: Be not overmuch just (Eccle. VII, 17), that you should act more mildly with those who, in zeal for chastity, seem to have exceeded the measure of vengeance; lest the devil, who deceived the adulterers, should exult over the avengers of adultery... But I marvel that your charity is troubled by the adversity of scandals arising on any occasion to such a degree,

that you say you prefer release from the labors of the episcopate, and would rather pass your life in silence and leisure than remain in those things which have been committed to you. But since the Lord says: Blessed is he who shall have persevered unto the end (Matt. XXIV, 13), whence will blessed perseverance come, if not from the virtue of patience? For, according to the apostolic preaching, all who wish to live godly in Christ shall suffer persecution (II Tim. III, 12).

And this persecution is not to be reckoned as consisting only in that which is carried out against Christian piety by sword or fire, or by any tortures whatsoever, since a dissimilarity of manners, and the contumacy of the disobedient, and the malignant darts of tongues, supply the savagery of persecutions; by which conflicts, since all the members are always assailed, and no portion of the godly is free from temptation — so that neither leisure nor labors are without their perils — because amid the waves of the sea, will the ship steer its course if the pilot depart? Who will guard the sheep from the ambushes of the wolves, if the shepherd's care do not keep watch (John X, 12)?

Who, finally, will withstand robbers and thieves, if love of quiet should draw the watchman, stationed on the lookout of vigilance, away from the intention of solicitude? We must therefore remain in the work entrusted and in the labor undertaken. Justice must be steadfastly held, and clemency kindly bestowed. Let sins be held in hatred, not men. Let the proud be rebuked, the weak borne with; and what in sins must be more severely chastised, let it be punished not with the mind of one raging, but of one healing. And if a more vehement tribulation shall press upon us, let us not so take fright, as though we were resisting that adversity by our own strength; for since both our counsel and our fortitude is Christ, and without Him we can do nothing (John XV, 5), through Him we can do all things.

He who, confirming the preachers of the Gospel and the ministers of the sacraments, says: Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world (Matt. XXVIII, 20). And again: These things, He says, I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. But in this world you shall have tribulation; yet be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world (John XVI, 33). Since these promises are without doubt manifest, we ought to be weakened by no scandals, lest we appear ungrateful to the election of God, whose helps are as powerful as His promises are true.

But concerning the consultations of your charity, which your archdeacon delivered written out separately, what ought to be thought would more conveniently be inquired concerning each point among persons present, if the opportunity of your presence should come to us. For since certain interrogations seem to exceed the measure of diligence, I understand them to be more fitted to conversations than to writings. Because, just as there are certain things which can by no reasoning be overturned, so there are many things which ought to be tempered either according to the consideration of ages or according to the necessity of circumstances — that condition always being observed, that in those things which shall have been either doubtful or obscure, we should know that to be followed which is found neither contrary to the evangelical precepts nor opposed to the decrees of the holy Fathers.

Response. No reason permits that those be reckoned among the bishops who were neither elected by the clergy, nor sought by the people, nor consecrated by the provincial bishops with the judgment of the metropolitan. Hence, since a question often arises concerning an honor wrongly received, who would doubt that nothing ought to be attributed to these men which is not shown to have been conferred upon them? But if any clerics have been ordained by these pseudo-bishops in those churches which belonged to their proper bishops, and their ordination was carried out by the consent and judgment of those presiding, it can be held valid, so that they remain in those same churches. Otherwise, that appointment is to be held void which is founded neither on a place nor secured by an authority.

It is foreign to ecclesiastical custom that those who have been consecrated in the priestly honor or in the rank of the diaconate should, for any crime of theirs, receive the remedy of penance through the laying on of hands: which without doubt descends from apostolic tradition, according to what is written, 'If a priest sin, who shall pray for him?' (Lev.). Hence for such fallen ones, in order to merit the mercy of God, a private withdrawal is to be sought, where satisfaction, if it be worthy, may also be fruitful for them. Response. The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar as for bishops and priests, who, when they were laymen or lectors, were lawfully able both to take wives and to beget children.

But when they have arrived at the aforesaid ranks, what was permitted began to be no longer permitted to them. Hence, so that the carnal marriage may become spiritual, it behooves them neither to dismiss their wives, and to have them as though not having them, so that both the charity of the marriage may be preserved and the works of wedlock may cease. Response. Not every woman joined to a man is a man's wife, for neither is every son a father's heir. But the covenants of marriage are legitimate among the freeborn and among equals; the Lord himself having established this very thing (Gen. 2:24) far before the beginning of Roman law existed. Therefore a wife is one thing, a concubine another; just as a handmaid is one thing, a free woman another. For which reason the Apostle also, to make manifest the distinction of these persons,

adduces a testimony from Genesis, where it is said to Abraham, 'Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not be heir with my son Isaac' (Gal. 4:30; Gen. 21:10). Hence, since the fellowship of marriage was so constituted from the beginning that, besides the joining of the sexes, it held in itself the sacrament of Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32), there is no doubt that that woman does not pertain to matrimony in whom the nuptial mystery is shown not to have been present. Therefore a cleric of any place, if he has given his daughter in marriage to a man who has a concubine, is not to be understood as though he had given her to a married man; unless perhaps that woman seem both to have been made freeborn, and legitimately dowered, and honored by public nuptials.