Letter 188

188. First Canonical Letter: To Amphilochius, concerning the canons

"To a fool who asks a question," it is said, "wisdom shall be reckoned." But the question of a wise man, it seems, makes even the fool wise; which by the grace of God befalls us whenever we receive the letters of your industrious soul. For we become more attentive and more thoughtful than we were through the very asking, learning many things of which we were ignorant; and the care of answering becomes our teacher. So indeed now, having never before given thought to your questions, we have been compelled to examine the matter carefully, both to recall whatever we heard from our elders, and to reason out for ourselves whatever was akin to what we had been taught.

Now the question concerning the Cathari has been treated before, and you rightly recalled that one must follow the custom of each country, because those who in former times deliberated on these matters were of differing minds concerning their baptism. But the case of the Pepuzeni seems to me to admit of no argument at all; and I was surprised that so great an authority on the canons as Dionysius overlooked it. For the ancients laid down that the baptism to be accepted is the one which departs in no respect from the faith. Hence they named some bodies heresies, others schisms, and others irregular congregations: heresies, those wholly broken off and estranged in the very faith itself; schisms, those who, on account of certain ecclesiastical causes and curable questions, have fallen out with one another; and irregular congregations, the assemblies held by insubordinate presbyters or bishops and by untaught peoples. For example, if someone, examined for a fault, has been suspended from the ministry and has not bowed to the canons, but has claimed for himself the presidency and the ministry, and certain others have departed with him, leaving the Catholic Church — that is an irregular congregation. And it is schism, to be at variance over repentance with those who belong to the Church. But heresies are such as those of the Manichaeans, the Valentinians, the Marcionists, and these very Pepuzeni; for here at once the difference touches faith in God itself. It seemed good, therefore, to those who lived in the beginning, to reject the baptism of heretics altogether; to accept that of those who had separated in schism, as still belonging to the Church; and as for those in irregular congregations, when they had been amended by a notable repentance and conversion, to join them again to the Church — so that often even those in a clerical grade, who had gone off with the insubordinate, when they repented, were received again into the same rank. The Pepuzeni, then, are plainly heretics; for they blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, lawlessly and shamelessly applying the name of the Paraclete to Montanus and Priscilla. Whether, then, as making gods of men, they are to be condemned; or whether, as outraging the Holy Spirit by comparing him with men, they are in this way liable to eternal condemnation, since the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. What reason is there, then, that the baptism of these people should be approved, who baptize into Father and Son and Montanus or Priscilla? For those baptized into things not delivered to us have not been baptized at all. So that, even if this escaped the great Dionysius, we must not preserve the imitation of his error. For the absurdity is at once plain, and evident to all who possess even a little share of reasoning.

The Cathari too are themselves among the separated. Nevertheless it seemed good to the ancients — I mean those around Cyprian and our own Firmilian — to subject them all to one verdict: Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatae; because the beginning of the separation came about through schism, and those who departed from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit upon themselves, for its communication failed when the continuity was broken. For the first to depart had their ordinations from the fathers, and through the laying on of their hands they held the spiritual gift; but those who were broken off, having become laymen, had no authority either to baptize or to ordain, being no longer able to confer on others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they had themselves fallen away. Therefore, regarding those baptized among them as baptized by laymen, they ordered that, when they came to the Church, they should be cleansed afresh with the true baptism of the Church. But since it has seemed good to some in Asia, for the sake of managing the multitude, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted.

But we must understand the mischief of the Encratites: that, in order to make themselves unacceptable to the Church, they have henceforth attempted to forestall it with a baptism of their own, and thereby they have falsified even their own custom. I think, therefore, since nothing is plainly declared about them, that it becomes us to reject their baptism; and if anyone has received it from them, he is to be baptized when he comes to the Church. If, however, this is going to prove an impediment to the general policy, then again we must use custom, and follow the fathers who have managed our affairs. For I am afraid that, while we wish to make them slack about baptizing, we may hinder those who are being saved by the severity of the requirement. But if they keep our baptism, let this not abash us; for we are not bound to render them a return of grace, but to serve the strictness of the canons. By all means, however, let it be laid down that those who come over from their baptism are to be anointed in the presence of the faithful, and so approach the mysteries. I know that we received into the rank of bishops the brothers around Izois and Saturninus, who were of that order. So that we can no longer separate from the Church those joined to their company, since by receiving their bishops we have, as it were, set forth a kind of canon of communion with them.

She who has procured an abortion by design is liable to the penalty of murder. With us there is no precise distinction of the formed and the unformed embryo. For here vengeance is taken not only for what was to be born, but also for her who plotted against her own self; because for the most part the women die in such attempts. There is added to this also the destruction of the embryo, a second murder, at least in the intent of those who dare these things. We must not, however, prolong their reconciliation to the hour of death, but accept the measure of ten years; and define the cure not by time, but by the manner of the repentance.

A deacon who has committed fornication after entering the diaconate shall be cast out of the diaconate; but, being thrust down into the place of the laity, he shall not be debarred from communion. For there is an ancient canon that those who have fallen from a grade are subjected to this one mode of punishment only; the ancients following, as I suppose, that law, "Thou shalt not take vengeance twice for the same offence." And there is another reason: that those in the lay order, when cast out from the place of the faithful, are again taken up into the place from which they fell; whereas the deacon has, once for all, the abiding penalty of deposition. So that, since the diaconate is not restored to him, they fixed upon this one penalty alone. These, then, are the prescriptions of the canons. But more truly, in general, the remedy is the abandonment of the sin. So that he who through the pleasure of the flesh rejected grace will give us full proof of his cure if, through contrition of the flesh and every subjection of himself in self-restraint, he withdraws from the pleasures by which he was overthrown. We must, then, know both things — what belongs to strictness and what belongs to custom; and in the case of those who do not accept the extreme rule, we must follow the form that has been handed down.

Concerning those married three times and many times, they have laid down the same canon, in proportion, as for those married twice; for a year is assigned for the twice-married, though others assign two years; and the thrice-married they exclude often for three or four years. They call such a state no longer marriage, but polygamy, or rather a chastened fornication. Hence the Lord too said to the Samaritan woman, who had changed five husbands, "He whom you now have is not your husband" — as if those who have exceeded the measure of a second marriage are no longer worthy to be called by the name of husband or wife. We have found as custom, for the thrice-married, a separation of five years; not from the canons, but from the practice of our predecessors. But we must not wholly bar them from the Church, but admit them to the hearing of the Scriptures for some two or three years; and after that allow them to stand with the faithful, but to abstain from the communion of the Good; and so, when they have shown some fruit of repentance, restore them to the place of communion.

Heretics who repent at the point of death must be received; received, however, clearly not without examination, but testing whether they show true repentance, and whether they have the fruits that bear witness to their zeal for salvation.

The fornications of those vowed to the canonical life are not to be reckoned as marriage, but their union is to be broken up by every means. For this is profitable both for the security of the Church, and it will not give the heretics a handle against us, as though they drew people to themselves through the licence to sin.

Those who corrupt males and those who corrupt animals, and murderers, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and idolaters, have been judged worthy of the same condemnation. So the form you have for the others, keep for these too. As for those who have repented for thirty years over the uncleanness which they committed in ignorance, we ought not even to hesitate to receive them. For their ignorance makes them worthy of pardon, as does the voluntary character of their confession and the prolongation over so great a length of time. For they were given over to Satan for almost a whole generation of man, that they might be taught not to behave shamefully. So command them now to be received without delay, especially if they also have tears that move your compassion, and show a life worthy of sympathy.

He who in anger used an axe against his own wife is a murderer. You have done well, and worthily of your own discernment, to remind me to speak more fully about these matters; for there are many distinctions in the voluntary and the involuntary. For it is wholly involuntary, and far removed from the one who initiated it, that a man who has thrown a stone at a dog or a tree should strike a person. For his impulse was to ward off the beast, or to shake down the fruit; but the passer-by came of his own accord under the blow as he went along — so that such a thing is involuntary. And it is also involuntary if someone, wishing to correct another, strikes him with a strap or a rod that is not hard, and the one struck dies; for here the intention is regarded, that he wished to better the one in fault, not to destroy him. Among the involuntary cases is also this: that one defending himself in a fight with a stick or his hand should bring the blow unsparingly upon a vital spot, so as to hurt him, not so as to destroy him utterly. But this now approaches the voluntary. For one who used so great an instrument in self-defence, or who brought down the blow without sparing, is plainly, because mastered by passion, unsparing of the man. Likewise also one who used a heavy stick, or a stone too large for human strength, is reckoned among those who kill involuntarily, having intended one thing and done another. For through anger he brought such a blow as to destroy the one struck; though his aim was perhaps to crush him, not to kill him outright. He, however, who used a sword, or any such thing, has no excuse — and least of all one who has hurled an axe. For he is shown not even to have struck with his hand, so that the measure of the blow might rest with him, but he hurled it, so that, by the weight of the iron, and its edge, and its passage over so great a distance, the blow necessarily became deadly.

Again, it is wholly voluntary, and admits of no doubt, such as the deed of robbers and of attacks in war. For these slay for money, fleeing examination; and those who go to slaughter in wars choose openly neither to frighten nor to chasten, but to destroy their adversaries. And further, even if for some other meddlesome reason a person mixes a drug and kills, we count such a thing voluntary; as women often do, who attempt by certain incantations and binding-spells to draw men to their own love, and give them drugs that produce a darkening of the mind. Such women, then, who have killed — even if they intended one thing and did another — are yet, because of the meddlesome and forbidden character of the practice, reckoned among those who kill voluntarily. And so too the women who give drugs to cause abortion are themselves murderers, as are those who receive the poisons that kill the embryo. So much for these matters.

The pronouncement of the Lord — that it is not lawful to depart from marriage except for the cause of fornication — applies equally, according to the sequence of the thought, to men and to women. But the custom is not so; rather, in the case of women we find much strictness, the Apostle saying, "He that is joined to a harlot is one body," and Jeremiah, "If a wife belong to another man, she shall not return to her husband, but being defiled she shall be defiled," and again, "He that keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious." But custom enjoins that adulterous men, and men living in fornication, be retained by their wives. So that I do not know whether the woman who lives with a husband who has been dismissed can be called an adulteress; for here the charge touches the woman who has divorced her husband, on what ground she withdrew from the marriage. For if she was beaten and could not bear the blows, she ought rather to have endured than to be separated from her husband; or if she could not bear the loss to her property, that pretext is not worthy of regard either. And if it is because he lives in fornication, we do not have this observance in the custom of the Church; rather, a wife was not commanded to separate even from an unbelieving husband, but to remain, because of the uncertainty of the outcome: "For how do you know, woman, whether you shall save your husband?" So that the woman who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has gone to another man. But the husband who has been left is to be pardoned, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. If, however, the husband, having withdrawn from his wife, has gone to another, he is himself an adulterer, because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another woman's husband to herself.

Let those who have sworn not to accept ordination, when they forswear themselves, not be compelled to commit perjury. For even if there seems to be a canon which permits such men this, yet we have learned by experience that those who break their oaths do not prosper. One must consider also the form of the oath, and the words, and the disposition in which they swore, and the precise additions in the wording; so that, if there is no relief from any quarter, one must let such men entirely alone. But the affair concerning Severus — that is, the presbyter ordained by him — seems to me to admit of some such relief, if it also seem good to you. Command that farm which lies near Mesteia, to which the man was assigned, to belong to the parish of Vasodae; for in this way he too will not be forsworn by not departing from his post; and Longinus, having Cyriacus with him, will not leave the church desolate, nor condemn his own soul by idleness; and we shall seem to do nothing contrary to the canons in accommodating Cyriacus, who swore to remain with the people of Minda, but accepted the transfer. For the return will be a keeping of the oath; and his yielding to the dispensation will not be reckoned to him for perjury, since it was not laid down in the oath that he would not depart even for a short time from Minda, but that he would remain henceforth. And to Severus, who pleads forgetfulness, we shall grant pardon, saying that he who knows the hidden things will not overlook his own Church being injured by such a man — one who from the beginning acted uncanonically, who bound men by an oath contrary to the Gospels, who taught perjury by the transfer he made, and who now lies in feigning forgetfulness. Since, however, we are not judges of hearts, but judge from what we hear, let us leave the vengeance to the Lord, and let us ourselves receive him without distinction, granting pardon to the forgetfulness as a human weakness.

He who has committed an involuntary murder has paid the penalty sufficiently in eleven years. For it is plain that in the case of those struck we shall observe the rule of Moses; and the man who, after being laid up by the blows he received, then walked again with the aid of his staff, we shall not reckon to have been murdered. But if he did not rise again after the blows — still, by reason of his not having chosen to kill him, the one who struck is a murderer indeed, but an involuntary one because of his intention.

The canon has wholly excluded the twice-married from the ministry.

Killings in war our fathers did not reckon among murders, granting pardon, it seems to me, to those who defend chastity and piety. But perhaps it is well to advise that, since their hands are not clean, they abstain for three years from communion alone.

He who takes interest, if he consents to spend the unjust gain on the poor, and henceforth to be freed from the disease of avarice, is acceptable to the priesthood.

I am surprised that you demand grammatical precision of Scripture, and reckon that the language of the translation is constrained, giving out its own sense, but not transferring what is properly signified by the Hebrew expression. Yet since one must not pass idly over a problem raised by an inquiring man — the fowls of the heaven and the fishes of the sea also obtained the same origin in the creation of the world. For both kinds were brought forth from the waters; and the reason is that both have the same characteristic property. For the one swims through the water, the other swims upon the air. For this reason, then, they were mentioned together. But the form of the expression, though incongruously applied as regards the fishes, is yet very fitting as regards all that lives in the waters. For the fowls of the heaven are subjected to man, and the fishes of the sea; and not these alone, but all that pass through the paths of the seas. For not everything that lives in water is a fish, such as the sea-monsters — whales, hammer-fish, dolphins, seals, and besides, sea-horses, and dogfish, and saw-fish, and sword-fish, and the sea-cows; and, if you like, sea-nettles too, and scallops, and all the shellfish, none of which is a fish — and all that pass through the paths of the seas; so that there are three kinds: fowls of the heaven, fishes of the sea, and all those creatures of the water which, being distinct from the fishes, themselves also pass through the paths of the seas.

But Naaman was not great before the Lord, but before his own lord; that is, he was among those who shared power with the king of the Syrians. Give close heed, then, to the Scripture, and from it itself you will find the solution of the question.