Letters of Innocent I 2.4–5.1

That a cleric is not to take as wife a woman [previously married]; because it is written, “Let the priest take a virgin as wife, not a widow, not one put away.” Certainly one who strives toward the priesthood by his own labour and uprightness of life ought to take care that he is not hindered by this prior impediment and unable to attain it.

That one who, even as a layman, has taken as wife a woman [previously married], whether before baptism or after baptism, is not to be admitted to the clergy; for he is seen to be excluded by the same defect. For in baptism crimes are forgiven; the partnership of a wife once taken is not undone.

That one who has married a second wife is not to become a cleric; because it is written, “the husband of one wife.” And again: “My priests marry once.” And elsewhere: “My priests shall not marry again.” And lest it be thought by some that, if a man perhaps took a wife before baptism and, when she departed from this world, married another, this was forgiven in baptism: whoever thinks this is forgiven in baptism strays far from the rule. Sins are forgiven; the number of wives taken is not abolished. For a wife is taken by the precept of the law, so much so that even in paradise, when the parents of the human race were joined, they were blessed by the Lord himself; and Solomon says, “A wife will be prepared for a man by God.” That all priests too keep this form is shown by the very practice of the church. For it is quite absurd for anyone to believe that a wife taken before baptism is not counted after baptism, since the blessing that is laid by the priest upon those who marry is shown not to have given matter for sin but to have kept the form of the law instituted by God of old. But if a wife married before baptism is not thought to be counted, then neither will the sons begotten before baptism be held as sons.

That no one presume to ordain a cleric of another church, unless his bishop, won over by entreaty, is willing to grant it. The synod of Nicaea also decreed this, that one church is not to receive a cleric rejected by another.

That those coming from the Novatianists or the Montenses are to be received by the laying on of hands only; for although they were baptized by heretics, they were nevertheless baptized in the name of Christ: except those who perhaps passed over from us to them and were rebaptized. If these come to their senses, consider their fall, and choose to return, they are to be admitted under the satisfaction of a long penance.

Further, the church ought in every way to hold to what is worthy, chaste and honourable: that priests and Levites do not have intercourse with their wives, because they are occupied with the necessities of their daily ministry. For it is written: “Be holy, for I too am holy, the Lord your God.” For if in former times the priests did not leave the temple of God in the year of their turn, as we read of Zechariah, and did not touch their homes at all (men to whom the use of a wife had indeed been allowed for the sake of continuing offspring, because no one from another tribe, other than the seed of Aaron, had been commanded to approach the priesthood), how much more ought these priests or Levites to keep chastity from the day of their ordination, whose priesthood or ministry is without succession, and for whom no day passes on which they are free from the divine sacrifices or from the office of baptism! For if Paul writes to the Corinthians, saying, “Abstain for a time, that you may be free for prayer,” and he certainly commands this to lay people, much more ought priests, whose office of praying and sacrificing is continual, always to abstain from this kind of union. If one is defiled by fleshly desire, with what shame will he presume to sacrifice? Or with what conscience, or by what merit, does he believe that he is heard, when it has been said, “All things are clean to the clean, but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean”? But perhaps he believes this is allowed because it is written, “The husband of one wife.” He did not speak of one who continues in the desire of begetting, but with a view to future continence. Nor did he refuse to admit those who are untouched in body, he who says, “I would that all were as I am.” And he declares it more plainly, saying: “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are no longer in the flesh, but in the spirit.”

Concerning monks who, having lived long in monasteries, afterwards come to the order of the clergy: they ought not to turn aside from their former commitment. For either he does not lose, when placed in a better rank, what he was in the monastery and has long kept; or, if one who was already corrupted was afterwards baptized and, while living in the monastery, wishes to come to the order of the clergy, he may not have a wife at all, because one already corrupted cannot be blessed with a bride. This form is kept among clerics, especially since the old rule has this: that whoever was baptized when already corrupted and wished to be a cleric promised not to take a wife at all.

Further, some of our brothers often strive to make clerics of curials or of men occupied in any public functions; and afterwards, when the emperor orders something about recalling them, greater sorrow arises from this than the joy that came from receiving them. For it is well known that in those very offices they even provide entertainments, which no doubt were invented by the devil, and either preside over or attend the preparations for games or shows. Let the anxiety and sorrow of the brothers be an example, which we have often endured in the emperor’s presence when we pleaded for such men again and again, as you yourself learned when you were with us: men on whom great trouble pressed, that they be handed back, not only lower clerics drawn from the curials but even those already established in the priesthood.

Likewise, those who have married Christ spiritually and have been found worthy to be veiled by the bishop, if afterwards they either marry publicly or let themselves be secretly corrupted, are not to be admitted to do penance unless the man to whom they had joined themselves has departed from this world. For if this principle is kept in the case of all women, that whoever marries another while her husband is living is held an adulteress, and is not granted leave to do penance unless one of them has died, how much more must it be kept in the case of her who had earlier joined herself to an immortal Bridegroom and afterwards passed over to human marriage!

But those who, though not yet covered with the sacred veil, had nevertheless promised to remain in the virginal purpose, if they happen to marry, even though they have not been veiled, must do penance for some time, because their pledge was held by God. For if among men a contract made in good faith is customarily not dissolved on any ground, how much more ought this promise, which she agreed with God, not to be broken without punishment! For if the apostle Paul said that those who had departed from the purpose of widowhood have condemnation, because they made void their first faith, how much more virgins who break faith with their earlier promise! 17. If therefore these rules, dearest brother, are observed with full vigilance by all the bishops of God, ambition will cease, dissension will be stilled, heresies and schisms will not arise, the devil will find no room to rage, unanimity will remain, iniquity will be overcome and trampled down, truth will burn with spiritual fervour, peace proclaimed by the lips will agree with the will of the soul. And the saying of the Apostle will be fulfilled, that we may remain of one mind in Christ, thinking one thing, claiming nothing for ourselves through rivalry or through empty glory, pleasing not men but God our Saviour, to whom be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. Given on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of March, in the consulship of Honorius Augustus for the sixth time and Aristaenetus.

Innocent to all the bishops assembled in the synod of Toledo, his most beloved brothers, greeting in the Lord.

1. Schism in Spain, and contempt of the canons. Although excessive concern often kept me anxious over the dissension and schism of the churches, which report says is creeping more widely through the Spains every day and advancing at a quicker pace, a time has come when so great a correction could not be postponed and a fitting remedy had to be provided. For our brothers, our fellow bishop Hilary and the presbyter Elpidius, moved partly by love of unity, partly roused, as was right, by the ruin under which the province labours, came to the apostolic see; and with grief and groaning they related that in the very bosom of the faith peace had been violated within the province, the order of discipline confounded, many things committed against the canons of the fathers in the seizing of churches, with order despised and rules neglected, and that concord, in which the whole stability of our faith consists, could not be maintained. These things are kept in the record of proceedings drawn up in the session of the presbytery and can be shown to you by reading.

The bishops of Baetica separate themselves from the others because the Galicians were received. First, as regards the faith itself: dissension arose because the bishops of Baetica or Carthaginiensis, on account of communion with the Galicians, departed from the peace of all. It is not only not lessened but grows day by day through zeal for contention, since, each one being set on obtaining what he wanted, they have made with such animosity an endless round of evil and a kind of circle; whereas for any good man it is better in such matters to be overcome than, in evil fashion, to win a perverse purpose that once pleased him. For what other cause, in earlier times too, did that Lucifer have, besides obstinacy, which drew him back from concord with those who had condemned the heresy of the Arians by a prudent conversion? With the same zeal, when the detestable sect of Priscillian had deservedly been condemned by the agreement of all, we have learned that some took it very ill that those who had turned by a sounder counsel were received into the catholic faith: it is clear that a useful act, and the very peace of the churches, displeased them. For when Symphosius and Dictinius too, condemning the perverse heresy, were received with the aim of unity, so that, such persons being cut off, the inborn dissension might be wholly extinguished, there were found some whom the correction itself, rightly done, displeased. And now the churches are at odds, and with no small animosity conceal their differences. But if the correction had been kept by the priests with sounder counsel, the state of the catholic faith would have remained whole, and no scandal would have corrupted concord, which is useful in all things.

Some take it ill that their honours were kept for them. For I ask why they grieved that Symphosius and Dictinius and others who condemned the detestable heresy were then received into the catholic faith? Was it because they lost nothing of the honours they held? If this pricks or goads anyone, let them read that the apostle Peter after his tears was what he had been; let them consider that Thomas after that doubt lost nothing of his former merits; finally, that David, the excellent prophet, after his open confession was not deprived of the merits of his prophecy. If the amendment of conversion both cuts off the errors themselves and keeps the dignities, what evil reasoning is it, from a purpose of obstinacy, to refuse to keep to the way of right and the road that leads to salvation?

The strength of unity, and the ruin of schism. Therefore your love must apply itself, and good priests must strive, so that, with teaching going before, all who are scattered may be gathered into the unity of the catholic faith, and one body may begin to be unconquerable, which, if it is separated into parts, will lie open to every injury of laceration and will suffer an inner plague from itself, when its very frame fights with itself. But let all priests receive these things, written in general about restoring unity, as if written to each one. Next, let your love turn its mind to all the particular matters that will be set out.

Rufinus and Minicius usurped ordinations in other men’s churches. For it could not be hidden that the bishops Rufinus and Minicius usurped the ordaining of bishops in other men’s churches, against the canons of Nicaea. That no one may dare to claim this for himself, provision must at least now be made by us for the good, lest through wicked usurpation connivance grow stronger for the worse, and a rule be made out of custom that does not come from the discipline committed to writing. In this matter let the complaint of our brother and fellow priest Hilary be heard first, who asserted that Rufinus had busied himself with every kind of attack against the peace of the churches, that he had some time ago asked pardon for his error at the council of Toledo, and that now, although the authority to ordain priests belonged to the metropolitan bishop, he had ordained a bishop in hidden places against the will of the people and the order of discipline, and had thrown the churches into scandals. Next the case of the bishops of Tarraconensis is to be dealt with, who complained that Minicius in like manner ordained a bishop in the church of Gerona; and sentence on such usurpation is to be given according to the canons of Nicaea. Let there also be a full examination of those bishops who were ordained by Rufinus or Minicius against the rules, so that, since they were made wrongly, they may understand that they cannot keep any longer what they obtained by a faulty beginning.

That John be deposed if he does not cease to resist the decree on receiving those returning to the church, which he had signed. Concerning Bishop John also, whose consent was given through legates in the synod of Toledo to the reception of Symphosius and Dictinius, and to whom that correction seemed acceptable, let what followed afterwards be examined. And in general, concerning all whose communion has come into doubt through their withdrawal, let a full inquiry be made, so that, according to the decree of the synod of Toledo, either they are joined in the fellowship of communion to remove the suspicion of schism, or, if any are found who refuse concord and the agreed decisions, they are cut off from the communion of the catholic faith by the sentences of your love: so that what is avoided is no longer a hidden evil, which never ceases while it is silent, but the open profession and contagion of schismatics.

Certain ordinations against the canons are to be tolerated for the sake of peace; but henceforth they are to be void, and their authors deposed. For concerning the ordinations which we know the Spanish bishops perform through the fault of bad custom, something would have had to be decreed according to the tradition of the elders, had we not weighed the danger of stirring up very many disturbances in the churches. We so rebuke what they have done that, because of the number of those to be corrected, we do not call into question what has been done in whatever way, but rather leave it to the judgment of God. For how many have we found admitted to the priesthood from among those who, after receiving grace, were engaged in the practice of the courts and took up the obstinacy of winning cases! Rufinus and Gregory are said to be of their number. How many from some branch of public service, who, obeying the authorities, necessarily carried out their orders! How many from the curials, who, while obeying the authorities, did what was commanded them! How many who put on pleasures and shows for the people have come to the honour of the highest priesthood! None of all these ought even to have come to the fellowship of the clerical order. If we ordered each of these to be examined, we would bring, out of zeal for correction, no small upheavals and scandals on the Spanish provinces, which we desire to heal. Therefore we think these things should rather be passed over. But lest similar things be committed henceforth, the maturity of your love must see to it that at least now a necessary end is put to so great a usurpation: it being decreed, namely, that if any hereafter attempt to come, against the forms of the canons, either to the church’s order or to the priesthood itself, they, together with those who made them, are to be deprived of the very rank and honour in which they are found.

Let the complaint of Gregory of Mérida be heard. Let the complaint also of Gregory, bishop of Mérida, who was ordained in the place of Patruinus of venerable memory, be heard, if there is one; and if he has suffered injury against his deserts, let him be vindicated against those who envy another’s honour; and hereafter let no spirit of faction rise up against any good man.

The rules of Nicaea to be kept in ordinations. Who are to be kept from orders. — And although the rules of Nicaea are known to you, dearest brothers, your love, rules according to which you decree by your sentence that ordinations are to be made, nevertheless I have thought it right to insert some part of what has been provided concerning ordinations, so that ordinations may be celebrated according to it in future, and no one may be left free choice to interpret otherwise. And first the things that are prohibited are set out. No one who has served as a soldier after baptism ought to be admitted to the order of the clergy; nor those who have pleaded cases after receiving baptism; or who have held public administration after receiving the grace of God; nor can anyone of the curials come to the ecclesiastical order who after baptism has either worn the crown or held what is called the priesthood and given public shows. For this also must be guarded against in the case of curials, that those who have been curials should not at some time be reclaimed by their councils, as we often see happen. All these things, reasonably prohibited, must be kept in every way. 10. Who are to be chosen. That wives are not abolished by baptism. — What kind of men are to be chosen into the order of the clergy an evident form declares: that is, those who have been baptized from their earliest years and associated with the office of lectors; or, if they are older, that as soon as they have obtained the grace of God they should give themselves over to the ecclesiastical orders. And if they have had wives, inquiry must be made whether they took a virgin as wife, because it is written in the Old Testament, “Let the priest take a virgin as wife”; and elsewhere, “My priests are to marry once.” Nor one who has had two wives, because Paul the apostle says, “the husband of one wife.” Nor ought that to be admitted which some put forward and assert in defence of a perverse error, that a wife taken before baptism ought not to be counted, because in baptism all things are forgiven; such men do not understand that in baptism only sins are forgiven, and the number of wives is not abolished. For if, as it is written, a wife is prepared for a man by God, and what God has joined, man is not to separate, and the very founders of the human race were blessed by the Lord in the beginning, how are these believed capable of being forgiven among sins? But if it is true according to those who believe so, then all the righteousness that catechumens have performed before baptism will be taken away by baptism. Let no one, then, think or admit anything of this kind against the Apostle, but let him faithfully understand that “the husband of one wife” was named whether before baptism or after baptism. For if a wife taken before baptism is not reckoned in the number, neither can the sons received from her be numbered among sons. How absurd and foreign this is, your prudence will better judge. Hence let no one be allowed to interpret the divine Scriptures otherwise than right reason permits, lest, while they prepare unjust remedies for themselves as an excuse, they be judged to have corrupted the law and overturned the rules. But those things are to be held which both the course of the divine Scriptures contains and which have been instituted by the bishops for a useful reason. And in another hand: Farewell, dearest brothers.

Brother Theophilus, we hold both you and our brother John as in communion with us, as we made our mind plain in our former letter also. Nor do we depart from that same resolve even now, but write the same things to you again, and as often as you write back to us: namely, that it cannot be that, unless a fitting judgment follows on the things that were done in mockery, we should without reason withdraw from the communion of John. If, then, you trust in your case, present yourself at a synod held according to Christ, and there, having set out the charges before witnesses under the canons of the council of Nicaea (for the Roman church admits no other canon), you will have security free from contradiction.