Letter 110: Severus distinguishes forgiveness from clerical eligibility in a long canonical answer to John of Bostra.

Severus praises John of Bostra and the person who sent the questions because they want to understand the intention of the commandments rather than evade them. Priests who refuse to show people the path, he says, commit a kind of murder. The commandment of the Lord is a fountain of life, and silence from teachers can leave thirsty people without water. That is why Severus sets out the questions carefully before answering them. He is not answering curiosity; he is trying to keep souls from being cut down by ignorance. The first question concerns two deacons who left their archimandrite and were placed under a temporary anathema: they were not to be together, talk together, or drink wine for a limited time. They despised the order immediately. The problem is whether the one who imposed the ban can forgive them after they have trampled on it, and whether God also forgives the contempt. Severus answers by distinguishing correction from vengeance. If the warning belonged to them while they were still under the cloister's discipline, they sinned by trampling on it. If they had already left without a charge against them, the later order could not bind them in the same way, though they still answer to God for their disorder. He then explains what anathema means. Some things are devoted to God as holy offerings; other persons are separated because they have made themselves strangers to the people of God. In church discipline, separation can also be temporary: exclusion from ministry or from communion for the sake of correction. A person who tramples such an order multiplies guilt, because he is not only committing the first disorder but also rejecting the medicine meant to heal it. Still, Severus insists that sincere repentance can cure even very grave sins. If the one who imposed the order refuses release out of bitterness rather than pastoral concern, higher episcopal authority may remove what malice has kept in place. The second question is harder. A monk, trained from childhood, mutilated himself at puberty because he feared sexual temptation and thought he was doing something great. He later lived a severe and compassionate life, fasting, singing psalms, giving alms, avoiding women, and mourning his act so deeply that he often came close to despair. Yet he had been admitted first to the diaconate and then to the presbyterate, even though the canons reject men who have cut off their own members while sound in body. The question is whether his penitence saves him, and whether he may keep his clerical function. Severus' answer is exact but not cruel. Repentance is not weak. It can blot out the sin and open the hope of life and the kingdom of heaven. No one will be condemned at the judgment because he was not a cleric; he will be condemned because he failed to produce the fruits of repentance. But repentance does not erase every canonical impediment. The canons were inspired for the church's order, and they place self-mutilated men outside clerical ministry, even if such men later live devoutly. Salvation and clerical eligibility are not the same question. This distinction lets Severus comfort the wounded man without falsifying church law. The monk must not be told that his labors are useless or that grace is closed to him. Such counsel would drive him into despair and misunderstand repentance. But he also should not continue in priestly office as if the canons had no force. A man who truly knows the gravity of his act will not seize honor for himself. Paul says no one takes the honor to himself but receives it by God's call, as Aaron did. Humble repentance is therefore safer for this man than public ministry. Severus also explains why the exceptions in the canon do not help him. Those mutilated by masters, violence, disease, or another necessity are not judged the same way, because they did not choose the act. The monk's youth, fear, ignorance, or later virtue may matter for mercy, but they do not turn a chosen act into an external compulsion. The church can forgive without pretending that the act has no canonical consequence. The letter closes with Severus' characteristic mixture of tears and precision. He does not write as someone superior to sinners; he writes as one clothed in the same weakness of flesh and forced by the canons to speak exactly. He delights in the canons because they are not dry rules but words that preserve life when heard rightly. He prays that the holy Unity in Trinity will keep John's believing wisdom, strengthen his zeal for the orthodox faith, and admit him to the life of the kingdom. The whole answer shows how Severus wants law to serve salvation: discipline must be real, repentance must be real, and neither should be used to destroy the other. The first answer is important because it prevents anathema from becoming private ownership. The archimandrite's order had a disciplinary purpose: to break a corrupt companionship and bring the deacons back to sobriety. If repentance arrives, the order can be lifted as a service to God's will. If the superior clings to it out of wounded pride, the punishment no longer serves its original purpose. Severus therefore protects both sides of the matter. Contempt for a lawful order is grave, but a lawful order can be abused if anger keeps it alive after repentance. This is why he spends so much time defining words. "Anathema" can mean something devoted to God, something separated for destruction, or a temporary disciplinary separation. "Word," "ordinance," "commandment," "covenant," and "pronouncement" can overlap in Scripture. Severus is not displaying learning for its own sake. He is preventing a practical error: if people do not know what kind of separation they are discussing, they will either make every ban absolute or make every ban trivial. Both mistakes harm the church. The second answer is even more delicate because compassion pulls in one direction and canonical order in another. The monk's later life is admirable. He fasts, prays, gives alms, avoids the vice he feared, and mourns the violence he did to himself. Severus refuses to call that useless. He will not let harsh voices tell the man that despair is the only honest response. Repentance is powerful, and the hope of the kingdom remains open. But Severus also refuses to make repentance do work it was never meant to do. Repentance heals guilt; it does not make every public office fitting. A man may be forgiven and still not be eligible to stand as a cleric. That distinction is merciful because it keeps the man from seeking relief in the wrong place. His peace should come from God's pardon and from fruits worthy of repentance, not from holding an office the canons forbid him to hold. The answer also protects the church from a dangerous precedent. If later virtue could erase every impediment to ordination, the church would begin judging office by admiration rather than by rule. The most moving story would win, and the canons would be treated as obstacles to kindness. Severus says no. The canons are themselves a form of kindness because they keep pastoral decisions from being driven by emotion, pressure, or the personality of the person before us. John of Bostra receives, then, not a cold legal memorandum but a lesson in how law and mercy must speak together. The sinner should not despair. The community should not despise repentance. The bishop should not violate the canons. The teacher should not hide the road from those who ask. Severus' long answer is demanding because the situation is demanding: only careful distinctions can keep a real person from despair and the church from disorder at the same time.

I praise the man who addressed an epistle to your Christ-loving erudition, and is earnestly desirous of learning the intention of the commandments of the Spirit, and rightly shrinks from the crime of transgressing the commandment of the divine laws, which leads to manifest death. For the God -inspired writings somewhere say, "The commandment of the Lord is a fountain of life: and it makes one turn aside from the snare of death." ^ Wherefore I also of necessity answer with what comes to my knowledge, since it is not a safe thing for me to keep silence and neglect the question. If men who have been admitted to act as priests to God do not make manifest to those that are in need the path of what ought to be done, it is equivalent to committing murder. For He that speaksin Hosea the prophet says, " Priests have hidden the Lord's way: they have slain Shechem: because they have wrought iniquity in the house of Israel."' For the sharp sword that provides the devil with an instrument for the slaughter of our souls is an iniquity. Wherefore we will set the question of him who asks before our answer, as he requested. It is word for word as follows. 1 Pr. xiv. 27. 2 Ho. vi. 9, 10. - Question one. " The loud-voiced Isaiah admonishes those that thirst to go to the water.^ Having there- fore for a long time disputed about the points " to be mentioned without being able to find anyone here to explain these clearly to us, and yearning greatly in thirst, we have now had recourse to your wisdom as to fountains of salvation, you who are able from your own resources and by the help of the God-taught men there to explain to us what the right opinion is concerning the propositions '^ submitted by us. But let the story be taken as relating to imaginary persons. There were with a certain man two deacons who had received the habit from him, and were admitted to the diaconate by his hands: not both at one time: but each of them separately. These concerted a partner- ship in wickedness: and having corrupted one another left their archimandrite, having perhaps even before their departure made an agreement to trample under foot the anathema that would be launched against them. Therefore, after they had withdrawn them- selves, these men's archimandrite, wishing to check the evil, immediately through a certain brother placed them under an anathema, the exact terms of which were that they were not to be together nor talk with one another, nor taste wine for some short stated time.* For it was thought that what had been done was chiefly due to the indulgence of the belly. But these men ' treated the anathema with contempt, and on the very day ^ Is. Iv. T. - K€(f>dXaia. ^ Trporao-eis. ^ TrpoOecrfiLa. VIII. 4- were together and in company, and did not refrain from the drinking of wine even for the space of one day only, " That if they had observed the pronouncement they would not have been under the anathema, and that after ' the anathema had been removed also it would have been easy for them to be together is, I think, obvious to everyone: but, since they were infected - with contemptuousness and did not take account of the anathema, in what light must we hold these men? and is it possible for him who placed them under anathema to give them forgiveness when the ban has once been broken contrary to his pleasure? Or, even if he who pronounced the anathema shall forgive them, will the Lord also with him forgive their contempt of the anathema and their neglect of the pronouncement? What I ask is whether even if the author of the ban himself wishes to grant release it is difficult for him to do so, or if it is in fact upon him that the whole matter depends so that he may even change his mind and give way, or if it depends upon a certain definite penance and strict observance of the things that were forbidden them before, and whether this is to be observed for ever, or is to be applied to them for a space of time as a discipline. " To speak generally, if a man is under an anathema, and on his own authority deliberately transgresses against it, what does he deserve? And is the act of release after the transgression free from danger for the author of the ban? and does God grant forgiveness with him, and judge the man who has sinned inno-, cent? I ask further also whether pronouncement and anathema and separation differ from one another in meaning, or if, the meaning being one, it is only the articulation of the syllables^ that is different." Answer. Since Moses who was named a faithful servant in all God's house" says to those who are to judge, " Ye shall not recognise a person in judgment; judge according to the small and according to the great; thou shalt not be afraid of the person of a man, since the judgment is God's," ^ and Koheleth too gives us wise instruction, speaking plainly thus, " There is a time for everything under the sun,"* we the mean one also must, as far as is possible for us, so make answer to the question as if the judgment were divine and - not human, and produce a solution of the doubt in accordance with the distinctive character of the time. If therefore the head of the monastery reproved the brothers who have now left while they were within and living under his power, and found fault with them for disorderliness of conduct, and forbade them the corrupting intercourse, he would have reason for lay- ing an ordinance upon them after they left also, and ratifying this by an admonitory anathema. But, if he is shown to have been silent the whole of the time during which they were under his authority, and not to have found any such fault with them at all, he is now giving ground for suspicion that he is rather in- flicting a man's vengeance upon them for his own 1 (TvXXd/3La. - He. iii. 5. ^ De. i. 17. ^ Ec. iii. i- VIII. 4- injury, not applying a correction out of concern for their salvation. Everyone who wishes is allowed to leave a cloister freely without any blame following him. A man who leaves a monastic community does not, as in the case of the holy churches and of those who are included in the honourable clergy, need a dimissory letter or similar permission: for this is not laid down in any of the holy canons. In conformance with this distinction therefore we say that the pronouncement that has been laid upon the brethren shall hold or not hold. If they received a warning while within the cloister, it is manifest that they have sinned, inas- much as they have trampled upon the pronouncement. But, if they left without having had any fault found with them, they are not subject to the pronouncement that was laid upon them after their departure: but for their disorderly character they shall give account to the righteous Judge, when they shall themselves bear the burden of their own sin: " for everyone," as the Apostle says, "shall bear his own burden "\ But, if they fall under the ordinance, it is manifest that penitence will help them. Every sin, even one that is very grievous, is cured by the method of sincere penitence, and those who show penitence worthy the name have nothing incurable about them; and the man himself also who laid the ordinance upon them can remove the interdict: not introducing thereby human favour, but serving the divine will. But, if he shall be wrathfully and - 1 Ga. vi. 5. hostilely disposed, and be unwilling to release those who sincerely repent, it rests with another authority higher than his, viz., that of the bishops, upon learning the truth, to remove that which out of human bitterness and malice is maintained even after sincere penitence. But it rests with him who has authority to remove the interdict to approve the measure and character of sincere penitence, where nothing is explicitly stated by the church canons, as in the case of certain sins. Such pronouncements the divine scripture is able tO' term both "ordinances" and " pronouncement"^ For it is written in Numbers as follows: "This is the word " which the Lord commanded. Any man who shall vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear oaths, or lay down an ordinance concerning himself, shall not make his pronouncement void. All that proceedeth out of his mouth he shall perform."^ Also, when Samuel the prophet had commanded Saul, and had ordered him to arm himself against Amalek, and deliver to death - everything soever that he captured of men and of cattle, and he was victorious and gained mighty suc- cess in war, and he transgressed the ordinance and kept the goats and oxen alive, and he angered God, the divine scripture introduces the prophet himself saying thus: " Because thou hast rejected the pro- nouncement of the Lord, the Lord shall reject thee from being king over Israel." And Saul said to Samuel: " I have sinned in that I have transg-ressed ^ Marg, "word." - Marg. "pronouncement." ^ Nu. xxx. 2, 3. VIII. 4- against the word of the Lord." ' You see Samuel called the divine commandment and ordinance " the pronouncement of the Lord", and Saul "the word of the Lord." Jeremiah the prophet also applied the term "commandment" to the ordinance that the righteous Jonadab established for his sons and his sons' sons, commanding them not to taste wine at all, nor possess a house or field, but to live in tents. Jeremiah was commanded by God over all to take a jar of wine and a cup, and urge his sons' sons to drink, contrary to what was commanded them by their fathers' father: and they made answer saying, " We have hearkened to the voice of Jonadab our father, that we should not drink wine all the days of our life, we and our wives and our sons and our daughters, besides not building houses to live in them. And we have had no vineyard or field or seed: and we have dwelt in tents: and we have done all the things that Jonadab our father com- manded us." And thereupon He that commanded the prophet to do these things, in order to convict the disobedient people of Israel, speaks thus: " The sons p 455- of Jonadab the son of Rechab have maintained the commandment of their father: but this people hath not hearkened unto me." ' This ordinance the Spirit- inspired writings are also in the habit of calling "covenant."^ For instance, when the chiefs of the Jews had with the knowledge of King Zedekiah agreed after the space of six years to let the Hebrew 1 I R. XV. 23, 24. 2 jgj. xlii. 8-10, 16. 3 SiaOrJKr]. VI 1 1. 4. handmaid and slave go free according to what is written in the law,^ and they had transgressed the ordinance that was enacted by them, the same prophet Jeremiah speaks thus: " The word that came from the Lord unto Jeremiah, after King Zedekiah had completed a covenant with the people in Jerusalem to proclaim a release, and to let every man his Hebrew slave and his Hebrew bondmaid go free, that no man might be in bondage from Jerusalem; and all the great men and all the people who entered into the covenant turned aside from dismissing every man his bondman and his bondwoman, and releasing their bondmen and their bondwomen." ^ Also, when those who had returned from Babylon joined themselves to foreign women, of the peoples of the countries that were near them, from among whom God had forbidden them to make marriages, and Ezra was roused to wrath on account of the sin, those who had offended agreed and ordained to send away from them the women that were united to them: and one of them is described in the second book of those that were written by him as speaking in this manner: " We for our part have been false to our God, and have taken strange women of the peoples of the land: and now there is hope for Israel concerning this. And let us now make a covenant to our God, to put away all the women and such as are born of them. As thou wiliest, arise, and frighten them by the commandments of our 1 Ex. xxi. 2. - Jer. xli. 8-1 1. VIII. 4- SELECT LETTKKS OF THE HOLY SEVERUS. 405 God: and let it be done according to the law. Arise, because the word is upon thee and we are with thee. Be strengthened, and act." ^ You see here also he called that which was resolved and ordained both " word " and " covenant " ": so that in the God-inspired writings the same thingr was named " word " and " ordi- nance" (or ''prescription") and "pronouncement" and " commandment " and " covenant." An anathema fills the place of punishment for him - who transgresses what has been ordained. But you must know that there are two kinds of anathema. For the expression " anathema " is also applied to that which is devoted and consecrated to God, gold it may be and silver, and garments and slaves, and cattle and fields: in some cases for the honour and adornment of a prayer-house building, in others for the service or support of those who are in need, or " those who con- stantly attend upon the altar " as Paul says.^ Such things it is in no way lawful to transfer to private use after they have been consecrated, and to remove from the use whereby they are appropriated to God. This principle is stated as follows in Leviticus: " Every anathema that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, from man unto head of cattle, and from the plot of his inheritance, he shall not sell it, nor redeem it. It shall be a holy thing unto the Lord."* Thus it is written that Judith acted. "And E. X. 2-4. - hiaO^K-q. ^ I Co. ix. 13. ^ Le. xxvii. 2 J Judith set apart all the goods of Holophernes that the people gave her, and the net that she took for herself from his chamber, and gave it as an anathema - to the Lord."^ But the other kind of anathema is when persons are by the sentence and judgment of God set apart for death, as Joshua the son of Nun ordained in the case of Jericho according to the determination of the Lord, saying, " This city and all that is therein shall be anathema to the Mighty Lord; however Rahab the harlot and all whom she hath in the house save alive." "^ After the same fashion the divine Samuel also said to Saul about Amalek: " And thou shalt destroy and make anathema him and all that he hath, and shalt not spare him: and thou shalt slay from man unto woman: from babe unto suckling: and from ox unto sheep: and from camel unto ass." ^ Wherefore also Moses to the words cited shortly before from Leviticus adds these expressions which distinguish this other kind of anathema as we said: " And every anathema which shall be set apart by men shall not be redeemed, but shall surely die."* The anathema therefore that is laid upon those who transgress against the divine ordinances, or commandments or commands, is of the - second kind, the anathema which ordains death to the man who transgresses or sins. But death is separation from God. For God is life. Accordingly it follows ^ Judith xvi. 19. 2 Josh. vi. 17. ^ I R. XV. 3. * Le. xxvii. 29. VIII. 4- that death also is deprivation of life, and it consists in our being separated and removed from God. Into this kind of anathema Paul also cast those who preach to us contrary to what we ourselves have received: and he said in the epistle to the Galatians, " But, even if we or an angel from heaven preach unto you contrary to what we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, I say now also again: if any man preach to you contrary to what ye received, let him be anathema."^ In the first epistle to the Corinthians also he wrote in a similar fashion: "If any man loveth not our Lord, let him be anathema."" However he that tramples upon an anathema decrees against him double and manifold death, and he is alien to the blessed call- ing and name of Christians: whence by transgress- ing against the pronouncements of the laws that hold the church of God together he becomes disobedient to the church: and the man who becomes disobedient to the church our Saviour and Lord and God Jesus Christ in the Gospels consigned to the lot of the nations, saying, " But, if he also hear not the church, let him be unto thee as a Gentile and as a tax- gatherer."^ In general therefore an anathema is a separation. For it separates the man who is guilty and is removed from God's people, as is said by Isaiah, " Let not a foreigner that is nigh unto the Lord say, ' The Lord shall then separate me from His people.' " * ^ Ga. i. 8, 9. - 1 Co. xvi. 22. ^ Mt. xAdii. 17. ^ Is. Ivi. 3. 27 But the word " separation " is also used when a man is separated for a time from ministering, or from com- municating in the sacrifice that is offered. Question two. " Men who cut off their own members are rejected by the great synod: with the qualification that it orants remission to those who have suffered this at the hands of masters or of barbarians, or by reason of disease, or some other imperative cause. ^ This is manifest to those who look at the canon: but for the sake of a searching investigation let a case in point ^ such as this be presupposed. A certain man among those with us, who had worn the monastic habit from his childhood, as soon as he began to reach physical puberty, fearing the enticements of nature, and thinking that he was doing a great thing, did not consider the consequences beforehand: but, being deceived by ignorance or by enthusiasm, cut off his own members without his superiors having knowledge of it. At the time he underwent many punishments for his presumption: but, when he attained to manhood, he adopted a very devout mode of life, giving himself up to fasts and to the singing of psalms accompanied by many tears, and shunning women and bringing his body into subjection by abstinence; though it is for the sake of these thinofs that those who cut -off their own members generally fall into this audacity, since they then associate with women without suspicion, and expect thenceforward to minister to their belly without dis- ^ Mansi ii. 668. ^ viroOea-is. VIII. 4- crimination. But the man whose case we are con- sidering is not of this kind. He is temperate in all things: his hand is unsparing in deeds of mercy: and his whole life he is, if one may so say, mourning for the presumptuous deed that he committed against himself: and so much so that he is often brought even p 462. to despair. But some bid him despair of grace, and say that the sum of his many labours is useless to him. Wherefore, even though after his audacious act he was admitted first to the diaconate then to the presbyterate, he is in distress because he has learned that this is forbidden by the canons. Therefore let your God-inspired wisdom explain to us what ought to be thouo-ht about men who so conduct themselves, or what is the penitence proper for these, and what is the benefit derived from that penitence, and whether the hopes of these men are vain, and they have no expectation of salvation, and in this matter only the power of penitence is weak, seeing that, not even when he is penitent for what he has done, and weeps constantly and wears himself out with supplication, is he to expect forgiveness for the sins committed: or if his upright life and sincere penitence are enough to blot out the presumption of the deed; and if he should continue to hold his axia or function, or must inevitably be stripped of this, being expelled by the canons? " Answer. The decision and answer upon this question is manifest. If a man who has cut off his own genital members and destroyed them was to have forgiveness, be it on the ground of ignorance or immature age, or fear, or a devout life after the presumptuous deed and evil act, the exactitude of the canons, pronounced as they were through the inspiration of the divine Spirit, by the holy apostles and by the saintly shepherds who were after them, would have foreseen it. The twenty- first canon of the Constitutions ^ published to the nations by the apostles through Clement speaks thus: " Let not a man who has mutilated himself become a clergy- man. For he is a self-slayer, and an enemy of God's - creation." And the twenty-second canon also speaks thus: " If a man being a clergyman shall mutilate himself, let his deprivation be effected. For he is a slayer of himself" Next follows the twenty-third canon also, which says these words: " Let a layman who has mutilated himself be separated for three years. For he is an offender against his own life.""^ The first canon also of the great synod of the three hundred and eighteen holy men, of which the question also made mention, proclaimed principles consonant with the declarations of these apostolic constitutions,^ placing those who have cut off their own members outside the whole clergy, even those who have already been admitted to any kind of ordination. For it spoke thus: " But, if any man being sound in health has cut off his own members, this man even if enrolled in the clergy must be set aside. And henceforth no such man ought to be presented."^ But the practice of penitence prepares those who have com- ^ Starafcts. ^ Mansi i. 33- ^ Id. ii. 668. VIII. 4- mitted this presumption for forgiveness in respect of the sins committed, in order that they may not fail to attain the expected life and the kingdom of heaven. But, if any man thinks penitence profitless, and fancies that this is feeble, because it does not contrary to the intention of the holy canons introduce into the clergy a man who has cut off his own members, and restore him to the sacred ministry, he misses the right conception. No one is blamed on that dreadful day of judgment because he was not a clergyman, but be- cause he did not produce fruits worthy of penitence. A man who is sincerely penitent and conscious of his own position, even if he is a man free from every canonical impediment that might prevent him from officiating as a priest and ministering, shuns such an honour. In fact a man does not take "honour unto himself, but by being called of God, as also was Aaron " \ as said the apostle Paul in the epistle to the Hebrews. The ninth canon also makes these general provisions about those who have fallen under canonical impediments and been presented to the priesthood: "If any have been presented as presbyters without examination, and when examined have confessed the sins committed by them, and after they have confessed any men being moved in a direction contrary to the canon have laid a hand upon them, such men the canon does not accept. For the catholic church 1 He. V. 4. requires blamelessness "\ To the same object the tenth canon also is directed. These things I for my part have considered and written down in answer to the questions sent me by your believing wisdom; not as one who has high thoughts (far be it!), and who exalts himself above those who sin; but I have poured forth a flood of sympathetic tears over the sinners, and I also am clad in weakness of flesh, as the Apostle somewhere says; '" and of necessity as well as in consequence my speech has borrowed the exactitude of the canons, and has uttered their words; to listen to which and delight one- self even for a short time in this transitory life that flits away sooner than a dream is a cause of great and unending joy, and of the exaltation of the angels and the festival of the spirits above, and of ineffable bliss. May the holy Unity in Trinity, for that is our God, keep your believing wisdom: while you increase in zeal for the orthodox faith, and bear troubles for its sake with firmness, and walk blamelessly in the evangelic commandments; and may It admit you to the future endless life in the kingdom of heaven, through the prayers of all the saints, Amen!