Then, anxious, I began to think to myself what this vision might be indicating to me and a little while later I asked the bishop if the blessed Leo had ordered me to give, to lend, or to pay back that money. And he responded: No, it was `to give'. Then, I was somewhat comforted. For it makes a big difference whether we have to give something or to pay it back. I was afraid lest I had perchance offended him in some respect [on account of] which I would have necessarily to release [myself] from debt and pay it back. Furthermore, I recalled that his feast was formerly celebrated in our church, but because I behaved negligently, the entire feast itself ceased [to be celebrated] there. May he have mercy on me because I recognize that I have sinned not a little in this.

When I returned home from the church and recounted this vision to our clerics, they expressed to me the very things which I had already conceived in my own mind. For they said: We think that the money which the blessed Leo requires from you is nothing other than that you write something about him which befits his memory. Truly this is your money. Nor does he seem to need any other [kind] of money. I was pleased that the interpretation (intellectus) of the others agreed with my own; and indeed knowledge is well signified by money. It is also understood in this way in the Gospel in the passage where our Savior shares the talents with his servants.[cf. Mt.15:25] Yet why does he require one hundred or fifty thousand? In fact, of these two numbers the former is perfect, the latter imperfect. For a thousand one hundred times or one hundred a thousand times make one hundred thousand. Both of these numbers, i.e. one hundred and one thousand, are perfect because they have no place for increase. For something is imperfect as long as it can increase in some respect. Yet although the number one hundred or one thousand can, in fact, be replicated, it cannot increase. It is therefore perfect. Indeed, everyone who counts concludes after he reaches one hundred or one thousand and begins again from one. The number fifty is imperfect because, placed in the middle of one hundred, it does not constitute the end and can be extended further. Therefore, since that most blessed man ordered me to give him fifty thousand solidi because (as it seemed to him and to the person to whom he was speaking) I was not able to give him one hundred thousand, what else does this mean but that I should begin to recount perfectly (perfecte) the things which relate to his praise and glory? I have therefore given him fifty thousand solidi, because I could not give him one hundred, i.e. either because I could not recount everything perfectly – for not everything has come to my attention – or because I have recounted certain things as I was able. Yet I pray, most blessed pontiff, that you may consider these little gifts of mine pleasing and that by your holy prayers before our savior Jesus Christ, you may gain [for me] His forgiveness of my debts, Who lives and reigns as God with the Father and the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen

10. And now it remains for us to respond to that question which we promised to address earlier. We have already said that at that time, in the days of the blessed Leo, the Church had been so corrupted that hardly anyone might be found who either was not a simoniac or had not been ordained by a simoniac. As a result, even unto this day, there are found certain people who, because they argue wrongly and do not properly understand the dispensation of the Church, contend that from that time the priesthood in the Church failed. For they say: If everyone was like this, i.e. if all either were simoniacs or had been ordained by simoniacs, you who are now priests - where did you come from? By way of whom, if not them, did you pass? There was no other way. Hence those who ordained you, received their orders from those men, and from no others, who either were simoniacs or had been ordained by simoniacs.

It is to this question that we must respond therefore. But first it is fitting to state what simoniacs are and why they are called this. Then, [we shall argue] that there is a big difference between simoniacs and those who have been ordained by simoniacs but who did not know that [their ordinands] were simoniacs. For if one is ordained by a bishop whom one does not doubt is simoniacal, little indeed separates him in status (in ordine) from the one by whom he is ordained. He knows that he is a thief and a robber, and that he has received nothing else in his ordination than a curse and the power to curse. All simoniacs are thus ordained as Simon himself was ordained. To him the blessed Peter says during his own ordination: May your money be with you in perdition, because you thought that the gift of the Holy Spirit is possessed through money. [Acts 8:20] Simoniacs, therefore, are those who try to buy the gift of God i.e., the grace of the Holy Spirit. Yet, whether they buy or do not buy, if they offer only money and promise to give something for this grace, they are simoniacs. For Simon himself did not buy anything because there was no one who would sell. Yet because he wanted to buy, he is cursed nonetheless. And truly he left this curse to all his disciples as an inheritance. Simoniacs are named after Simon [because] they imitate him in this action. For after Simon was baptized by Philip, he stayed with him. When he saw that many miracles and virtues were done by the apostles, he offerred them money, saying: Give me this power, in order that upon whomever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.[Acts 8:19] To him, as we just said above, the blessed Peter says: May your money be with you in perdition, because you thought that the gift of God is possessed through money: truly you have no share or lot in this word.[Acts 8:20-1]

This, then, is Simon's ordination. Thus are simoniacs ordained who offer money. Why? Because they think "that the gift of God is possessed by means of money." But what blessing do they receive? Let the blessed Peter tell you, whose voice is most efficacious and whose curse penetrates to the core: May your money be with you in perdition. This is the blessing given to them. This prayer is intoned over their nefarious heads. Thus are they blessed, thus are they consecrated, thus are they ordained. For as soon as they offer money, to whomever they may offer it, the apostle, their consecrator, is present. Indeed, although they may be sanctified by catholic bishops – something which often happens, in fact – the apostle is nevertheless there among them. Let them say what they will, let them pour out chrism upon their heads, Simon Peter shall still not change his sentence, because he is not unaware of what they have offerred, how much they have offerred, and to whom they have offerred it. They bless, he curses, they are deceived, but he cannot be deceived. They think that these men are catholic, they think that they have been canonically elected, and because of this they bless them. Yet, if they knew them, they, too, would have said along with the apostle: May your money be with you in perdition. Rightly therefore is their blessing turned into a curse, because God looks not at the lips, but at the heart. Indeed, Jacob feared this when he was sent by his mother to his father in order that [Isaac] might bless him unknowingly and said: Don't you know that my brother Esau is a hairy man and I am smooth-skinned? Therefore if my father should take hold of me and feel, I fear lest he think that I wanted to trick him and bring down a curse upon me instead of a blessing. [Gen.27:21] Yet [Jacob] should not have been afraid, because he was sent by his mother. These men, however, are not sent by their mother, these men are not sent by the Church, they who trick Isaac, they who deceive the bishops, they who wish to snatch their father's blessing like a thief through robbery. As a consequence, a curse is not undeservedly called down upon them instead of a blessing. For those men alone are sent by the mother, those men alone are sent by the Church, who are sent to their fathers, who are sent to their bishops to be blessed and consecrated, not through money, not through any promise, not through secular power, but rather solely through an election of the clergy and people which is itself pure and without depravity.

Now then, we have spoken about the consecration of Simon, we have spoken about the consecration of simoniacs – how they are ordained, how they are consecrated, how the Apostle Peter curses them, and how the blessing of the bishops is turned into a curse for them. After this, when they have been thus ordained, thus consecrated, thus cursed, and thus infected with leprosy, they arrive at the churches entrusted to them. There, since they are obviously a person of this kind, everything they do is in vain and without profit – except for baptism and wise counsel, which even they often give. Now we shall discuss how these things may be understood.

11. Because baptism consists not in the faith of the giver but in the faith of those who receive it, it is good regardless of by whom it is given. But where there is no catholic faith, baptism does not work. Consequently, whoever is baptized outside the Church is not released from sin before he returns to the Church. For the remission of sins in no way occurs except within the Church. Nonetheless, it can happen that a faithful person on some occasion is baptized outside the Church, but because the person is in the Church in his mind, he also receives the remission of sins outside. Yet if he is such a person, he would return to the Church, from which he had never departed, also in his body and in his way of life. Otherwise, if he is baptized outside, remains outside, and when baptized, has no wish to return – for such a man as this, no remission of sins in fact occurs for the moment. Yet why is this surprising since even those who are baptized within [the Church] – and who are undoubtedly cleansed of all their sins – perish forever if they leave [the Church] and do not return to it before they die? The ark indicated this; for everything which was placed within it was saved, while everything found outside perished. Also, listen to what the Lord says: I am the vine and you are the branches; whoever remains in me, and I in him, shall bear much fruit. If someone does not remain in me, let him be cast out like branches and dried, and they shall gather him up and throw him in the fire and he shall burn. [Jn.15:5-6] Therefore if Christ is the vine, Christians are the branches; and just as branches cannot live if separated from the vine, so neither Christians cannot [live] if separated from the body of Christ. The body of Christ is the Church. Therefore, let whoever does not wish to be separated from Christ, remain in the body of Christ in order that he may be able to be a member of Christ. For if he should not remain in the body of Christ, if he should not remain in the unity of the Church, he shall be cast out and dry up like [dead] branches. And what else? The malignant spirits shall gather him up. For whoever is separated from the Church is handed over to them. And what will they do? They shall cast him into the fire. Why? That he may burn. The words are Christ's, we do not seek other canons.

Thus it is clear that no one shall be saved outside the Church, whether he was baptized within it or outside of it. Why is this? Again, let the Lord himself speak: If someone does not remain in me, let him be cast out like [dead] branches and they shall gather him up, throw him into the fire, and he shall burn.[Jn.15:6] Hence, if the person perishes who was sometimes in Christ but who does not remain in Him, how shall the person not perish who was never in Him and did not remain in Him? For whoever is baptized outside the Church never was nor ever shall be in Christ unless he should be joined to the Church before he departs this life – for he never was nor ever shall be in the body of Christ. For if he is separated from the body of Christ, he is no longer a member of Christ. Moreover, the body of Christ is not outside the Church. Otherwise the Church itself would be outside itself – since the Church is the body of Christ – and this is impossible.

Consequently, baptism cannot be given and cannot benefit [the person] outside the Church. For although baptism which is given outside the Church does have the form of the sacrament, it does not have the virtue of the sacrament; it has the form, of course, because it is done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It does not have the virtue, because it does not effect the remission of sins. Why then are those who come from the heretics not rebaptized? Do you want to hear why? Because they have the form of baptism, i.e. because they have already been reborn from the water at the invocation of the Trinity. It still remains for them to be reborn as well in the Holy Spirit who effects the remission of sins in them – something which the visible form cannot give. For unless someone should be reborn from the water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of God. Indeed, both are necessary there – the form of the sacrament and the virtue of the sacrament. For neither the water without the Spirit nor the Spirit without the water releases a person from sin. The form of the sacrament can be given both inside and outside [the Church], but the virtue of the sacrament is not given unless the person is inside the Church.

This is why the Roman pontiffs, filled with the spirit of God, decreed with remarkable providence that those who come [to the Church] from the heretics should in no way be rebaptized because they [already] have the form of baptism; but because they do not have the virtue of this sacrament, upon the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be given by the heretics, they are confirmed with sacred chrism through the imposition of hands. Perhaps you require an authority for this? It shall be given to you. Indeed, this is truly necessary because all do not seem to agree on this judgment, namely that those who come from the heretics should not in fact be rebaptized but should rather be confirmed again with sacred chrism. In particular, the blessed Augustine says: Injury should be done to no sacrament.[14] In this matter, he seems to differ greatly from others. For what is the injury of a sacrament if not the repetition of that sacrament? Yet we have abundant examples and authorities [showing] that certain sacraments are repeated. I said "certain" because the repetition of baptism and of sacred orders are not allowed to occur. This is why in the African councils we read, in fact: Rebaptisms, reordinations, and translations of bishops are not allowed to occur.[15] At the Council of Nicaea, in contrast, it is decreed concerning the Paulianists that those coming to the Church should be baptized again and their clerics ordained again, if they should be worthy.[16] In this [canon], it is clearly shown that this should be done among the [Paulianists] alone and not among others. For these [heretics] were not baptized in accordance with the form of the Church, i.e. in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In this respect they differed even from other heretics, who maintained the form of the Church in baptisms. For if they had been baptizing according to the form of baptism which we just mentioned, obviously such a law would not have been specially promulgated concerning them, especially since it is said with regard to all the other heretics, that those coming to the Church are neither rebaptized nor reordained but are reconciled to the Church by the imposition of the bishop's hand alone. Furthermore, the entire Church agrees that these two sacraments, i.e. baptism and sacred orders, should not be repeated, and there is no dissension among the saints. Hence, when the blessed Augustine states: The imposition of hands, like baptism, should not be repeated,[17] he is speaking about that kind of imposition of hands about which the Apostle says to the apostle Timothy: Lay your hands on no one in haste.[I Tim.5:22] For both the act of signing with chrism and the reconciliation of penitents are called "the imposition of hands". Hence the sacred canons also forbid bishop to impose their hands on clerics who are among the other penitents.

[14] Letter 87 against the Donatists, c.9.[15] Council of Carthage, III, c.38.[16] Council of Nicaea, c.19.

[17] On Baptism against the Donatists, III, c.16.

12. But that it is permitted to repeat certain sacraments, is demonstrated most plainly by the frequent practice (usus) of the Church and one example of the blessed Gregory. For every day we see the consecrations of churches repeated, and not only out of necessity but also according to the wishes of the bishops. Indeed, certain canons even order that if an altar should be moved, it should be consecrated again.[18] In addition, the blessed Gregory, as he himself attests, consecrated a certain church in Subura in Rome because it had been held by the Arians for a long time.[19] How much its consecration or reiteration was accepted by God is shown by the virtues and miracles which the Lord worked there on the very days during which [the church] was consecrated. How then is it true that injury should not be done to any sacrament?

[18] Grat. Decr., De consecratione, D.I c.19, Pope Hyginus.

[19] Cf. John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii II, c.31. This example is also cited by Deusdedit in his Libellus contra invasores, symoniacos et reliquos scismaticos c.II §9 (LdL II, p.326) to make a similar point about the reiterability of certain sacraments

Using the following authority of the saints I shall prove likewise that the consignation of chrism should be repeated among heretics. For Pope Eusebius[20] says the following concerning this consignation: Keeping to the rule of the Roman Church, we order that all of the heretics who are converted by the grace of God and, believing in the name of the Holy Trinity, have been baptized, be reconciled through the imposition of hands. And a little later he added, in speaking about this imposition of hands: The sacrament of the imposition of hands should be maintained with great veneration. This cannot be performed by anyone but the highest priests. For even in the time of the apostles, it is neither read nor known to have been performed by anyone other than the apostles themselves. Nor can or should this ever be performed by anyone else (as has already been said) than those who occupy the place [of the apostles]. For if one should presume to do otherwise, let it be considered invalid and void, nor shall it ever be considered among the sacraments of the Church.[21]

[20] Pope Eusebius (18 April 308 - exiled September 308) is remembered in the Liber Pontificalis for having reconciled heretics in Roman through the imposition of hands, cf. The Book of Pontiffs, translated by R. Davis (Liverpool Translated Texts for Historians, V), (Liverpool, 1989), p.13.

[21] Letter III §21 to the bishops established throughout Campania and Tuscia, in Decretales Pseudo-Isidorinae, ed. Hinschius, p.242.

Let's also listen to what was established in council concerning this matter in the time of the blessed Pope Silvester[22] in Rome: In this time, he says, on 19 June, when the aforementioned great council was gathered in Nicea, the aforementioned pope by canonical summons and with the counsel of the emperor Constantine gathered at Rome two hundred and seventy-seven bishops and once again condemned Calixtus, Arius, and Sabellius, and decreed that no one should receive the priest Arius, if he came to his senses, unless the bishop of this place should reconcile him and confirm him with sacred chrism through the imposition of his episcopal hand in the grace of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be given by the heretics.[23]

[22] Sylvester, best known as the pope at the time of Constantine's "conversion" and as recipient of the Donation of Constantine, ruled the Roman Church from 1 January 314 until 31 December 335.

[23] Gesta Silvestri, c.1, ed. Hinschius, p.449.

What could have been said more clearly and more plainly? And in fact, this sacrament is not repeated, is it? But here are still more examples, in order that the view, which is denied by many people, may become clearer and more certain. Therefore let Pope Siricius[24] speak: On the first side of your page (letter?), you indicated that many people who have been baptized hasten from the impious Arians to the catholic faith and that certain of our brothers want to baptize them again. This is not permitted, since the Apostles forbids it and the canons speak against it. Furthermore, the general decrees prohibit it which were sent to the provinces by my predecessor Liberius[25] of venerable memory after the end of the council of Arimensis (post cassatum Arimense consilium). These [heretics] along with the Novatians and other heretics we join to the assembly of catholics by the imposition of the bishop's hand through the invocation of the seven-fold Spirit. The entire East and West also observes this.[26]

[24] Siricius reigned as pope from 384 to 399.[25] Liberius ruled as pope from 352 until 366 but was sent into exile in 355 by the emperor Constantius because of his refusal to agree to the Arian heresy. In his place, he ordained the priest Felix who reigned from 355 until 365 when he was martyred by Constantius for having declared him a heretic. Cf. The Book of Pontiffs, pp.28-29.

[26] Ep.7 to Himerius, c.1, ed. Hinschius, p.520.

Let us also see what Leo I[27] says, who strengthened with his constancy and fortitude the faith that was already going to perish. No one shall dare, I think, contradict his opinion. Those about whom you have written are not unaware that they have been baptized, but they profess that they do not know of what faith the men are who baptized them. Whence, because they have received the form of baptism in some way, they should not be baptized but should be joined to the catholics through the imposition of hands by virtue of the Holy Spirit which they could not have received from the heretics.[28] Likewise, he says elsewhere: For those who have received baptism from the heretics, although they were not baptized before, should nonetheless be confirmed with the invocation of the Holy Spirit alone through the imposition of hands, because they received only the form of baptism without the strength (virtus) of the Holy Spirit. We also preach that this rule should be observed in all churches so that the baptismal font, once entered, is not violated by any repetition, since the Apostle says: "One God, one faith, one baptism."(Eph.4:5) His ablution should not be defiled by any repetition; rather, as we have said, only the sanctification of the Holy Spirit should be invoked, so that he seeks from catholics priests what no one receives from the heretics.[29]

[27] Leo I reigned from 440 until 461, and was one of the most articulate spokeman for the importance and power of the bishop of Rome within the universal Church. Living through the doctrinal controversies surrounding the Council of Chalcedon (451), he became known as a defender of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, especially through his Tome, a extended doctrinal letter which he wrote for the Council of Chalcedon. Cf. his life in The Book of Pontiffs, pp.37-38.[28] Letter 167 to Rusticus, bishop of Narbonne, ed. Hinschius, p.617.

[29] Letter 159 to Nicetas, bishop of Aquileia, c.7.

In the council of Laodicaea it is also written: On those who are converted from the heretics, i.e. Novatians or Fotians, whether they are baptized or catechumens, let them not be received before they anathematize all heresies and especially that one in which they were held, and then, when at last these people, who were called faithful among [among the heretics] are imbued with the symbol of our faith and anointed with the sacred chrism, they may thus communicate with the sacred ministers.[30]