Sermons 14

Concerning the title of this homily, and concerning the time at which it was delivered, there is some disagreement among scholars, and among the manuscripts and printed books there is variety. Gennadius, certainly older than all those whom we know to have mentioned the homilies of St. Maximus, teaches that this title was inscribed upon this homily: 'On the Kalends of January.' The Vatican codex 1222, page 285, indeed confirms this. It is otherwise in the Turin codex, which I clearly know to be older than the Vatican. For it reads thus: 'Likewise, a discourse on the Kalends of January.' For it is not at all the same thing to say something on the Kalends of January, as it is to say something about those same Kalends.

For he who does something on the Kalends of January is bound by no law to treat of those same Kalends, since it is entirely open to him to treat of any other matter, if he wishes. On the contrary, he who discourses about the Kalends of January is pressed by no necessity not to discourse of them except on the very day of the Kalends of January. From the first Vatican and from the Turin codex there differ another Vatican codex, number 4951, page 53, Martin.; and the Palatine Vatican, number 434, page 67; the Monte Cassino, number 106, page 20; the Monza (Modoetia), E In. For in the first of these the homily has this inscription appended: 'On the Circumcision of the Lord'; in the second and third: 'On the Octave of the Lord. A sermon of St. Maximus the bishop'; in the fifth: 'On the Octave of the Lord, that is, on the Kalends of January. A sermon of the blessed

Maximus the bishop, on those same Kalends.' Among the editors—as Gymnicus at page 32, Galesinius at page 85, Raynaudus at page 142, Margarinus in the Bibliotheca Maxima of the Holy Fathers volume VI, page 8—there is one inscription approved by all: 'On the Circumcision of the Lord, or a rebuke concerning the Kalends of January.' But to me it can in no way be approved that a homily be inscribed 'On the Circumcision,' in which there is not even the slightest mention of circumcision. The whole of Maximus's discourse in this homily aims at this, that the people entrusted to his faith should be deterred from the dishonourable and superstitious games which blind heathenism had instituted in honour of Janus. But Gymnicus and the other editors whom I have just named, perhaps thought that this kind of inscription—

'On the Circumcision,' etc.—should be employed for this reason: because they suppose the same homily was delivered on the Kalends of January, upon which Kalends falls the celebration of the Lord's circumcision; since Christ was circumcised on the eighth day from His nativity, and that eighth day both was of old reckoned, and is still today reckoned, the first day of the month of January. There is, moreover, a notable passage on this matter in Ivo of Chartres, in his sermon on the Circumcision of the Lord, book II, chapter 8, number 12: 'The Octave and the circumcision agree together in one sacrament.' Wherefore Ludovicus Thomassinus, in his work On the Celebration of Feast Days, says: 'As many as have thought that on the Kalends of January the eighth day of the nativity is recalled, so interpret it as if they were speaking of the circumcision;

which is as true as that the eighth day is the same as the lawful day for performing the circumcision.' In the ancient Martyrology, which is commonly called the Hieronymian, the Circumcision of the Lord is commemorated on January 1, as also in that book of the Sacramentaries which bears the name of Pope St. Gelasius, in which there is a secret prayer on the Lord's circumcision at the Kalends of January. In canon 17 of the Second Council of Tours, celebrated in the year 570, these things are read: 'Our Fathers ordained that private litanies be held on the Kalends of January, and that at the eighth hour on those same Kalends the Mass of the circumcision be, God being propitious, celebrated'—volume III of the Councils, Paris edition of the year 1714, page 360. I pass over the Martyrologies of Bede, Rabanus, Usuard, Notker, and other more recent monuments.

For us surely the authority of the synod of the Fathers of Tours is sufficient, who in the sixth century testified that it was customary to treat of the circumcision on the Kalends of January by the institution of their forefathers. For from this it is plainly evident that this kind of institution was by far more ancient than that same fifth century. Wherefore Isaac Casaubon is justly reproved by Alexander Politi, a Clerk Regular of the Pious Schools, a most learned man—Casaubon who boasts that the memory of Christ's circumcision on the day of the Kalends of January did not begin until many centuries ago. I am not unaware that Casaubon relies especially on chapter 2, 'Pronuntiandum,' of the distinction 'On Consecration,' distinction 3. But what may have been decreed by such a chapter, I do not trouble myself about. In the first place, it is not established by whom it was drawn up. 'By the Council of Lyons,' says Gratian. But by which Lyons—

council, he himself does not indicate, nor can we attain it by conjecture. For many councils of Lyons are counted; yet in their acts not even a trace is found. But to a shapeless canon, whose source, since it is unknown, there is no reason for us to add authority and credence. But grant that this canon rests on the statute of some council of Lyons; what does it contain that is repugnant to the antiquity of the feast day of the circumcision? Is it that in it there is a commemoration of the Octave of the Lord and not of the circumcision? But there is nothing that hinders the feast day, which from its origin is reckoned the eighth from the Lord's nativity, from having been reckoned the same as the feast day of the Circumcision. Indeed, in the statutes of Reims, canon 20, in the year 630, volume III of the Councils, page 570,

in place of the Octave of the Lord, the Circumcision is put. 'These are the feasts to be observed apart from all public work and to be celebrated with due veneration: the Nativity of the Lord, the Circumcision,' etc. Again, in the statutes of St. Boniface of Mainz, about the year 746, constitution 31, in the same volume of the Councils, page 1946: 'The priests are commanded to announce on the Lord's days throughout the year that the sabbath is to be kept, in the first place: on the Lord's nativity, the eighth of the Kalends of January, four days; on the Lord's circumcision, the Kalends of January, one day,' etc. What? Does it follow from this that the feast day which is here called the day of the circumcision was not called the Octave of the Lord's nativity? By no means. There is therefore no reason why the chapter of the distinction 'On Consecration'

be set against us—a chapter which we do not even know to whom it should be credited, and which is perhaps more recent than the statutes of Boniface of Mainz and of Reims. But grant even that the institution of the feast day of the circumcision is not so ancient as to be traced from the third, fourth, or fifth century—how many will there be who suppose that in St. Augustine's age the day of the Kalends of January was not reckoned among the sacred days? Compare the holy Doctor's sermon 198, the seventh of the Sirmondian series, on the Kalends of January, page 631, volume V of his Works, the Antwerp edition of the year 1700. And even if that day was indeed sacred, nevertheless, that Christians might be more and more turned away from the superstitions and sacrilegious games of the heathen, the prelates of the sacred rites took care in certain places that it be passed in fasting.

On this matter consult Caesarius of Arles, in his sermon on the Kalends of January, which is number 129, section 4, in the appendix to volume V of the works of St. Augustine, page 165 of the same edition; the Second Council of Tours in the year 567, canon 17, volume III of the Councils, Paris edition 1714, page 360; and the Fourth Council of Toledo in the year 633, canon 11, ibid., page 583. I return to the homily of Maximus. I deny that this homily, even if it had been delivered on the Kalends of January, ought to be inscribed 'On the Circumcision,' but rather 'taken at the circumcision.' For where it is said 'On the Circumcision,' it indicates that in that same homily there is treatment of the mystery of the circumcision, of which, however, in it there is not even a word. Yet there is reason why I judge that the inscription 'at the circumcision' ought not to have been employed even by the editors. For this very homily was not [delivered] on the Kalends

of January, but was delivered before it; since Maximus makes mention in it of the coming Kalends. 'Although,' he says, 'I do not doubt, most beloved brethren, that you, taught by fatherly solicitude through the instruction of the divine word, utterly shun and shrink from all the vanities of the coming Kalends,' etc. Therefore we have judged that there should be restored to this homily the title mentioned by Gennadius and confirmed by the antiquity of the codices. 'Although I do not doubt, most beloved brethren, that you, taught by fatherly solicitude through the instruction of the divine word, utterly shun and shrink from all the vanities of the coming Kalends:

yet for the argument of a more perfect amendment I have not been reluctant to bring to your ears a discourse familiar to them, as the most blessed Paul says: 'Brethren, to write the same things to you is indeed not tedious to me, but for you it is necessary' (Philippians 3). It is necessary, most beloved, and I deem it not superfluous, if for the sake of a holy admonition delivered some time ago, the words of the preceding Fathers be repeated to you. And truly, what tedium, what burden is there, to say often, and to hear frequently, things useful and pleasing to God for the profit of salvation? And therefore, most dear, walking with your accustomed faith and devotion in the ways of the religious journey and the paths of truth, more and more tread down the byways of errors and the diabolical figments.

For the faithful soul, which longs for the fellowship of angels, ought not to delight in the sports of demons. Nor indeed can there be any communion between light and darkness, between truth and falsehood, between baseness and honour, among the servants of God, as the Teacher of the Churches instructs us, saying: 'What concord has Christ with Belial? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?' (2 Corinthians 6). Whoever therefore among believers either is the temple of God, or desires to be, let him carefully beware, lest by pursuing dead and vain things, ceasing to be the temple of God, he become a habitation of darkness, a monument of the demon. The most glorious prophet David says: 'Blessed is the man whose hope is the name of the Lord, and who has not looked upon vanities and false follies' (Psalm 33).

And so he who hopes in God, and with his whole heart chooses the gaze of his eyes for His glory, ought never to turn back his consecrated eyes to the densest vanities; because, as the Lord says: 'No one putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God' (Luke 9). For everyone who ploughs, if he looks back, will make either a crooked or a broken furrow, or will wound the tracks of his ploughing oxen. So too he who, walking on a straight track and with the spiritual ploughshare cutting through worldly vices, advances toward the kingdom of God—if he turns his gaze to impious and vain things, he will both wound his yoked pair, that is, his body and soul, and will incur a perilous straying from the best road.

'And has not looked,' he says, 'upon vanities and false follies.' How does blessed David call the follies false, when those truly are mad who, having cast off behind them the fear of God, look to the vanities of demons? But the faithful man rightly expressed the nature of impious falsehood: because all things are mad which, by the deceiving lie of the devil, do not have in themselves the power of God. And graver and more incurable is the sickness of those who, deceived by the frenzy of superstitions and the sweetness of games, are mad under the appearance of soundness.

Are not all the things done by the ministers of demons on those days false and mad, when a man, the vigour of his manhood softened, wholly breaks himself down into a woman, and does that thing with such ambition and artifice, as though it grieved him to be what he is—a man? Are not all things there false and mad, when men, formed by God, transform themselves either into beasts, or into wild animals, or into monsters? Does it not surpass all madness, when they disfigure the beauty of the human face—shaped specially into every comeliness by the hands of God—with the filth of squalor and adulterous foulness? How is it not plain to the wise that there is no soundness there, where impious, dishonourable, and all manner of things are both done and spoken;

not hearkening to blessed David crying out daily in the Church and saying: 'O sons of men, how long will you be dull of heart? Why do you love vanity and seek after a lie?' (Psalm 4)? Dull indeed and depressed with all impiety is the heart of those who, mocking the divine admonitions through sacrilegious jests, both love vain things and pursue false ones; and after all this, to the fullness of offence, they call those very days the new year. Although not unfittingly do they call it a new year according to their own reckoning, since through the abominable feasts, in place of decency, false baseness and perversity are made new. They call it a new year, as though then either heaven or earth showed something new.

They call the Kalends of January the new year, though they are ever befouled with an old error and horror. The most vain also say that they gather auspices, and, judging the state of their life by empty tokens, they pry into the future events of the coming year through the uncertain signs of birds and beasts; whereas surely with God alone is the knowledge of things to come, and the authority of the Law forbids this, saying: 'Do not take auspices, do not attend to auguries' (Deuteronomy 18). But wretched and pitiable men, seized by the errors of the pagans and blinded with a heart less provident, go forth from their houses with impiety and return with sacrilege. Or how can he think he can even be called a Christian, who in such observance has seen himself to be a partner of the faithless?

So also you, most dear, I have learned by clear report that you have long neither observed nor sought these things. And truly they are by no means to be inquired into by us, who believe in the almighty God, who according to the quality of merits or the proof of faith dispenses to all mortals by the power of His own judgment either prosperous or adverse things—especially since the Apostle rebukes and reproves men of this kind, saying: 'You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years: I fear lest perhaps I have laboured among you in vain' (Galatians 4). See, most dear, in whom they have lost the apostolic labour bestowed upon them. But you, as you have done up to now for the fear of God, abhor vain things, flee from false things, turn aside from impious things;

and that you may be able always to come with a confident heart to the house of God; and that in your faith Paul, the master of the Gentiles and the judge of his own teaching, may find the fruit of his doctrine.