Maximus of Turin

Sermons 56

Latin original · 14 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss

56:1

191 Celebris est apud Gratianum distinct. 77, cap. 8, hujus homiliæ descriptio Ambrosii nomine: Per hos quinquaginta dies nobis est jugis et continuata festivitas: ita ut hoc omni tempore neque ad observandum indicamus jejunia, neque ad exorandum Deum genibus succidamus. Primum de consuetudine non jejunandi, et non genaflectendi in precibus a Paschatis solemnitate ad Pentecosten dicam, deinde de homiliæ auctore. Conjiciunt aliqui ab apostolis usum illum fuisse derivatum, eo quod Tertulliani, qui secundo sæculo floruit, lib. de Corona cap. 3, perspicuum hac de re esse testimonium videatur. Die Dominico, inquit, jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculi. adorare.

Famous in Gratian, Distinction 77, chapter 8, is the description of this homily under the name of Ambrose: 'Throughout these fifty days we have a continual and unbroken festivity: so that during all this time we neither appoint fasts to be observed, nor bend our knees in supplicating God.' First I shall speak of the custom of not fasting, and of not kneeling in prayers, from the solemnity of Easter to Pentecost; then of the author of the homily. Some conjecture that this usage was derived from the apostles, in that of Tertullian, who flourished in the second century, in his book 'On the Crown,' chapter 3, there seems to be clear testimony on this matter. 'On the Lord's Day,' he says, 'we hold it unlawful to fast, or to worship kneeling.'

在格拉提安《教令集》第 77 區分第 8 章中，這篇講道以安波羅修之名而聲名遠播：「在這五十天之內，我們有連續不斷的慶典：以致在這整段時間，我們既不指定當守的禁食，也不屈膝向神祈求。」我先論從逾越節慶典到五旬節不禁食、不在禱告中跪拜的慣例；然後再論這篇講道的作者。有些人推測這慣例源自使徒，因為活躍於二世紀的特土良，在他《論冠冕》一書第 3 章中，關於此事似乎有明確的見證。他說：「在主日，我們認為禁食、或跪拜敬拜，都是不合法的。」

56:2

Eadem immunitate a die Paschas in Pentecosten usque gaudemus. Huic sancti Epiphanii auctoritatem addunt; ait enim de Exposit. Fidei, num. 22: Quinquaginta Pentecostes diebus neque genua flectuntur, neque jejunium indicitur. Praetereo S. Irenaeum episcopum et martyrem, cujus meminit Pseudojustinus, de quo valde dubitant critici, ut videre est apud Massuetum, dissert. 2 in Irenæi libros, art. 3, § 60, pag. 105. Illum vero Pseudojustinum omninq rejiciunt monachi S. Mauri, non solum quia non putant eum sæculo quinto antiquiorem, sed etiam quia Pelagianismo ipse infectum se manifestat. VideJustinum edit. Paris. 1742, et praecipue Prudentii Mairani admonitionem, pag. 434.

We rejoice in the same exemption from the day of Pascha until Pentecost. To this the holy Epiphanius adds his authority; for he says, in his Exposition of the Faith, no. 22: 'Throughout the fifty days of Pentecost neither is the knee bent nor is a fast enjoined.' I pass over Saint Irenaeus, bishop and martyr, whom Pseudo-Justin mentions—one about whom the critics greatly hesitate, as may be seen in Massuet, dissertation 2 on the books of Irenaeus, article 3, § 60, page 105. But that Pseudo-Justin the monks of Saint Maur reject altogether, not only because they judge him no older than the fifth century, but also because he shows himself infected with Pelagianism. See the Paris edition of Justin, 1742, and especially the admonition of Prudentius Maranus, page 434.

從逾越節那日直到五旬節，我們享有同樣的豁免而歡欣。對此，聖厄丕法尼加上他的權威見證；因為他在《信仰闡釋》第二十二節中說：「在五旬節的五十日內，既不屈膝，也不規定禁食。」我略過聖依勒內——那位主教兼殉道者，偽游斯丁曾提及他，但評論家對此人甚為存疑，正如馬蘇埃在《依勒內書卷論考》第二論、第三條、第六十節、第一〇五頁中所見。至於那位偽游斯丁，聖毛祿會的修士則完全予以否定，不僅因為他們認為此人不早於第五世紀，更因為他自暴其染有白拉奇主義之毒。參見一七四二年巴黎版游斯丁著作，尤其是普魯登丟·瑪拉努的告誡，第四三四頁。

56:3

Ratio autem hujusce consuetudinis accepta dicitur non tam a laetitia resurrectionis Christi, quam a memoria beneiicii nobis per ipsum collati, quoniam Christus resurgens mortem et culpam devicit, ut nos quoque ab utraque liberaret. Accedit etiam quod Hebræis præceptum fuit in lege Moysis, ut illos quinquaginta dies a Paschate ad Pentecosten festos et solemnes haberent, et libertatem ab Ægyptiaca servitute recolerent. Major ergo visa est a primis usque Eccleske temDoribus inesse populo Christiano causa, ut a captivitate dæmonis liberati gaudiis gaudia. cumularent.

The reason for this custom is said to have been received not so much from joy at Christ's resurrection as from the memory of the benefit conferred upon us through him, since Christ in rising overcame death and sin, that he might free us from both. There is added also the fact that it was commanded to the Hebrews in the law of Moses that they should keep those fifty days from Pascha to Pentecost as festal and solemn, and should call to mind their freedom from Egyptian bondage. A greater cause, then, seemed to be present in the Christian people from the very earliest times of the Church, that, freed from the captivity of the devil, they should heap joys upon joys.

據說採納此習俗的緣由，與其說是出於對基督復活的喜樂，不如說是出於對藉祂賜予我們之恩惠的紀念，因為基督復活時勝過了死亡與罪過，好使我們也得從二者中獲釋。此外還有一事：梅瑟律法曾命令希伯來人，要把從逾越節到五旬節這五十日視為節慶與莊嚴之日，並重溫他們脫離埃及奴役的自由。因此，從教會最初的時代起，基督子民似乎就有更大的緣由：既已脫離魔鬼的擄掠，就當喜樂上加喜樂。

56:4

Huic sanctæ exsultationi plane assentiens [Maximus hanc de eadem lætitia homiliam ad plebem suam habuit, reddiditque rationem, cur illis quinquaginta diebus et stantes orarent, et immunes a jejunio essent. Jam vero h.cc homilia non Ambrosio, cui olim attributa fuit, sed Maximo nostro adjudicanda est, quod in codicibus vetustis sex S. Maximi præferat inscriptum nomen. Sunt hi duo vetustissimi codd. Sangallensis, et 90 S. Crucis in Jerusalem homil. 41, Ratisponensis S. Emmerami, Taurinensis homil. 15, cod. alter S. Crucis in Jerusalem 99 homil. 65, et Laurentianus x, Plut. XIV, pag. 55, a tergo, quorum omnium titulus est: De Pentecoste.

Fully assenting to this holy exultation, Maximus delivered this homily on the same rejoicing to his people, and gave the reason why during those fifty days they both prayed standing and were exempt from fasting. Now this homily is to be assigned not to Ambrose, to whom it was once attributed, but to our Maximus, since in six ancient codices it bears the name of Saint Maximus inscribed. These are the two most ancient codices, the Sangallensis and the 90 of Holy Cross in Jerusalem, homily 41; the Ratisbonensis of Saint Emmeram; the Taurinensis, homily 15; the other codex of Holy Cross in Jerusalem, 99, homily 65; and the Laurentianus x, Plut. XIV, page 55, on the reverse—the title of all of which is: On Pentecost.

馬克西穆完全認同這神聖的歡騰，就此同一喜樂向他的子民講了這篇證道，並說明為何在那五十日內他們既站著祈禱，又免於禁食。如今這篇證道不應歸於安博——它曾被歸於安博——而應歸於我們的馬克西穆，因為在六份古抄本中，它都題有聖馬克西穆之名。這些抄本是：兩份最古老的抄本，即桑加倫抄本與耶路撒冷聖十字堂第九十號抄本第四十一篇證道；雷根斯堡聖埃默拉姆抄本；都靈抄本第十五篇證道；耶路撒冷聖十字堂另一份第九十九號抄本第六十五篇證道；以及勞倫齊安抄本第十號、第十四櫃、第五十五頁背面——所有這些的標題皆為：《論五旬節》。

56:5

Sed prætereundus non est Gennadius, qui Maximum Taurinensem homilias multas de Pascha et de Pentecoste fecisse scripsit. Benedictini quoque monachi congregat. S. Mauri cum hanc homiliam inter Ambrosianos sermones a veteribus editoribus relatam comperissent, apud' Maximum videndam in Bibl. Patrum adnotarunt. Haud dissimile fuit Caroli Sebastiani Berardi judicium in Gratiani canones, part 3, cap. ii, tom. IV, pag. 124, edit. Taufinen. 1757, et cum incertae auctoritatis dicat illos canones de jejunio Pentecostes a Gratiano recensitos, monet loca illa non Ambrosii, sed Maximi esse, ut constat ex Bibl. Patrum tom. VI.

But Gennadius is not to be passed over, who wrote that Maximus of Turin composed many homilies on Pascha and on Pentecost. The Benedictine monks too, of the congregation of Saint Maur, when they had found this homily listed among the Ambrosian sermons by the older editors, noted that it was to be looked for under Maximus in the Library of the Fathers. Not unlike was the judgment of Carlo Sebastiano Berardi in his work on the canons of Gratian, part 3, chapter ii, tome IV, page 124, Turin edition of 1757; and while he calls of uncertain authority those canons on the fast of Pentecost recounted by Gratian, he warns that those passages are not of Ambrose but of Maximus, as is clear from the Library of the Fathers, tome VI.

但不可略過任那狄，他寫道都靈的馬克西穆撰寫了許多關於逾越節與五旬節的證道。聖毛祿會的本篤會修士們，當他們發現古代編者將這篇證道列入安博的講道中時，也注明應在《教父叢書》裡歸於馬克西穆名下查閱。卡洛·塞巴斯蒂亞諾·貝拉爾迪在其《格拉齊安教會法典釋論》第三部、第二章、第四卷、第一二四頁（一七五七年都靈版）中的判斷亦不相上下；他雖稱格拉齊安所收錄那些關於五旬節禁食的法典出處不明，卻提醒說那些段落並非出自安博，而是出自馬克西穆，正如《教父叢書》第六卷所明示。

56:6

Innixus ergo numero codicum, suffragiis hominumque doctissimorum, recedam a codice Vaticano 6451, et a codice II S. Crucis Minor. Convent., nunc Laurentiano, atque ab editoribus Romanis et Parisiensi an. 1569, homiliam sancto Ambrosio tribuentibus. Me praecesserunt Gymnicus pag. 174, Galesinius pag. 134, Cumdius tom. III, pag. 202, Raynaudus pag. 223, Margarinus in Bibl. Max. tom. VI, pag. 23, qUi hanc tertiam homiliam de eadem solemnitate, hoc est de Pentecoste dixerunt; ego autem primam inscribam, cum secundam, sub titulo de ascensione Domini mox dederim, et quæ apud illos est prima, huic succedit.

Relying therefore on the number of the codices and on the verdicts of most learned men, I shall depart from the Vatican codex 6451, and from codex II of the Minorite Convent of Holy Cross, now Laurentian, and from the Roman editors and the Parisian one of the year 1569, who ascribe the homily to Saint Ambrose. Before me went Gymnicus page 174, Galesinius page 134, Cumdius tome III page 202, Raynaudus page 223, Margarinus in the Great Library tome VI page 23, who called this the third homily on the same solemnity, that is, on Pentecost; but I shall entitle it the first, since I have just given the second under the title On the Ascension of the Lord, and the one that stands first with them follows after this.

因此，我倚靠抄本的數量以及最博學之人的裁定，將背離梵蒂岡抄本第六四五一號，以及方濟各會聖十字修院第二號抄本（今屬勞倫齊安圖書館），並背離將此證道歸於聖安博的羅馬諸編者與一五六九年巴黎版編者。在我之前的有：金尼庫第一七四頁、加萊西尼第一三四頁、庫姆迪第三卷第二〇二頁、雷諾第二二三頁、瑪加里努《大叢書》第六卷第二三頁，他們把這篇稱為論同一慶節（即五旬節）的第三篇證道；但我將把它題為第一篇，因為我剛以《論主升天》為題給出了第二篇，而在他們那裡列為第一的，則接在此篇之後。

56:7

Scire debet sanctitas vestra, fratres, hanc sanctam Pentecostes diem, qua ratione curemus, vel cur istorum quinquaginta dierum 192 numero sit nobis jugis, et continuata festivitas; ita ut a omni tempore neque ad observandum indicamus jejunia, neque b ad exorandum Deum genibus succidamus, sed sicut Dominica solemus facere, erecti et feriati resurrectionem Domini celebramus. Dominica c cujus nobis ideo venerabilis est atque solemnis, quia in ea Salvator, velut sol oriens, discussis inferorum tenebris, luce resurrectionis emicuit, ac propterea ipsa dies ab d hominibus sæculi dies solis vocatur, quod ortus eam sol justitie Christus illuminet.

Your holiness ought to know, brethren, this holy day of Pentecost—by what reason we observe it, and why by the count of these fifty days there is for us a continuous and unbroken festival; so that throughout the whole time we neither appoint fasts to be kept, nor bend to our knees to entreat God, but, as we are wont to do on the Lord's Day, standing and at leisure we celebrate the Lord's resurrection. This Lord's Day is for us the more venerable and solemn, because on it the Savior, like a rising sun, having scattered the darkness of the underworld, shone forth with the light of resurrection; and therefore that day itself is called by the men of the world the day of the sun, because Christ, the sun of righteousness, rising, illumines it.

弟兄們，你們的聖德當知道這神聖的五旬節日——我們以何緣由守此節，又為何按這五十日之數，對我們而言乃是持續不斷的節慶；以致在此整段時間內，我們既不指定當守的禁食，也不屈膝向天主懇求，而是像我們在主日所慣行的那樣，站立而閒歇地慶祝主的復活。這主日對我們而言更為可敬而莊嚴，因為在這日，救主如旭日東升，驅散了陰府的黑暗，以復活之光照耀而出；因此世人稱這日本身為太陽之日，因為公義的太陽基督在此日升起而照亮它。

56:8

e Instar ergo dominicae tota quinquaginta dierum curricula celebrantur, et 193 omnes isti dies velut dominici deputantur. Resurrectio enim dominica est; nam in dominica resurgens Salvator reversus ad homines est; et poSt resurrectionem tota Quinquagesima cum hominibus commoratus est. Æqualis ergo eorum necessarium ut esset festivitas quorum æqualis esset et sanctitas. Sic enim disposuit Dominus, ut, sicut ejus f passione in Quadragesimæ jejuniis contristaremur; ita ejus resurrectione in Quinquagesimæ teriis lætaremur. Non igitur jejunamus in Quinquagesima, quia in iis diebus nobiscum Dominus commeralur; non, inquam, g jejunamus præsente Domino, quia ipse ait:

In the likeness of the Lord's Day, then, the whole course of the fifty days is celebrated, and all these days are reckoned as though they were Lord's Days. For the resurrection is the Lord's; since on the Lord's Day the Savior, rising, returned to men; and after the resurrection he remained the whole of the fifty days with men. It was necessary, therefore, that the festivity of those days should be equal whose sanctity was likewise equal. For thus the Lord ordained, that, as by his passion we are made sorrowful in the fasts of the forty days, so by his resurrection we may rejoice in the leisure of the fifty days. We do not fast, then, during the fifty days, because in those days the Lord tarries with us; we do not, I say, fast while the Lord is present, because he himself says:

因此，這五十日的整段進程都仿照主日來慶祝，而所有這些日子都被算作彷彿是主日。因為復活是屬主的；因為在主日救主復活，回到了世人中間；復活之後，祂在這整整五十日內與世人同住。所以，那些日子既有同等的聖德，其節慶也必當同等。因為主如此安排：正如我們藉祂的苦難，在四十日的禁食中憂傷，照樣我們也藉祂的復活，在五十日的閒歇中歡欣。因此我們在這五十日內不禁食，因為在這些日子裡主與我們同住；我說，當主臨在時我們不禁食，因為祂自己說：

56:9

Nunquid possunt filii sponsi jejunere quandiu cum illis est sponsus (Luc. v) ? Cur enim h abstineat corpus a cibo, cum anima praesentia Domini saginatur Non potest enim esse jejunus qui reficitur gratia Salvatoris. Societas enim Christi quodammodo esca est Christiani. Reficimur ergo in Quinquagesima Domino nobiscum conversante. Cum autem post hos dies ascendit ad cœlum, iterum i jejunamus; sicut ait idem Salvator dicens: Venient autem dies, cum auferetur ab eis sponsus; et tunc jejunabunt in illis diebus (Ibid.). Cum enim Christus ascendit ad coelum, nostris aufertur obtutibus; famem patimur, non corporis, sed amoris; et non tam cibi jejunio, quam desiderio laboramus.

'Can the children of the bridegroom fast, so long as the bridegroom is with them?' (Luke 5). For why should the body abstain from food, when the soul is fed full with the presence of the Lord? For one cannot be fasting who is refreshed by the grace of the Savior. For the fellowship of Christ is, in a certain manner, the food of the Christian. We are refreshed, therefore, during the fifty days while the Lord dwells with us. But when, after these days, he ascended into heaven, again we fast; as the same Savior says: 'But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them; and then shall they fast in those days' (Luke 5). For when Christ ascended into heaven, he is taken from our sight; we suffer hunger, not of the body but of love; and we labor not so much from a fasting from food as from longing.

「新郎與伴郎同在的時候，伴郎豈能禁食呢？」（路加福音第五章）身體既以主的臨在使靈魂飽足，又何必戒食呢？因為凡以救主的恩典得飽足的人，就不可能算在禁食。因為與基督的相通，在某種意義上乃是基督徒的食糧。因此，在這五十日內，當主與我們同住時，我們就得飽足。但當這些日子過後，祂升天了，我們就再度禁食；正如那同一位救主說：「日子將到，那時新郎要從他們中間被取去；在那些日子裡他們就要禁食了。」（同上）因為當基督升天時，祂便從我們眼前被取去；我們忍受飢餓，不是身體的飢餓，而是愛的飢餓；我們所受的勞苦，與其說是缺食之餓，不如說是渴慕之切。