講道與書信 第 78 章 第 3/6 段

For the ancient Roman pontiffs, down to the times of Gregory VII—that is, down to about the end of the eleventh century—were accustomed to celebrate the divine offices that were performed on the festivity of the Lord's Nativity in three distinct places and at three distinct hours. And this is most openly gathered from the ancient Mass-books of the Roman Church, namely the Antiphonary of Saint Gregory the Pope, recently brought to light by the praised Joseph Maria Thomasius, where, on page 15, it is thus read in the ancient books: 'The seventh before the Kalends of January. The Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In the middle of the night of the Lord's Nativity. At Saint Mary, the antiphon at the introit: The Lord said to me, etc.'; and on page 16: 'Likewise at the first dawn, at Saint Anastasia.'

'The antiphon at the introit: A light shall shine upon us this day, etc.'; and on page 17: 'On the day of the Lord's Nativity, at the Mass. The station at Saint Peter. The antiphon at the introit: Unto us a child is born, etc.' And in the Comes of Alcuin, emended by order of the emperor Charles (that is, Charlemagne), on page 1, after the Antiphonary it is thus read: 'Here begin the titles of the readings of the following book. I. On the Vigil of the Lord. II. at Saint Mary. III. at Saint Mary. IV. at Saint Peter.' And in the Capitularies of the Gospels of the yearly cycle, on page 141: 'On the Nativity of the Lord. At Saint Mary Major, etc. Likewise at Saint Anastasia, etc. Likewise at Saint Peter, etc.'

The things related thus far are more clearly understood from Peter Mallius, who flourished in the twelfth century, where he says: 'In the first Mass of that same night, at the Crib. In the morning, at Saint Anastasia. But in the Mass of the day, in ancient times—that is, down to the time of Gregory VII—the station was at Saint Peter, whence still the canons receive for the presbytery of the night 8 solidi. But now the Mass of the day is celebrated at Saint Mary Major, because the way is short and the days are brief.' Mallius has been printed, but mutilated; these things cited are found at the beginning of the manuscript. Wherefore I conclude that in the age of Saint Leo the station on the day of the Lord's Nativity was in the Vatican basilica, and that thus there was a concourse of the people there, and there Saint Leo delivered the homilies related above.

That most wise pontiff did not intend to forbid prayer with the face turned to the east; he knew exceedingly well the sayings of the ancient Fathers; but he wished to abolish the depraved rite of the Manichaeans. And let these things suffice as said concerning the word 'area' (court). Yet I by no means think it should be passed over in silence what Casalius holds, in his work On the Ancient Sacred Rites of the Christians, chapter 3, opining that this rite of turning oneself to the east was observed by the faithful in the atrium of Saint Peter's;

and that therefore, to avert every suspicion of idolatry, in the year 1300 a nave of mosaic work was constructed by Giotto the Florentine, an excellent painter, at the command of Cardinal Stefaneschi, nephew by a brother of Boniface VIII, the supreme pontiff; in which Saint Peter with the other apostles, and Christ our Lord on the seashore calling Peter to Himself, are seen. And since this painting was in the inner part of the portico, it was not placed there to abolish this rite of turning oneself to the east, but on account of a particular devotion, or some other cause; because a rite of this kind was observed outside the portico, at the summit of the stairs, before the faithful entered the portico itself.

Receive therefore, as a token of mutual love, the things I have said thus far; and I foretell to you that, just as you flourish in age and in studies, so also in that same age, being mature, you shall gather the most abundant fruits of your studies. Farewell. 1. Two things Quesnel noted in chapter 1 of this sermon. First, to these words of the holy pontiff, 'Thus has the hand of our Author fashioned us, that with his Maker even he who is restored may work,' he subjoined this remark: 'It helps to explain these words by the words of Saint Bernard in his book On Grace and Free Will, chapter 14: To this indeed grace goes before, that thenceforth free will may cooperate with it. Yet in such a way that what has been begun by grace alone is equally brought to perfection by both, so that they work intermingled, not separately;'

'together, not by turns, through each advance they work, not partly grace and partly free will; but each accomplishes the whole by an undivided work. The whole indeed both this and the whole that; but as the whole is in the latter, so the whole is from the former.' This is well enough said. 2. Further, upon those words of the Author: 'Let not human disobedience withdraw itself from the grace of God; nor let it fail from that good, without which it cannot be good; and if it experiences anything impossible or arduous to itself in the carrying out of the commandments, let it not remain in itself, but have recourse to Him who commands, who therefore gives the precept, that He may arouse desire and furnish aid'—upon these words, I say, Quesnel appended in the margin this postil of the following kind: 'The commandments of God impossible to a man remaining in himself.'

Yet the cited words of Leo do not, properly and generally, exhibit this opinion. For he does not pronounce generally concerning all commandments, or rather, as he says, concerning 'the carrying out of the commandments.' But that phrase 'let it not remain in itself' he properly dictates with this counsel alone, evidently that men may be admonished not to trust in themselves in the matters which they experience as impossible or arduous, but to have recourse to God who commands. And since to them is indicated the manner of obtaining the divine aid by which the commandments even of the most difficult things—or, as they seem, impossible things—may be fulfilled, the properly-so-called impossibility of the commandments is excluded. 3.

On this occasion it is useful to consider two other passages of the same Quesnel in sermon 90, by which he, anxious to bring in the impossibility of the precepts, will be more openly recognized as to how far he is from Leo's opinion. The holy pontiff wrote in that sermon 90, chapter 2: 'And lest we be led even to slothful idleness by despair, the things that are impossible to man through his own weakness, He (the Lord) promises to be possible through the divine power.' Nothing is sounder or truer. But Quesnel in the margin: 'The precepts without grace are impossible'; and in the synopsis of the second chapter: 'Nothing is possible without the grace of Christ, even to the regenerate.'

Do you see how wide a difference lies between the words of Leo and of Quesnel? Quesnel affirms a general impossibility without the grace of God, and imposes it upon the precepts themselves; and he affirms it in such a way that (if the proposition be not about a subject, which never happens) he presumes that impossibility to be found sometimes even in the regenerate. Leo, on the contrary, neither in the cited words nor in the whole context intimates a general impossibility; nor does he attribute the impossibility which he does assert to the divine precepts, but to the weakness of man, in such a way that it can be overcome by the divine help. But this impossibility of weakness, so to speak, signifies not an absolute and true impossibility, but a difficulty, which by common usage is wont to be called impossibility;

whence the holy pontiff, in the cited text from sermon 43, employed 'impossible' and 'arduous' as synonyms; and in sermon 94, chapter 2, saying, 'When that which I command seems to be difficult,' he called 'difficult' what elsewhere he had said to be 'impossible.' 4. On the other hand, he indicated the precepts of God to be possible in such a way that he attributed to them the power to rouse a man to ask for help, which, if it be asked, will be obtained; but if it be not asked and be lacking, the impossibility will be voluntary, which is wrongly ascribed to the precepts, nor will it furnish a fitting excuse; whence he wrote in sermon 49, chapter 4: 'For the precept is given for this reason, that the help of Him who commands may be sought. Nor let anyone excuse himself under the occasion of infirmity, since He who granted the willing gives also the being able.' Hence rightly Saint

Thomas, in question 24 of On Truth, article 74, after having taught in the response to the first objection: 'That which God has commanded is not impossible for man to keep,' added this in the response to the second: 'Rightly is a man rebuked who does not fulfill the precepts; because it is from his negligence that he does not have the grace by which he can keep the commandments.' 5. We observe moreover that Leo, in sermon 43, is speaking of all the just, to whom those words are fitting: 'Nor let it fail from that good, without which it cannot be good.' That he speaks of the regenerate and the just can also be gathered from sermon 90, from chapter 1. Furthermore, the Author openly delivers that no commandments are impossible to man, especially to the just man, in sermon 18, chapter

1, where he writes concerning the nature of man now redeemed and now reborn by holy baptism: 'It would be corrupted by carnal desire, unless it were fortified by spiritual help; and so, just as there is never lacking to it that whereby it may fall, so there is ALWAYS at hand that whereby it may stand fast, the Apostle saying: For God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able, but will make with the temptation a way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.' To these words Quesnel, in a marginal postil: 'What is a soul, even regenerate, without the help of God?' He wrote not 'what it was,' but 'what it is'; as if some soul already regenerate, and therefore just, according to Leo's opinion, sometimes lacks the help of God; whereas he testifies: 'There is always at hand that whereby it may stand fast.'

To this man, therefore, Leo could not affirm the divine commandments to be impossible, in sermon 43, since this impossibility is eliminated by that divine help which he taught to be always at hand for him. Hence the holy pontiff openly opposes the first proposition of Jansen, by which the divine commandments are handed down as impossible even to just men, and grace as lacking to them whereby they might become possible. Since Leo delivers that there is always at hand for them that whereby they may stand fast, he certainly acknowledged that some grace is always present to them, by which they might either do what they could, or ask for what they could not—as, after Augustine (in the book On Nature and Grace, chapter 43), the Synod of Trent (Session 6, chapter 11) taught. Whence in the more difficult cases the holy pontiff frequently suggested the remedy of prayer, both in this sermon

43 and elsewhere, as we have advised. See how beautifully it harmonizes with Catholic doctrine, and how it dissents from the Jansenian. 6. Quesnel, therefore, having omitted that postil which he affixed to chapter 1 of sermon 43, would better have substituted another more congruent with Leo's opinion for those words of the cited testimony: 'Let not human obedience withdraw itself from the grace of God'; namely this: 'Let obedience not be withdrawn from the grace of God'; which proposition, since it presumes that it can be withdrawn and is sometimes in fact withdrawn, is opposed to the third Jansenian proposition, and also to the fifteenth Quesnelian, condemned in the constitution Unigenitus, which openly insinuates that human obedience never withdraws itself from interior grace.

'When God accompanies His commandment and His eternal utterance with the unction of His Spirit and the interior force of grace, He works in the heart that obedience which He asks.' 1. Upon these words of Leo in chapter 1: 'Among the degrees of progress there is none that ought not always to be better,' Quesnel annotated thus: 'The same he has in sermon 11 On Lent, chapter 1: No one, he says, is so holy that he ought not to be holier; no one so devout that he ought not to be more devout. He sins, therefore, who does not always strive toward greater righteousness. For it is a sin, says Augustine, when either there is not the charity which ought to be, or it is less than it ought to be (On the Perfection of Righteousness, chapter 6 and following).'

'Indeed, culpable is whoever does not love God with his whole soul, whom he is commanded so to love, and whoever covets what he is forbidden to covet. Yet He does not impute these things to those who faithfully say to Him: Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. And whoever thinks he need not pray this, professes himself to be no Christian. For as long as we live here, there is still something of carnal concupiscence which is at least bridled by continence, until perfect righteousness be made like unto full health: but then full health, when full charity; then full charity, when we shall see Him as He is.' Thus he. 2.

Besides the precept of charity, which requires an increase of charity and righteousness itself, as Saint Thomas taught in the third book of the Sentences, distinction 29, question 1, article 8, question 2, Leo himself opens a more obvious and more expeditious way, who, both in the present sermon 6 On the Nativity of the Lord and in sermon 11 which Quesnel praised, so joins this obligation of increasing Christian righteousness with the temptations and concupiscences that on all sides beset even any holy person, as if the one depended upon the other.

For indeed it is certain that the precept of the love of God, when it demands that we beware even of the lighter sins, then also requires that we resist the concupiscences and temptations which incite us to sin. And in this daily resistance, which anyone even holy ought to exercise, many acts of the virtues, and especially charity, will have to be practiced; and thus there stands ever an occasion and an obligation for Christian righteousness always to be increased.

But just as the temptations and concupiscences will never be wholly taken away in this life, so there will never be a ceasing from resisting them, and consequently from growing in righteousness from day to day, until we arrive at that eternal life, in which there will be no temptations, no concupiscences to be resisted; and therefore in this life, among the degrees of progress, as Leo says, there is none that ought not always to be better. 1. To the aforementioned testimony of Saint Leo, Quesnel subjoined this annotation: 'A doctrine drawn from the principles of Augustine, nay, from the very principles of the faith.'

'For since no one can, as he ought, obey the precepts of God without charity, and among the precepts of God the precept of believing is not the least, it is manifest that it was aptly said by Leo, that without love one does not believe. One passage of Augustine will stand in place of all, that the meaning and doctrine of both may be understood. Therefore, in the book On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 16, he says: Grace therefore precedes even faith; otherwise, if faith precedes it, without doubt the will also precedes it, since faith cannot exist without the will. But if grace precedes faith, because it precedes the will, assuredly it precedes all obedience, it precedes also charity, by which alone God is truly and sweetly obeyed.'

'And all these things grace works in him to whom it is given, and whose all these things it precedes.' Thus far Quesnel. 2. But the whole force of this Quesnelian annotation lies in this: that Saint Leo affirmed 'without love one does not believe' for the reason that, just as with the other precepts, so also with the precept of faith no one can, as he ought, obey without charity—by which alone, as Augustine says, God is truly and sweetly obeyed; and therefore he delivered Leo's doctrine as drawn from the principles of Augustine. But here one must beware lest a locution of this kind be taken in the sense which Quesnel's proposition 47, proscribed in the constitution Unigenitus, sets forth, namely:

'The obedience of the law ought to flow from a source, and this source is charity. When the love of God is its interior principle, and the glory of God its end, then that which appears exteriorly is pure; otherwise it is nothing but hypocrisy, or false righteousness'—which agree with proposition 17, condemned by Saint Pius V among the Baian propositions: 'There is no true obedience of the law which is done without charity.' And indeed, in defense of the 47th Quesnelian proposition, we read Augustine's testimony from the book On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 16, urged in the Quesnelian Hexapla, and depravedly explained, or rather distorted. For when the holy

doctor said that by charity alone one truly obeys, they thence inferred that without charity one does not truly obey, but by deceit, whereby all obedience of this kind is not true obedience of the law, but is to be referred to hypocrisy and false righteousness. 3. If Quesnel subjoined that annotation in this so depraved and proscribed sense and intention, if he had wished those words of Leo, 'without love one does not believe,' to signify that they are to be taken in this opinion: that the faith which is found without charity in sinners is not true faith, by which the precept of faith is truly obeyed:

to which opinion, indeed, propositions 52 and 58, condemned in the aforesaid constitution, are akin, by which Quesnel asserted that faith and true religion by no means subsist without love and charity. Which monster of doctrine, as regards faith, the Synod of Trent had expressly pre-condemned long before, Session 6, canon 28: 'If anyone shall say... that the faith which remains (in the sinner) is not true faith, though it be not living; or that he who has faith without charity is not a Christian, let him be anathema.' Whence also there was proscribed by Alexander VIII proposition 12: 'When love is lacking in great sinners, faith also is lacking; and even if they seem to believe, it is not divine faith, but human.' 5.

If this proposition, 'Without love one does not believe,' be considered separately from its context, someone might suspect that the holy pontiff took the name of 'love' in a broad sense—that is, not of charity alone, but of any love whatsoever, so that even that love is involved by which whoever believes at least in some measure loves the truth and faith itself. But just as from the context, from which the genuine sense of the words is always to be gathered, it becomes plain that Saint Leo understands by the name of 'love' that charity which brings forth eternal fruit, so by the name of 'faith' he understands living faith, which together with charity contributes to seeing and meriting God.

For indeed, in the second chapter of that sermon, into which the praised words are inserted, he had already from the beginning proposed to himself to set forth by what kind of ways we ought to strive toward God's promises, namely toward eternal glory. He soon subjoins two ways from sacred Scripture, namely of mercy and of truth, and warns that these are not divided, since each virtue ought to be connected, that we may strive toward that end. Soon he passes to the end and to charity, and affirms the connection of these virtues likewise to be necessary for the same end; whence he adds: 'Then is the name true, and true the fruit (namely, eternal) of both, when the indissoluble connection of each remains.' And indeed, about to explain this connection as altogether necessary for that end, he immediately adds:

For where they are not present together, together they are lacking; because (let the reasoning be noted, which sets forth the goal of blessedness) they are to one another both aid and light: until the reward of vision fulfils the desire of belief, and that be seen and loved unchangeably, which now is neither cherished without faith nor believed without love, namely so that it may be usefully believed in order to obtain the reward of vision. This connexion and this goal are more openly suggested by the words at once added: 'For since, as the Apostle says, in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works through love,' let us at one and the same time and conjointly be zealous both for charity and for faith.

For this is a certain most efficacious flight upon twin wings, by which purity of mind is lifted up to merit and to see God, lest it be pressed down by the burden of carnal cares. For he who said, 'Without faith it is impossible to please God,' the same says, 'If I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing'—assuredly nothing before God, before whom without charity nothing profits, as the Apostle speaks in the same place. For thus the holy pontiff in Sermon 2 on the Fast of Pentecost, chapter 3, expounded: 'Since the Apostle says that no virtues profit him without charity.' Hence again Leo, in chapter 3 of Sermon 45, inserted that principle:

'That which does not proceed from the fount of faith does not attain to the eternal rewards'—where he shows that he is speaking of that faith by which we merit the eternal reward, which cannot exist without charity. You see therefore how properly all things are referred to the goal of eternal blessedness. 6. It will at length become evident that no other interpretation of Leo's mind than this is possible, from Sermon 4 on the Collections, chapter 1, where he sufficiently intimates that in many there is faith without charity; but that faith of this kind, disjoined from charity, avails nothing unto salvation or the eternal reward. For speaking of many Christians, he says: 'From many, whose faith the devil could not take away, he has removed charity;'

'and having seized the field of their heart with the roots of avarice, it despoiled of the fruit of works those whom it did not deprive of the fruit of the lips.' What could be plainer? Hence also in Sermon 10 on Lent, chapter 3, he openly confesses that right faith, by which the precept of faith is sufficiently obeyed, can stand without charity, but is not fruitful unto future glory if it be without charity. 'For although,' he says, 'it be a great thing to have right faith and sound doctrine, and although the circumcision of the appetite, the gentleness of meekness, the purity of chastity be worthy of much praise, yet all virtues are naked without charity, nor can that be called fruitful in any excellence of conduct which the offspring of love has not brought forth.' Hence are to be understood those words of Sermon 18, chapter

3, where, describing the various advances of Christians, he says: 'In faith is the germ, in hope the increase, in charity the maturity;' by which he acknowledges faith and hope to be virtues, but not fruitful of eternal life unless from charity they obtain maturity. Thus the doctrine of the holy pontiff, drawn from the principle of faith which the Tridentine synod established together with Scripture and tradition, is recognized as foreign to the proscribed theses. 7. Nor does it cohere any less with the principles of Augustine, who in many places has expressly taught that faith is repeatedly found without charity, as in Sermon 90, number 8: 'You can have faith without love;'

and he affirms that only to him who believes without charity is this faith empty, that is, useless unto the eternal reward, writing thus in the Enchiridion, number 117: 'But he who does not love believes in vain, even though the things he believes be true;' and in Book VIII on the Trinity, chapter 4: 'Unless He be loved through faith, the heart cannot be cleansed, so as to be fit and suitable for seeing God.' Now, in this sense, when in the book On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 16, he wrote of that charity by which alone God is truly and sweetly obeyed, he took the word 'truly' of the perfect obedience of the law, by which a man becomes fit and suitable for seeing God, as they prove more fully from other testimonies of Augustine who treat of this same doctrine of his of set purpose.

But for us let it suffice to have explained and established Leo's opinion. 'The same' (says Quesnel in the annotation appended to the cited testimony) 'he holds above in Sermon 2 on Lent, chapter 5: The most pious emperors of the Roman world,' he says, 'preserve by ancient observance a holy custom, who, in honour of the passion and resurrection of Christ, tempering the severity of their constitutions, order those guilty of many faults to be released. And in Sermon 9, chapter 3: That the severity of punishments, which even now is relaxed in the public tribunals, etc. To what extent that remission and relaxation was to be extended—whether the accused, loosed only from their chains, remained in custody, or were also dismissed from prison—I do not find clearly defined.'

In the supplicatory booklet of the monks who were under Eutyches, inserted in Act 1 of the Council of Chalcedon, these things are found: 'There has come,' they say, 'the day of the saving passion and the sacred night and the festival of the Resurrection, in which indeed by our holy Fathers the condemnations of very many sinners are loosed; and also by the emperors the criminal bonds of the accused are relaxed; and every house and every forum is filled with just gladness.' From these words it appears that at least some of the accused were set at liberty at the Paschal feast by imperial laws. Yet there is nothing in the Code which asserts this, although there are several which suspend all proceedings against the accused—some through the whole of Lent, others through the fifteen days of the Paschal feast. Code,

Book III, title 12, On Feast Days: 'For the forty days which by the auspice of ceremonies anticipate the Paschal feast, let all cognizance of criminal cases be forbidden.' Emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian, the three Augusti. 'In the fifteen Paschal days let the compulsion of the annona-service and the exaction of all public and private debts be deferred.' Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, the three Augusti. Another constitution of the same emperors contains an exception which confirms rather than weakens the opinion of our Leo: 'In these matters, however,' they say, 'let all have the liberty both of emancipating and of manumitting.' But the passage of Leo cited in the first place, from Sermon

2 on Lent, seems more clearly to assert that those guilty of many faults were released by imperial constitutions through this solemnity of the Paschal days. For that 'to be relaxed' means nothing other than 'to be dismissed' is proved from Sermon 47, On the Passion 8, chapter 3, where he writes that the peoples cried out that Pilate might release Barabbas by his indulgence.' Thus far Quesnel. But if he had observed the title of the Justinianic Code 'On the Episcopal Audience,' Book I, title 4, he would have found the law of Valentinian II, number 3, drawn up and published in the year 385, in which these things are contained: 'Let the judges execute what we have been accustomed to grant as indulgence. When the first Paschal day shall have arrived, let the prison hold none confined; let the bonds of all be dissolved;'

and there are appended exceptions of certain accused persons and crimes. But in the Theodosian Code, Book IX, title 28, 'On the Indulgences of Crimes,' five such laws occur, two of Valentinian the Elder and three of the Younger, of which the last is the one already cited; from which it is gathered that this indulgence was at first introduced by a certain custom, or even prescribed by the letters of the emperors sent yearly to all the cities according to usage, as is clear from two testimonies of Chrysostom—and that it gave rise to certain doubts concerning some accused persons, whether they were to be released by the same indulgence; and that those laws were issued in order to resolve those doubts. But in the last law a general sanction was published, which embraces all the exceptions.