講道與書信 第 78 章 第 5/6 段

I of the Corpus of Medieval History, from the same manuscript, besides the Calendar, reproduced most accurately the four remaining monuments in the same order in which they are presented in the manuscript, and even with the same errors of the copyists. From the observation of these five documents it is clear that all were composed under the reign of Constantius. For in the Roman-profane Calendar no birthday is noted of any emperors later than Constantius; and he is styled with the title not of 'the deified' (divi), like the others already deceased, but of 'lord' (domini), which is an indication of one living. The consular Fasti and the Catalogue of the Prefects of the City end in the year 354.

The calendar, which is wont to be called Bucherian, and is entitled 'The Burial of the Martyrs and Bishops,' while it notes the day of death and the place of burial of the Roman pontiffs, ends with Julius, who died in the year 352. Finally, the Catalogue of the supreme pontiffs is concluded with Liberius, the successor of Julius, in such a way that indeed the day of his ordination is noted, but not the day of his death, as had been designated in the case of his predecessors—which indicates that he was still surviving. From these observations, one and the same author of all such monuments is recognized, a contemporary of Liberius and Constantius. And from the profane Calendar the author's name is drawn out, namely Furius Dionysius Philocalus.

Since, moreover, all things both sacred and profane that are noted in these monuments are Roman, and are filled with peculiar and most minute details even of the city and Church of Rome, it appears certain that this Philocalus learned and wrote these details at Rome—which contributes very much toward winning credit for these documents. 3. Moreover, for the matter at hand, it is not to be dissembled that the entire text of the Bucherian calendar is expressed in these words: 'On the third before the Kalends of July, Peter in the Catacombs, and Paul on the Ostian Way, when Tuscus and Bassus were consuls.' From this notation of the Catacombs and of the consulship, some have suspected that the day of some translation rather than of death was designated by this calendar.

But Philocalus himself resolves this difficulty by means of two other little works, in which the day of the martyrdom of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul is marked as the third before the Kalends of July, namely in the Catalogue of the Roman pontiffs in these words, 'He (St. Peter) suffered together with Paul on the third day before the Kalends of July,' on page 26 of Eckhart's edition; and in the consular Fasti on page 10: 'Under Nero Caesar and Verus. In this consulship Peter and Paul suffered on the third before the Kalends of July.' The words 'suffered' (passus) and 'they suffered' (passi sunt) assuredly indicate expressly the day of death.

Therefore, if from the Bucherian calendar alone, as it is wont to be called, considered separately from the other little works, one could doubt—especially from the added consulship—whether in it, according to the author's mind, a day of translation rather than of death be designated; certainly, from the comparison of the same calendar with the two other little works of the same author, there can be no doubt that in it the author, equally as in those, wished to indicate the day of martyrdom, with which perhaps also a translation or some other event unknown to us, denoted by the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus, coincided. So much concerning the author and the meaning of the Bucherian calendar. 4.

Furthermore, that Silvius, the author of the other, profane Calendar, was a Gallic writer, is known not only from the fact that he dedicated his little work to Bishop Eucherius, who presided over the Church of Lyons—as may be seen in Bolland, vol. I of January, in the preface, ch. 4, § 3—but is also gathered from the Life of St. Hilary of Arles, in which Silvius is reckoned among other writers who added to (the works of) the same Hilary as he preached; and hence too the author of the Chronicle published under the name of Prosper Tiro, who is likewise a Gallic author, at the year 439 records the same writer Silvius, passed over by others, because he was known to himself in Gaul. But the Calendar of this Silvius is not sacred, but profane.

And that he had other calendars from which to excerpt, and set forth some things more fully in his own style, changed or added others, Bolland shows in his preface to vol. I. But among the profane matters, very few sacred feasts are noted in passing there, as may be seen in the Bollandists, vol. VI of June, part II, where the entire Calendar of Silvius was published. Among these feasts, however, notable is the feast of St. Vincent the martyr on the eleventh before the Kalends of February, which was not then celebrated among the Romans; and likewise the feast of the Maccabees on the Kalends of August, which we have shown, in the admonition prefixed to Sermon 18 of the Appendix, was not yet begun at Rome in the age contemporary with Leo. But that this calendar was written at Rome, as Quesnel indicates, nowhere appears from the manuscript.

Nay, from the very notation of the burial of the holy Apostles on the eighth before the Kalends of March—against which the three monuments of Furius Philocalus, together with all other ecclesiastical documents, stand opposed—it is clear that that Calendar could not have been written at Rome; and this is proved much more manifestly by the most ancient Roman Sacramentary published under the name of Leo and to be reprinted by us in vol. II, which—savoring of the age of Leo and of Silvius himself (as will be shown in the same volume)—exhibits the day of the martyrdom of the same apostles as then celebrated in the month of June, and the octave in the month of July. Nay, from Leo himself the very same may be gathered. For he, in Sermon 85 delivered on their octave, chapter 1, indicates that on the day of their festivity Rome was delivered from the Vandals.

But since this deliverance fell on the 29th day of June, as we have established in the admonition to that same sermon, we understand that to the same day that festivity, and consequently the day of martyrdom, was ascribed. It is therefore more probable that Silvius, writing in Gaul and less skilled in the Roman feasts—who, in the aforementioned Chronicle of Prosper Tiro, is said to be of a rather disturbed mind—by error noted on the eighth before the Kalends of March the burial of SS. Peter and Paul in place of the Nativity of St. Peter of the Chair, which is ascribed to this day in the Philocalian calendar. Perhaps, since he saw the feast of the Chair of St. Peter celebrated among the Gauls on the eighteenth before the Kalends of February, he supposed that the Romans then celebrated that festivity on the same day, and on that account (placed) the feast on the eighth before the Kalends

of March, noted in some documents similar to the Bucherian, he supposed to be the day not of the Chair but of the burial. Thus in this matter the authority of Silvius seems to be wholly removed, which alone was causing trouble to all the critics. 1. Most celebrated is Leo's text concerning the two loves, of God and of the world, expressed in these words in Sermon 5 on the Fast of the Seventh Month, chapter 3: 'For there are two loves from which all volitions proceed, so diverse in qualities as they are divided by their authors. For the rational soul, which cannot be without love, is either a lover of God or of the world.' To these words Quesnel affixed this gloss: 'Whatever is not from the love of God is from the love of the world, and therefore sin.'

But since this sentence can be referred to the condemned propositions of Baius and Quesnel (whence this text of the holy pontiff is especially urged by the Baianists and Quesnellians), it must be more accurately explained what has been condemned in the proscribed theses, and how far Leo's words are from the condemned meaning. 2. Among the propositions of Baius, the 38th is of this kind: 'Every love of the creature is either the vicious cupidity by which the world is loved, which is forbidden by John, or that laudable charity by which, poured forth in the heart through the Holy Spirit, God is loved.' And proposition 40: 'In all his acts the sinner serves the dominating cupidity.' Among the Quesnellian propositions, 44: 'There are but two loves, from which all our volitions and actions arise:

the love of God, which does all things for God, and which God rewards; and the love by which we love ourselves and the world, which does not refer to God what ought to be referred to Him, and for this very reason becomes evil.' And proposition 45: 'When the love of God no longer reigns in the heart of the sinner, it is necessary that carnal cupidity reign in it, and corrupt all his actions.' The discourse here is concerning love reigning in the hearts of men, and thus all acts are said to proceed from the reigning love, so that the very acts of the virtues in sinners—in whom not the love of God but of the world reigns—being infected by this love, must be sins: whence there is another proposition of Baius, the 35th: 'Everything that a sinner or a slave of sin does is sin.' 3.

How false and absurd these are, everyone sees. For just as the just, in whom the love of God reigns, can perform, and now and then do perform, certain slightly evil acts—not indeed from the love of the world dominating in them (which cannot be combined with the habitual charity of God reigning in the just), but from some slighter and creeping love of the world, for example, of vainglory, of gluttony, etc., by which neither does cupidity dominate in them nor is the habitual love of God expelled—so by sinners, in whom the love of the world reigns, certain good acts can be produced from some love of virtue, for example,

of faith, of hope, of mercy, of prayer, etc., which, although it is not that love of God by which the reigning love of the world is expelled, nevertheless is not love of the world, nor can it be referred to love of the world. For this cause the Synod of Trent, session 6, canon 7, struck with anathema the dogma of the Lutherans, who say that all works which precede justification are sins: 'If anyone shall say that all works done before justification are truly sins... let him be anathema.' It is therefore condemned to say that all works which do not proceed from the charity of God reigning in the heart of men pertain to the love and concupiscence of the world, and consequently are sins; which nevertheless the gloss of Quesnel described above indicates. 4.

But if anyone should endeavor so to soften some of the condemned theses that the discourse be not of the reigning love of God, but of the love of God taken more broadly, whereby works are referred to God, it is equally condemned to say that all acts of virtue, however good, if they be not referred to God by this love, are sins—as the last part of Quesnel's thesis 44 insinuates. For, to say nothing of the celebrated question among theologians concerning the referring of works to God, it is certain among all Catholics that the works of the moral virtues, performed not only by sinners but even by unbelievers from a motive of virtue, are of themselves, or at least by their nature (ex officio), as they say, good, even though they be not referred to God:

for even by those who more severely maintain the obligation of the reference (to God), this omission does not vitiate the good work in itself, but contaminates the one omitting on another account. 5. Certainly St. Leo is most remote from either bad meaning. For in Sermon 48, on Lent 10, chapter 3, he confesses that both a right faith and other works of the moral virtues can be found in Christian sinners, in whom the love of the world dominates; and he testifies only that these are void of eternal fruit through the defect of at least habitual charity.

'For although,' he says, 'it be a great thing to have a right faith and sound doctrine, and much praise-worthy the circumcision of gluttony, the gentleness of meekness, the purity of chastity, yet naked are all virtues without charity, nor can that be called fruitful in any excellence of morals, which the offspring of love has not brought forth.' Moreover, Sermon 44, on Lent 7, chapter

3, speaking of the works of mercy which do not proceed from the fount of faith, and consequently are performed by unbelievers themselves—who, being ignorant of God, referred nothing to Him—he asserted that these are not to be cheated of their praise, and accordingly are good, if they be produced from a motive of compassion with no bad end intermixed; and he taught that these are almost sins only for the reason that he presumed them for the most part performed by unbelievers not from a motive of virtue, but from self-love (philautia), vainglory, or some other corrupted end; concerning which see the observation on Sermon 79. Behold, then, how far the mind and doctrine of Leo are from the meanings of the condemned propositions;

and since one would not wish to fabricate him as contrary to himself, the testimony of the present Sermon 90 cannot be said to favor the proscribed theses. 6. There are indeed not lacking those who think that the love of God is taken by the holy pontiff broadly for any love of virtues, and the love of the world for any love of vices. For just as every love of vices is aptly referred to the love of the world, insofar as the world loves and fosters vices, so the love of all virtues can be broadly referred to the love of God, insofar as God loves and commands all virtues. Nay, since every virtue is justice and truth—as it is often called in Sacred Scripture—and God is justice and truth,

he can be said to love God in a broad sense who loves the virtues from their own proper motive, with no perverse cupidity intermixed. That the holy pontiff sometimes took the love of God for the love of any virtue whatsoever can be gathered from those words of Sermon 95, chapter 6: 'To love God is nothing else than to love justice.' Thus, therefore, whoever loves any virtue, since he loves justice, by this principle of Leo likewise loves God. But whoever exercises some act of virtue from a motive of virtue must necessarily love the virtue itself.

But in this hypothesis concerning the twofold love of God and of the world, to one or other of which all acts of the will are to be referred, it is without doubt more satisfactory to refer the acts of the moral virtues, which are performed from a pure motive of virtue, to the love of God taken broadly, than to the love of the world. For, insofar as they can be recalled to the love of God at least broadly, this can be explained and understood from the indicated reason; but insofar as they should be referred to the love of the world—which, being 'set in wickedness,' is, as we have intimated, a lover and persuader of vices, not of virtues, and so indeed be referred that whoever loves and exercises the virtues from a motive of virtue must be said to love and exercise them from love of the world—no man of sound mind will understand. 7.

But it is one thing that this hypothesis is far from the condemned theses, and quite another that Leo's words, which we are now weighing, are to be accepted in this sense. What meaning, then, properly underlies these very words, you will easily perceive if you first set down two observations. First, that the holy pontiff writes that there are two loves from which all volitions (voluntates) proceed—not from which all acts of the will proceed; and therefore he is speaking of the volitions themselves, not of individual acts of the will. Hence, when he pronounces those volitions to be so diverse in qualities as they are divided by their authors, or loves, he indicates that the volitions are diverse—that is, good or evil—according as they differ and are divided among themselves by diverse love.

Second, that the two loves are here taken not of any love of God or of the world whatsoever, but of the love reigning in the will of man, is clear from this: that only from such a love can it be verified that a man is constituted either a lover of God, that is, just, or of the world, that is, a sinner. Whence at the beginning of the following chapter too the Author said: 'This affection (of God), by which earthly love is excluded'—which things are true of the dominating love of God. This is confirmed much more luminously by those things which he shortly subjoined: 'And therefore we must cleave inseparably to eternal goods' (which signify a predominating love of the ultimate end), 'but temporal things must be used in passing, not enjoyed, nor clung to as to an ultimate end.' 8. These things being premised, behold the open and genuine sense of the Author.

There are two loves, from which all volitions proceed, so diverse in qualities of goodness or malice, as they are divided by their authors. Those, namely, which are affected by the love of God, so that they love God above all things, and man is thence a lover of God, that is, in the charity of God, are good volitions; but those are evil in which the love of the world so dominates that man, the charity of God being excluded, is constituted a lover of the world. And since the rational soul cannot be without love prevailing on one side or the other, it is therefore either a lover of God or of the world; and all volitions consequently, good or evil, are so diverse in qualities as they are divided by their authors.

This is the obvious sense of the words, concerning all volitions good or evil according to the predominating love. Who then does not see how wrongly his words are dragged to all and singular acts of the will, as if Leo had taught that all and singular acts proceed from one or other of those loves, so that whatever acts are not from the love of God are from the love of the world, and therefore sins, as Quesnel's gloss insinuates; and by this reasoning that those very works of the virtues should be accused as sins, which the holy pontiff professed to be, in sinners or even in unbelievers, not evil but good? 9. In this same sermon, chapter 3, St. Leo writes:

'What allures by the beauty, the abundance, the variety (of creatures) is not easily declined, unless in that beauty of visible things the Creator rather than the creature be loved.' Quesnel noted in the margin upon these words: 'The love of God alone draws one back from the love of the creature.' Do you see, from the comparison, the less correct interpreter? 'It is not easily declined,' says Leo: for those who halt in the love of creatures, and in their beauty, abundance, and variety do not love God rather than the creatures, do not easily decline from their perverse allurements, and most easily sin.

This is the whole sentence of Leo. But whether this love of God, without which one is not easily declined from such allurements and from the illicit love of creatures, alone draws one back from this forbidden affection—not Leo, but Quesnel affirms; since nevertheless it is certain that men are drawn back from sins (though not so easily) also by fear, especially by that fear of hell (Gehenna) and of punishments, which, engendering sorrow for sins, conceived by the gift of God and the impulse of the Holy Spirit, not only restrains the hand from the illicit deed but even excludes the very will of sinning—as is gathered clearly enough from the Synod of Trent, session 14, chapter 4.

This fear of hell indeed, into which one falls not so much by deed as by evil affection, ought of itself to impel and move one to exclude both the deed and every affection of sinning (as is necessary for escaping hell). This had to be warned of, lest perchance there creep in among the rest the Quesnellian proposition 61, condemned in the constitution Unigenitus: 'Fear restrains only the hand, but the heart is addicted to sin so long as it is not led by the love of justice.' But it is not for us to discourse on this matter in this place; for our purpose was only to show that Leo's meaning is foreign to Quesnel's interpretation. CHAPTER

I.— By the report of our holy brother and fellow-bishop Septimus, which is had from his subjects, we have learned that certain presbyters and deacons, and clerics of diverse order, whom the Pelagian or Coelestian heresy held entangled, have so come over to the Catholic communion in your province that no condemnation of their own error was exacted from them; and that, while the pastoral watches slumbered too much, wolves clothed in sheep's skins (Matt. VII, 15) entered into the Lord's sheepfold without having laid aside their bestial minds; and that they have usurped what by the authority of our canons and decrees is not granted even to the innocent:

namely, that, having left the churches in which they had either received or taken up the clerical office, they carry their instability about through diverse places, ever loving to err, and never to abide on the apostolic foundation. For those who, examined by no scrutiny, are bound by no prejudgment of their profession, chiefly seek this fruit: that under the veil of communion they may approach many houses, and through the knowledge falsely so called corrupt the hearts of many. This they could by no means accomplish, if the prelates of the churches had observed the necessary diligence in the reception of such persons, so that it might not be permitted to any of them to wander abroad into diverse places. CHAPTER II.

— Lest, therefore, this be dared any further, and lest the destruction introduced through the negligence of certain persons tend to the overthrow of many souls, by this authority of our precept we enjoin upon the diligence of your fraternity that, a synod of the provincial priests being gathered before you, all—whether presbyters, or deacons, or clerics of any order—who from the company of the Pelagians and Coelestians have been received into the Catholic communion with such imprudence that they were not first constrained to the condemnation of their error, may now at least, after their hypocrisy is in some part detected, be compelled to a true correction, which can both profit themselves and harm none.

Let them condemn by open profession the authors of their proud error, and let them detest whatever the universal Church has abhorred in their teaching; and let them declare, in full and open protestations subscribed by their own hand, that they embrace and in all things approve all the synodal decrees which the authority of the Apostolic See has confirmed for the cutting off of this heresy. Let nothing in their words be found obscure, nothing ambiguous. For we know this to be their cunning: that in any little particle of the accursed dogma, which they distinguish from the mass of things to be condemned, they may reckon nothing of their own opinions to be left unsaved.

And while they pretend, for the ease of insinuating themselves, to disapprove and lay aside all their own definitions, they reserve to themselves this one thing by their whole art of deception, unless they be understood: namely, that the grace of God should be thought to be given according to the merits of the recipients. But such grace, unless it be given freely, is not grace, but the wages and recompense of merits; for the blessed Apostle says: By grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God has prepared that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:8-10).

Every bestowal of good works, therefore, is a divine preparation; for no one is justified by virtue before he is justified by grace, which is for each the beginning of righteousness and the fount and origin of good merits. But by these men it is said to be anticipated by natural industry, so that that which is renowned by its own zeal before grace may seem to be wounded by no injury of original sin; and so that what Truth says may be false: For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). It must therefore be guarded against, beloved, and provided with great diligence, lest through men of this sort scandals long extinguished be aroused, and from a dogma once cut off some seed of the same evil in your province...

...the same evil should spring up in your province, which would not only grow up in its own roots, but would also infect the offspring of the holy Church with the venom of its mouth. Those who wish to be seen as corrected, let them purge themselves from all suspicion; and by obeying us, let them prove that they are ours. If any of them should refuse to satisfy the wholesome precepts, whether he be a cleric or a layman, let him be expelled from the fellowship of the Church, lest, as a destroyer of his own soul, he lie in wait against the salvation of another.

We also admonish you to restore to its full force that part of ecclesiastical discipline concerning which it was long ago decreed by the holy Fathers, and often by ourselves: that it should be lawful for no one, whether in the grade of the presbyterate, or in the order of the diaconate, or in any subordinate clerical office, to pass from one Church to another; so that each one, not enticed by ambition, not seduced by covetousness, not corrupted by the persuasion of men, may persevere where he was ordained. Thus, if anyone, seeking his own things and not the things of Jesus Christ, shall neglect to return to his own people and Church, let him be held a stranger both to the privilege of his rank and to the bond of communion.

But let not your Charity doubt that we shall be more vehemently moved if (which we do not suppose) those things be neglected which we decree for the guarding of the canons and for the integrity of the faith; for the faults of the lower orders are to be referred to none more than to slothful and negligent rulers, who often nourish much pestilence while they dissemble to apply the sterner medicine. — Having read the letters of your Fraternity, we recognized the vigor of your faith, which we had long known, congratulating you that you diligently fulfill the pastoral care for the guarding of Christ's flocks; lest the wolves, who have crept in under the guise of sheep (Matt. 7:15), tear apart with beastly savagery all the simple ones;

and lest not only they themselves profit by no correction, but also corrupt those things which are sound. That this may not be able to prevail by viperous deceit, we have directed writings to the metropolitan bishop of the province of Venetia, by which he might recognize that it pertains to the peril of his own state, if anyone coming from the fellowship of the Pelagians and Coelestians be held in Catholic communion without the profession of lawful satisfaction. For it is most salutary, and most full of the benefit of spiritual medicine, that whether presbyters, or deacons, or clerics of any other order whatsoever, who wish to be seen as corrected, should confess without ambiguity that their error and the very authors of that error are condemned by them;

so that for perverse and long-since-dead notions no occasion of hope may remain, nor may any member of the Church be violated by the fellowship of such men, since in all things their profession shall have begun to oppose them.

Concerning them we also command that that constitution of the canons be observed, lest they be permitted to depart from those Churches to which they properly belong, and to pass at their own discretion to places not assigned to them. Since this is rightly not permitted even to the blameless, much less ought it to be lawful for the suspect. Therefore let your Charity, in whose devotion we rejoice, join your care to our dispositions, and together with the aforesaid metropolitan take pains that those things be fulfilled circumspectly and swiftly which have been laudably suggested and salutarily ordained for the safety of the whole Church. — 1. Concerning the question of the Pascha of the year 444.