On the Sacraments: A Selection of Works of Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, and of Peter of Poitiers (Victorine Texts in Translation) (Victorine Texts in Translation, 10) 9782503579436, 2503579434

Citation preview

O n t h e Sac r a m e nts

VICTORINE TEXTS IN TRANSLATION Exegesis, Theology and Spirituality from the Abbey of St Victor

10 Grover A. Zinn Editor in Chief Hugh Feiss, OSB Managing Editor Editorial Board Boyd Taylor Coolman, Dale M. Coulter, Christopher P. Evans, Franklin T. Harkins, Frans van Liere

On the Sacraments A Selection of Works of Hugh and Richard of St Victor, and of Peter of Poitiers

Hugh Feiss, OSB ed.

F

© 2020, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2020/0095/11 ISBN 978-2-503-57943-6 e-ISBN 978-2-503-57944-3 DOI 10.1484/M.VTT-EB.5.114936 ISSN 2507-1912 e-ISSN 2507-1920 Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper.

Hugh of St Victor, De sacramentis, beginning of Book 2. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Clm 7632, fol. 1r probably from the abbey of Indersdorf (Bavaria, Germany), end of the twelfth century.

For Cipriano Vaggagini, OSB Cam (d. 2009), Bernard Sander, OSB (d. 2008), Chuck Skoro (d. 2016), Letitia Thornton, Amy Jaszkowiak, Julia McCoy, and Chelsea Walsh, Generatio ad generationem laudabit opera tua (Ps 144:4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 Foreword (Kevin Irwin) 15 Acknowledgments (Hugh Feiss) 17 Abbreviations 23 General Introduction (Nicole Reibe) Christ, the Church, and the Sacraments 59 Introduction

71 Hugh of St Victor, Prologue to On the Sacraments 2

73 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 2.2 79 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 1.9 Dedication of a Church 95 Dedication of a Church 115 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 2.5 Baptism 125 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 2.6 125 Introduction 152 Translation Confirmation 179 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 2.7 179 Introduction 186 Translation

8

Table of C ontents

The Eucharist 193 Introduction

215 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 2.8

215 Translation 231 Hugh of St Victor, Two Sententiae on the Eucharist 231 Introduction 233 Translations Marriage 237 Introduction

251 Hugh of St Victor, On the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary 251 Introduction 255 Translation



283 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 2.11 283 Introduction 289 Translation (Margaret Jennings and Hugh Feiss, OSB) Vows



335 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 2.12 335 Introduction 344 Translation Penance



353 Historical Development 1: Penance before Hugh of St Victor



377 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 2.14 377 Introduction 390 Translation (Andrew Salzmann)

Table of C ontents





9

431 Historical Development 2: Penance from Gratian to Richard of St Victor

445 Richard of St Victor, On the Difference between Mortal and Venial Sin 445 Introduction 447 Translation

451 Master Richard [of St Victor], On the Power of Loosing and Binding 451 Introduction 457 Translation



481 Historical Development 3: Penitentials; Penitential Practice at St Victor



515 Peter of Poitiers, Compilatio praesens 515 Introduction 532 Translation Anointing of the Sick

589 Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments 2.15 589 Introduction 598 Translation 603 Bibliography 625 Indices 627 Index of Scripture References 634 Index of Acient and Medieval Authors 649 Index of Greek and Latin Terms Explained 650 Subject Index

FOREWORD Msgr. Kevin W. Irwin This volume is simply an extraordinary contribution to our knowledge of the sources for the study of sacraments. Ever since theologians and church leaders before and at Vatican II called for a ressourcement— a return to the sources—for Catholic theology in general and sacramental theology in particular, we have been enriched by the publication of re-edited original sources, many in helpful translations. However, in the process of summarizing sources for the liturgy and sacramental theology the work of the Victorines has not received the attention it deserves, sometimes because of lack of competent translations or an eagerness to summarize the tradition of sacramental theology too quickly (e.g., from the fathers, to Peter Lombard, to Trent). This volume not only fills in a major gap in many studies on the sacraments by giving up-to-date translations, it also offers first-rate commentaries on each translated text and about the early medieval and medieval periods of church life and practice. The translated texts deserve to be studied again and again. None of them can be digested in one sitting. Their (scriptural) images, metaphors, and allegories offer us a wealth of insight about how sacraments were celebrated, understood, and lived. At the same time, one of the major contributions of this book is that it reflects the evolution of the notion of “sacrament,” where the dedication of a church receives pride of place as intrinsically related to the celebration of the liturgy, in that the church combines time, materiality, and holiness. It is not just a building to house the celebration. The building conveys a theology intrinsically related to the liturgy. Nothing should prevent one from reading these texts for lectio divina. The texts on “vows” and references to “ashes” and “holy water” only enrich our appreciation that the number “seven” was never and should not ever be understood as the limit of the way “sacraments” are to be understood. One reason for “seven” is that it is the number for perfection, which perfection of the redeeming Trinity is experienced in

12

F oreword

the sacraments. Among the many significant turns of phrase that put “sacraments” in high relief is when the author raises the question of the meaning of “vows” and then asks what does it mean “to vow.” Another example is where the author discusses the sacrament of penance and emphasizes human pride and the need for humility. This is a helpful and subtle reminder that sacraments are always for humans and engaged in by humans. These twelfth- and early thirteenth-century texts remind us of the importance of the range of “orders” exercised (i.e., porters, readers, exorcists, acolytes, subdeacons, and deacons), and in particular the priestly office. The importance of preaching is noted again and again as a continuation of the patristic mystagogy. What many regard as watershed insights at the time of Vatican II about Christ and the Church as sacramental are sustaining insights throughout these texts. For example, the Incarnation is the “sacrament of sacraments” and the theology of the church building is really a rich theology of the Church itself as the Body of Christ and the temple of the Spirit. Not surprisingly, healing metaphors abound which serve to encourage an appreciation of God’s mercy through “medicines,” “remedies,” and the “healing” the sacraments can bring. These healings are required because of the Fall, God’s will to save, and the way the sacraments are expressions of the Trinity. One of the many paradoxes expressed here is that humans turned from God to material things. In sacraments, these material things help restore humans to God. In effect, God is the physician, the priest is the minister, grace is the medicine, the container of the medicine is the sacrament. The role of creation in sacraments is a leitmotif throughout almost all the primary sources translated here. That kind of traditional appreciation of the way creation is raised up in worship helps to contextualize Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’, On Care for Our Common Home (especially nn. 233–37). While it is always very helpful to engage such texts in their original language the editors provide helpful information when they place in parenthesis the Latin term they are translating, especially when one term, e.g., hostia is translated in one place as “victim” and in another as “sacrifice.” Similarly, officium receives different translations and the editors indicate them. Each of the Introductions is first rate. They all rely on classical and contemporary authors (in a number of languages) and offer astute ob-

F oreword



13

servations about the history and breadth of sacramental practice from the context provided by the Victorines. The subtitle to the series—exegesis, theology, and spirituality—is apt and reflects precisely what this volume contains. In effect, this book is a stellar example of what a ressourcement sacramental theology can be.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book owes its existence to many generations of scholars and liturgists who have enriched the Church by their wisdom and devotion. Msgr. Kevin Irwin, Emeritis Professor of liturgy at The Catholic University of America, who generously wrote the foreword, sat with me on the same bench in Fr. Cipriano Vaggagini’s course on the notion of “Mystery” at Sant’Anselmo. Fr. Cipriano directed my doctoral dissertation and encouraged me to stay with the Victorines. Luc Jocqué, our editor at Brepols, has been kind, patient, and encouraging from the day that he accepted Victorine Texts in Translation for Brepols. This is the eighth of the ten volumes in the series to appear. The others are scheduled to appear in 2021 and 2022. Members of the editorial board are busy with many things, but they have continued to support the project. Others have joined us. Although the bulk of the book that follows is my work, others have enhanced it. Nicole Reibe (Loyola University Maryland), who has written the introduction for this book, and Andrew Salzmann (Benedictine College), who has translated Hugh of St Victor’s treatment of the sacrament of penance, wrote their dissertations under the direction of board member Boyd Taylor Coolman at Boston College. Margaret Jennings produced a draft translation of Hugh of St Victor’s treatment of Marriage in the De sacramentis, but died before she could complete it. We all owe special thanks to Lucy Stamm, without whose meticulous copy-editing this book might never have been completed. Thanks to the community of The Monastery of the Ascension who gave me time and resources for this project, and to the communities of St John’s at Idaho State University, and St Joseph’s, Unity, Oregon, where much of the book was written. The book is dedicated to two mentors who at the beginning and end of of my studies taught me to love the liturgy, to two admired colleagues in ministry and liturgy, and to three dedicated young teachers with whom I was privileged to celebrate sacraments for several years at St Paul’s at Boise State University.

ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS ABR ACW ANF BGPTMA BV CCCM CCSL CS CSEL CV Denz.–Hün.

DIP DOML DS

American Benedictine Review (1950–). Ancient Christian Writers (Westminster, MD: Newman Press; New York, NY: Paulist, 1946–). Ante Nicene Fathers (New York: Scribners, 1925). Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie [und Theologie] des Mittelalters (Münster i. W.: Aschendorff, 1891–). Bibliotheca Victorina (Turnhout: Brepols, 1991–). Corpus Christianorum continuatio medievalis (Turnhout: Brepols, 1967–). Corpus Christianorum series latina (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954–). Cistercian Studies [Quarterly] (1966–). Corpus scriptorium ecclesiasticorum latinorum (Vienna: 1866–). Corpus Victorinum (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007–). Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Lateinisch– Deutsch: Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. 3rd ed., ed.  and tr.  Peter Hünermann (Freiburg: Herder, 2009). Tr.  Compendium of creeds, definitions, and declarations on matters of faith and morals, ed. Robert Fastiggi (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012). Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione, 10 vols (Rome: Edizione Paoline, 1973–2003). Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library (2010–). Dictionnaire de spiritualité (Paris; Beauchesne, 1937–95).

18 FOC NABRE NPNF

Oeuvres 1 Oeuvres 2 PL RB80

RBen RTAM SBO

SC VTT WSA

A bbreviations

The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1947–). New American Bible. Revised Edition (2010). Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (New  York, 1887–92; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). L’oeuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor, vol. 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997). L’oeuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor, vol. 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000). Patrologia Latina, ed.  J. P, Migne, 221  vols (Paris: 1844–64). RB80: The Rule of St Benedict in Latin and English with Notes, ed.  Timothy Fry (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1981). Revue Bénédictine (Maredsous, 1885–). Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale (1929– 96). Sancti Bernardi opera, ed.  vols  1–8, J.  Leclercq, C. H. Talbot, and H. M. Rochais (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1958–77), vol.  9 ed.  G.  Hendricx (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998). Sources Chrétiennes (Paris: Cerf, 1942–). Victorine Texts in Translation (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010–). Works of St Augustine (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1990–).

VICTORINE AUTHORS Hugh of St Victor Archa Noe Arrha

De  archa Noe (De  arca Noe morali). Ed.  Sicard, CCCM 176; partial tr. Religious of CSMV. De  arrha animae. Ed.  Sicard, Oeuvres 1.211–300, tr. Feiss, VTT 2:183–232.

A bbreviations



19

BM virg.

De  beatae Mariae virginitate. Ed.  Jollès, Oeuvres 2.171–259; tr. Feiss, VTT 10. De sacr. corp. De sacramento corporis. Ed. Wilmart.; tr. Feiss, VTT 10. Dial. sacr. De sacramentis dialogus. PL 176.17–42. Didasc. Didascalicon. Ed. Buttimer; tr. Harkins, VTT 3:81– 202. Libellus Libellus de formatione archae (De arca Noe mystica). Ed. Sicard, CCCM 176–176A; tr. Rudoph, The Mystic Ark. Sacr. De  sacramentis christianae fidei. Ed.  Berndt. PL 176.73–618; tr. Deferrari. Script. De  scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, PL  175.9–28, tr. Van Liere, VTT 3:215–30. Sent, div. Sententiae de divinitate. Ed.  Piazzoni; tr.  Evans, VTT 1:111–77. Super Ierarchiam Super Ierarchiam Dionisii. Ed.  Poirel, CCCM  178. PL 175.923–1154. Vanitate Ed. Giraud, CCCM 269.

Richard of St Victor XII patr. De pot. lig. De diff. pec. LE Serm. cent. Statu

De  duodecim patriarchis (Benjamin minor). Ed. Châtillon; tr. Zinn, The Twelve Patriarchs. De  potestate ligandi et solvendi. Ed.  Ribaillier; tr. Feiss, VTT 10. De differentia peccati mortalis et venialis. Ed. Ribaillier; tr. Feiss, VTT 10. Liber exceptionum. Ed. Châtillon. Sermones centum, PL 177.899–1210. De statu interioris hominis post lapsum. Ed. Ribaillier; tr. Evans, VTT 4:241–314.

20

A bbreviations

OTHER AUTHORS: PATRISTIC Augustine Conf. Confessiones, ed. O’Donnell; Confessions, tr. Chadwick. De gen. ad litt. De Genesi ad litteram, ed. Zycha CSEL 28; tr. Hill, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. WSA 1/13. De civ. Dei De civitate Dei, ed. Dombart and Kalb, CCSL 47–48 [The City of God, tr. Dyson]. Doct. Christ. De doctrina christiana, ed. Martin, CCSL 32; tr. Hill, WSA 1/11. Div. quest. 83 De  diversis questionibus 83. Ed.  Mutzenbecher CCSL 44A; tr. Ramsey, WSA 1/12. En. Ps. Enarrationes in Psalmos. Ed. Dekkers and Fraipont, CCSL  38; Expositions of the Psalms, tr.  Boulding, WSA 3. Jo. ev. tr. In Johannis evangelium tractatus. Ed.  Willems, CCSL 36; tr. Rettig Tractates on the Gospel of John, FOC. Retract. Retractiones. Ed.  Bardy; Revisions, tr.  Ramsey, WSA 1/2.

Gregory Hom. ev. Mor.

Homiliae in Evangelia. Ed. Étaix, Blanc, Judic, SC 522; tr. Hurst, CS 123. Moralia in Job. Ed. Adriaen, CCSL 143; tr. Kerns, Moral Reflections on the Book of Job, CS.

Jerome Heb. nom.

Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, ed. P. de Lagarde, CCSL 72.

A bbreviations



21

OTHER AUTHORS: MEDIEVAL Isidore Etym.

Etymoligiarum seu originum libri XX. Ed. Lindsay; Etymologies, tr. Barney, et al.

Peter Lombard Sent.

Libri IV Sententiarum, 2nd ed. Quaracchi. Sententiae in IV  libros distinctae, 3rd  ed.  Ignatius Brady. Tr. Silano, The Sentences.

Robert of Melun Quest. de div. pag. Questiones de divina pagina. Ed. Martin. Quest. theo. de ep. Pauli Questiones theologicae de epistolis Pauli. Ed. Martin.

Pseudo-Hugh of St Victor Caer. Quest. in ep. Pauli Spec. eccl.

De caeremoniis, sacramentis, officiis et observationibus ecclesiasticis. PL 177.381–456. Questiones et decisiones in Epistolas D. Pauli. Pl 175.431–634 Speculum ecclesiae. PL 177.335–80.

Thomas Aquinas Sum. theo.

Summa theologiae. Ed. Caramello; tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION Nicole Reibe The centrality of sacraments in the Christian life and their accompanying theological underpinnings emerged out of the reforming efforts of Pope Gregory VII (1073–85). Two of the motivations of that reform contributed to the development of the theology of the sacraments: the consolidation of ecclesial power and the reformation of the clergy. The development of marriage, which will be discussed more thoroughly later, illustrates how these two motivations were operative. The ability to define and sanction marriage was one way in which the church took a practice that had, heretofore, been under lay control and placed it into the hands of the Church. According Irven Resnick, great families often bound themselves together and secured economic strength through arranging marriages for their children: “The families exchanged promises, concluded a marriage agreement or pact, and provided a dowry or bride-price.”1 The marriage was finalized through sexual union. These marriages often ran afoul of the Church. Marriages involving close relatives, arranged to secure economic power, violated the Church’s incest laws, and those performed without a priest undermined the sacramentality of marriage. In order to subordinate marriage to ecclesial control, the Church created rules and regulations that had to be observed for the Church to recognize the validity of the union. In the schools of twelfth-century Paris, rules included verbal consent from both parties and the avoidance of consanguinity (prohibiting the marriage of relatives up to the degree of sixth cousins).2 By defining the constitutive elements of marriage, the Church, in effect, had the power to legitimize or delegitimize union. The defining of marriage also had the effect of reforming the clergy, a cause wholeheartedly supported by the Victorines. Over the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries, there had been multiple conciliar 1 2

Irven M. Resnick, “Marriage in Medieval Culture: Consent Theory and the Case of Joseph and Mary,” Church History 69, No. 2 (Jun, 2000): 352. Resnick, “Marriage,” 352.

24

G eneral I ntroduction

decrees prohibiting relationships between clergy and women, whether it be as a wife or concubine. Despite the prohibition, even to the point of defining it as a sin worthy of the name heresy, bishops had a difficult time enforcing the ban, especially among clergy in rural areas, who were dependent upon familiar labor to survive.3 The theological literature concerning marriage as a sacrament included regulations about who can get married, what constitutes a marriage, and the difference between legitimate and illegitimate marriage. These regulations applied to both laity and clergy; on a foundational level the clerical celibacy and the prohibition against entering into a marriage relationship became part of the defining characteristics of the clergy. In the eleventh century, celibacy was associated with a cleric’s ability to perform his priestly duties. Both Pope Nicholas II and Pope Leo IX placed restrictions on priests who were known to be in relationships. Nicholas II forbade the hearing of Mass said by such priests, and Leo IX banned non-celibate priests from singing the Mass and reading the Gospels or epistles.4 Hugh of St Victor connected celibacy, as a form of purity, with the administration of the sacraments. Hugh regards the clergy as people set apart: the ruling class of the spiritual life. They mediate between God and the people, whose salvation depends on them. Clerics in major orders are Christ’s knights, defeating Satan’s army with the sacraments as their weapons. They are also Christ’s medical emissaries, using the sacraments as medicines, but marriage is dependent on ecclesiastical legislation and jurisdiction. Contrariwise, the celibacy of the clerics is a necessary condition for the survival of their class. Without it, not only the clergy but even Christendom itself, Hugh argues, would disintegrate.5

There was also a material motivation to the prohibition of clerical marriage. Married priests could leave church property to their children in their wills. To prevent the creation of “hereditary priestly churches” or the loss of church property, bishops and synods passed provisions “that the children of priests by unions with free women should become unfree dependents of their father’s church, so that the church’s income 3 4 5

Gerd Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 162. Tellenbach, The Church, 165. Philip L. Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: The Sacramental Theology of Marriage from its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 366.

G eneral I ntroduction



25

should not be reduced.”6 Thus, the development of sacramental theology not only defined what a sacrament was, but also who could rightly administer it and why. The development of sacramental theology goes hand in hand with the development of theology concerning clergy, including the moral standards for the clergy. The Multiple Senses of Sacramentum Within Hugh of St Victor’s theology, history is divided into two periods marked by the works of creation and the works of restoration. His master work, De sacramentis, is divided into two books. The first book contains Hugh’s account of the Trinity, creation, the fall of humanity, and the institution of the sacraments under both the natural and written law. The second book addresses the Incarnation, detailed descriptions of the sacraments (as used in a narrow sense), and the eschaton. What emerges in the text is the idea that there are three eras of sacraments: natural law, written law, and grace. The first era—natural law—existed from the expulsion of the garden to the Mosaic covenant. The second era—written law—existed from the Mosaic covenant until the time of Christ. Finally, the era of grace was initiated by Christ and continues until the end of time. These sacramental eras are the settings of God’s works of restoration; at no time in history had God withheld means of salvation. Sacraments from both the natural and written law drew their efficacy by either anticipating or predicting Christ’s passion; sacraments of grace draw their efficacy directly from Christ’s passion.7 As Reynold notes, “the closer the sacraments are to the Passion of Jesus Christ, the more direct is the relationship. The sacraments of the natural law were a shadow of the truth, the sacraments of the written law were an image of the truth, and the sacraments of grace are the very body of the truth, which anticipate the ultimate ‘truth of the spirit.’”8 Sacraments from each of the eras are unified because they offer the same salvation.9 Throughout his treatment of the sacraments of grace, Hugh referred to the antecedent sacraments of the natural and written law.

6 7 8 9

Tellenbach, Church, 163. Philip L. Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments, 373. Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments, 374. Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments, 373.

26

G eneral I ntroduction

Hugh used the term sacramentum throughout De  Sacramentis, but the meaning shifted and developed depending on the context and function of the sacramentum. The sacred thing to which all sacraments point is Christ, but the way in which they point varies, so sacraments are at the same time one and multiform. Hugh’s notion of sacramentum provided him with enough flexibility and precision to have sacraments encompass the whole of Christian life and faith. As Dominique Poirel points out, Hugh used the term sacramentum in five ways within his corpus: as sign, scripture, Word, Christian faith, and means of salvation.10 Each of these uses of sacramentum was distinct, but they fit with each other. The first usage of sacramentum was the most general: a sacrament is a sign of something sacred. Poirel points to Hugh’s fourfold example of Sabbath as a sacrament in this sense. Sabbath is the initial rest of God as told in Genesis; it is day of rest prescribed by the Torah; it is a spiritual rest experienced by Christians who avoid bad deeds; and it is the eschatological rest of beatitude. “Hugh affirms that these four Sabbaths are related to each other by a chain of meaning: the first Sabbath is the sacrament of the second, the second is that of the third, and the third that of the fourth.”11 The four Sabbaths are connected through a likeness or resemblance between each link in the chain of meaning. In this way, the sign and the thing signified share a relational bond in which the sign derives its meaning from the thing signified and, as a derivative, the sacrament is always pointing towards the reality of its source. Thus, sacraments as signs of something sacred have an uplifting or guiding effect. In addition to the broad and somewhat imprecise nature of this first definition of sacramentum, Hugh proposed four narrower usages. The second type of sacrament is the sacrament of Scripture. In this usage, the signifier of a sacred reality is the biblical text. Two previous volumes of Victorine Texts in Translation (Interpretation of Scripture: Theory and Interpretation of Scripture: Practice) are dedicated to this topic in the work of Hugh and other Victorines. For our purposes, it is sufficient to focus on the exegetical relationship of the literal-historic level to the allegorical level. Through the letters that form words, ideas are signified. For example, the letters “a,” “r”, and “k” form the word 10 11

Dominique Poirel, “Sacraments,” A Companion to the Abbey of Saint Victor in Paris, ed. Hugh Feiss and Juliet Mousseau (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 278–86. Poirel, “Sacraments,” 279.

G eneral I ntroduction



27

“ark,” which signifies a large aquatic vessel. This is the literal-historical level of scripture; when the literal-historical level directly concerns Christ, such as in the Magnificat, then it is a sacrament.12 Many of the words of Scripture are not so direct; the literal-historical level of the text must give way to the allegorical level. Thus, the word “ark” when read according to the allegorical level signifies not a boat, but the Church as a place of salvation, a sacred reality. In this way, the whole of Scripture becomes a sacrament, for it is always pointing towards a divine reality beyond itself.13 The third usage of sacramentum concerns the Word and his sacraments. While sacrament as Scripture is attentive to the linguistic dynamics of the text, the third sense of sacramentum draws our attention to the narrative of salvation history found within Scripture. All of history, from creation to the eschaton is encompassed in salvation history. There is a center to salvation history: the Incarnation. The Incarnation is “the ‘sacrament of sacraments,’ the first sacrament, the grandest and highest, source of the efficacy and intelligibility of all the sacraments.”14 It is from the Incarnation that all other sacraments derive their efficacy to sanctify the one participating in the sacrament. Poirel describes how Christ confers salvific efficacy upon the sacraments that predate the Incarnation: There exists a principle sacrament, from which all others are nothing more than a diffraction and graduated participation. It is in fact the Passion of Christ which sanctifies in the first place the sacraments of grace to confer on them their salvific efficacy; then going backward in time, it sanctifies the previous sacraments by the intermediary of the sacraments of grace, the nearer sacraments of the written law as well as the sacraments of the natural law farther away. The history of the sacraments is thus marked by constant progress, from creation until the Incarnation: in the measure the Incarnation comes closer, the preceding sacraments continually gain in clarity of signification and in power of sanctification.15

Salvation history, up to the Incarnation, is a history of sacramental progress. As they get closer to the Incarnation, the meaning and salvific

12 13 14 15

Poirel, “Sacraments,” 281. Poirel, “Sacraments,” 281. Poirel, “Sacraments,” 282. Poirel, “Sacraments,” 282.

28

G eneral I ntroduction

efficacy of sacraments become sharper and more potent. They anticipate the Incarnation. The  fourth usage of sacramentum refers to the mysteries of the Christian faith. “The Bible, sacred history, and the Christian faith, all three are composed of the same sacraments, but they are accomplished here in time, there recounted in a book, and finally received as true by the believer.”16 Sacraments as Christian faith identifies the role of theology as signifying sacred realities believed by the Christian. Theology is organized around eight sacramental “bases”: Trinity, creation, the fall, sacraments of natural law, written law, Incarnation, New Testament, and the final resurrection.17 Hugh employed this organizational schema in De sacramentis legis naturalis et scriptae dialogus, Sententiae de divinitate, and De sacramentis christianae fidei.18 The final meaning of sacramentum is the narrowest and what is usually meant when one refers to “the sacraments.” These are the sacraments which are a means of salvation and the focus of this volume. For Hugh, the sacraments, along with faith and charity, are necessary for salvation and are part of God’s works of restoration. In De sacramentis, he develops a definition of a sacrament that will be influential for the next century: “The sacrament is a corporal or material element, presented on the outside in a sensible way, which represents by a resemblance, signifies by a convention, and contains by sanctification a certain invisible and spiritual grace.”19 Hugh’s definition still contains the patristic sense of a sacrament as a sign of a sacred thing, preserving the idea of a relationship between a created element and divine reality. His definition adds that there is a symbolic resemblance between the element and the thing signified, that the sacraments were divinely instituted, and that they have salvific efficacy.20 Underneath each of these usages of sacramentum is the presence of faith. The reception of the sacraments without the requisite faith would render the sacrament ineffectual. Philip Reynolds notes, “it is faith that saves, and not the sacraments per se. Those who deny this possibility, considering the sacraments themselves to be absolutely necessary for salvation are idolaters… The work of the sacraments is based on the 16 17 18 19 20

Poirel, “Sacraments,” 283. Poirel, “Sacraments,” 283. Poirel, “Sacraments,” 283. Sacr. 1.9.2. Poirel, “Sacraments,” 289.

G eneral I ntroduction



29

innate human aptitude to perceive the inner sense of material things.”21 The internal disposition of the individual becomes acutely important in Hugh’s discussion of vows, marriage, and confession. The Setting of the Sacraments: Orders and Church Dedication Once Hugh had defined sacramentum in the narrowest sense, a set of questions about which signs are sacraments of salvation and how they are to be administered naturally follows. These are the topics that make up of much of the second book of De sacramentis. Hugh categorized seven grades of sacred orders: porters, readers, exorcists, acolytes, subdeacons, deacons, and presbyters (priests). All, save acolytes, were based upon both an Old Testament precursor and/ or an incident from the life of Christ. Just as all the sacraments are ultimately rooted in Christ, so are the offices of the Church. The first four offices were not directly involved in the administration of the sacraments. The  porters, who held the keys to the physical church building, were modeled upon temple door keepers.22 The porters had a ministry of access; they were held accountable for who they let in, the faithful, and who were turned away, the infidels. Their office was connected with Jesus’ cleansing of temple in John 10:9.23 Like Old Testament prophets, the readers announced the word of God. They were instructed in the proper way to recite prophetic and apostolic readings so that the intellects of the audience were not driven to distraction or error. Jesus, too, preached the prophetic texts to men for their understanding (Luke 4:18). The exorcists could expel unclean spirits and restore spiritual gifts. Hugh connected this office to two gospel pericopes. First, and most elaborately, the exorcists were like Jesus when he healed the deaf and dumb man through the application of his saliva. This opened up the impaired man; exorcists, too, opened people up spiritually to receive understanding and make confession. This openness allowed the Holy Spirit to fill the person. Second, as an ending note in the section, Hugh associated exorcists with the expulsion of demons from Mary Magdalene. Because of the placement and length of each example, Hugh seemed to place the accent of the exorcist’s office upon 21 22 23

Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacrament, 370. Ezra 2:42. Sacr. 2.3.5.

30

G eneral I ntroduction

spiritual restoration.24 The acolytes enacted the words of Christ, “I am the light of the world,”25 by carrying candles, illuminating the darkness, and furnishing guiding light to those who wander in the shadows.26 The subdeacons were those who serve the Lord with humility like the “Nathinnei” or “temple servants” mentioned in Esdras; e.g., 2.43, 58, 70. They occupied a preparatory role in the administration of the sacraments. They set the altar with the vessels that were to contain the blood and body of Christ at Eucharists. Before a baptism, they prepared the water and set a vessel for the washing of hands and, during the sacrament, they assisted the priest by holding the pitcher, cloth, and towel.27 The deacons were based on the Levites, who cared for the tabernacle, and the seven people filled with the Holy Spirit selected by the Apostles in Acts. Seven deacons surrounded the altar like columns, representing the sevenfold graces, the seven angels, the seven golden candlesticks, and the seven voices of thunder from Revelation. They had multiple duties: assisting at the Eucharist by giving the chalice to the priest, preaching the Gospel, exhorting people to prayer, and proclaiming peace. Their role in the Eucharist harkened back to Christ’s original institution of the Eucharist at the last supper, and the call to prayer was similar to that of Christ admonishing the disciples to pray in the Garden of Gethsemane.28 The  precursors of those who were presbyters or priests in the Church were the Old Testament sons of Aaron and the seventy disciples who preceded Christ every place he went. The priest preached the gospel, blessed the gifts of God, and administered the sacraments. Hugh drew the most parallels between the priestly office and Christ, specifically connecting the priest to parts of the Passion. Christ acted as a priest and sacrifice when he offered himself up on the cross. So, too, priests, who daily celebrate the Lord’s Passion, seek to be excellent in the sanctity of their lives. They should be models for their communities in words and deeds, just as Christ is the exemplar par excellence. The administration of the sacraments was connected to the space within which the sacraments were administered, the church building. For Hugh, the material world had been and would continue to be the 24 25 26 27 28

Sacr. 2.3.7. John 8:12. Sacr. 2.3.8. Sacr. 2.3.9. Sacr. 2.3.10.

G eneral I ntroduction



31

location of revealed sacredness; it was in the place of the church that the history of revelation, as told through Scripture and tradition, joined with the material reality of stones and human bodies. In his work The Mystical Ark, Hugh presented the ark as the Church, bringing together the figures of scripture and tradition and time itself. He wrote, “the length of the church is seen in the duration of time, just as the width is seen in the multitude of the peoples… So we believe that there is no time from the beginning of the world to the end of the ages in which persons faithful to Christ are not found.”29 The church building was the setting of the sacraments, similar to the way that time and history contain God’s restoring acts of grace. The physical church building was not merely the location of the sacraments but was in a mutual relationship with the sacraments and the faithful. Drawing upon the sense of sacredness associated with the temple in Jerusalem and preparing bodies to become dwelling places for God, the church was a union of time, materiality, and holiness. Due to the complex nexus of meanings mediated in the church, the dedication of the church, itself, was likened to a sacrament. Medieval theologians, like Hugh, thought of “the baptism of bodies and the consecration of churches as two sides of the same process. Both separated, cleansed, and strengthened places of worship. The only real difference was the material they affected: baptism was a sacrament of flesh, consecration a rite of stone.”30 In discussing the dedication of a church, Hugh set the dedication of a church in parallel to the baptism of individuals. We must speak of the dedication of a church just as of the first baptism by which the church itself in a manner is baptized, that in it after a fashion men may be baptized to be regenerated unto salvation. For the first sacrament, as it were, is recognized in baptism through which all the faithful are computed among the members of the body of Christ through the grace of the new regeneration… Regeneration is first symbolized in the dedication of the church; then it is exhibited in the sanctification of a faithful soul.31

Thus, the church was a kind of sacrament. The building was a material sign of the sacred reality of a sanctified soul. Margot Fassler writes, 29 30 31

The Mystical Ark 2 [Libellus] (PL 176. 685), cited and translated by Margot Fassler, Gothic Song (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011), 220. Dawn Marie Hayes, Body and Sacred Place in Medieval Europe, 1100–1389 (New  York, New York: Routledge, 2003), 3. Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.5.1 (PL 176.439B; tr. R. Deferrari [Eugene, Oregon: Wifp and Stock Publishers, 2007], 279).

32

G eneral I ntroduction

“In this first section Hugh explains what a church building is and how the liturgy, clergy, and people relate to it. Here the church building becomes an outer shell for the inner significance of its contents: people, clergy, altar, and host. And taken altogether, the building and its liturgy form a sacrament of the history of the church in time.”32 Hugh drew upon Ivo of Chartres, Sermon 4, for his description of the dedication of a church. The liturgy surrounding the dedication of a church had been expanded during the eleventh century to a relatively stable form by the twelfth century.33 As the sun rose on the day of dedication, the bishop, clerical staff, and congregation gathered outside of the soon-to-be-dedicated building to perform the elaborate liturgy. The ritual started in two locations simultaneously: inside and outside the church. The bishop blessed the water with figurative salt and then used the water to sprinkle the church as he processed around the church three times with the congregation following him. Meanwhile, inside the church, there were twelve lit candles and the deacon. Upon each rotation, the bishop knocked on the lintel of the closed door with his pastoral staff three times, proclaiming “Lift your gates, rulers, and open up, eternal doors,” and the deacon responded, “Who is the King of Glory?” It was not until the third rotation and iteration of this exchange that the deacon opened up the doors for the bishop and rest of the procession. This opening portion of the liturgy symbolically brought together God’s all-encompassing works of restoration with the individual soul. Hugh helpfully identified the allegorical meaning of many of the features of the ritual. The building itself was the soul. The building was undergoing a transition; it was changing from being merely material to being material and spiritual because of God’s presence. It was becoming both heavenly and earthly. The soul, while immaterial itself, was united with the body, so it too, in some way, was both material and spiritual, but in need of transformation. The water pointed towards penitence, and the salt was the divine word. Just as sacraments and the word of God cleansed the individual soul, water and salt were used to purify the building. The other elements of the opening part of the liturgy were more cosmic in scope, encompassing the Incarnation, time, and space. 32 33

Fassler, Gothic Song, 233. Ruth Horie, Perceptions of Ecclesia: Church and Soul in Medieval Dedication Sermons (­Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 2.

G eneral I ntroduction



33

The bishop with his staff entering the church signified the Incarnation, when Christ and his power entered the world. When the bishop struck the lintel three times with his staff, all of creation—heaven, earth, and hell—were represented. The  twelve lit candles were the apostles who enlighten the church and spread the gospel to the whole world. By bringing together the actions outside and inside the church through the bishop’s symbolic reenactment of the Incarnation, Hugh communicated how the soul comes in contact with and is transformed by God’s works of restoration. Throughout the liturgy of church dedication, Hugh returned to the ideas of the continual sanctification of the soul, God’s works of restoration through history, and Christology. Once in the church, the bishop, deacons, and clerics began to pray and exhorted others to pray as well, just as Christ prayed on behalf of others. The bishop then wrote the alphabet on the floor, moving from the left, east side, to the right, west side, of the church and again from the right, east side, to the left, west side, forming a cross. According to Horie, this “ABCdarium is generally regarded as a symbol of Christ’s ownership of the united Greek and Latin churches,”34 but Hugh wrote that the alphabet indicated the teaching of faith; its location on the pavement was due to its accessibility to the uneducated. In this portion of the liturgy, Hugh addressed the initial stages of the Christian life: prayer, first by the clergy on behalf of others and then encouragement for others to join in prayer, followed by the teaching of simple faith. The ABCdarium also incorporated Hugh’s vision of salvation history. The two lines of letters, intersecting to form a cross, represented the faith given to the Jews and then preached to the gentiles, and the staff with which the bishop writes is Scripture. The bishop then turned to the altar, calling for God’s help, for nothing is accomplished apart from God. He then made a mixture of blessed water, salt, and ashes. He made the sign of the cross three times with this mixture before adding wine, then he made the sign of the cross at the four corners of the altar. Each element in the mixture was a sign: “Water is the people; salt is doctrine; ashes, the memory of the passion of Christ; the wine mixed with water is Christ, God and man; the wine, divinity; and the water, mortality. Thus, people are sanctified by the doctrine of faith and the memory of Christ’s passion.”35

34 35

Horie, Perceptions of Ecclesia, 3. Sacr. 2.5.2–3.

34

G eneral I ntroduction

The centrality of Christ in salvation history continued to be symbolized when the bishop sprinkled the interior of the church three times with hyssop, representing Christ’s humility. The threefold interior sprinkling mirrored the exterior cleansing at the beginning of the liturgy, but instead of representing the individual soul, the interior cleansing was of the whole Church. The bishop returned to the altar “pouring out what is left of the water of purification at its base, as if he were committing to God what remains in his imperfectly holy ministry because it exceeds his strength.”36 With clean white linen, representing Christ, the altar was cleansed. The linen was another sign of the Incarnation and passion, for Christ’s flesh, incorruptible in itself, suffered blows. When one stops to imagine the scene, one can see the fittingness of the linen, Christ’s flesh, literally absorbing the water of imperfect human effort, wiping it away, leaving only Christ, the altar. The narrative of salvation history was continued on the altar as attention turned towards the formation and mission of the church. After the altar had been cleansed, the bishop passed incense over it, made a cross in the center of the altar, and blessed the corners with oil. The incense was the prayers of the saints rising up to heaven; the oil was the grace of the Holy Spirit. The oil flowed from the altar, as the grace of the Holy Spirit flows from Christ to all his members. The bishop then moved from the altar to make twelve crosses on the walls, indicating the preaching ministry of the apostles. The altar was then covered with a white cloth, again representing Christ’s flesh, but this cloth was the glorified flesh of the resurrected Christ. The church dedication liturgy reenacted the drama of salvation history; salvation history is the setting of the sacred realities to which sacraments point, just as the church is the setting for the administration of the material signs of sacraments. This echoed the broad Augustinian definition of sacrament used by Hugh; there was a relationship of likeness, that of sacramental setting, between the church building and salvation history. Hugh’s other uses of sacramentum were present as well. The sacrament of Scripture was present not only in the readings of scripture, primarily Psalms,37 but also in the alphabet written on the floor. The sacrament as Word was evident in the Christocentric nature of the liturgy, most explicitly in the altar as Christ, and the oil flowing from the altar corners as the distribution of the gifts of the Holy Spirit 36 37

Sacr. 2.5.2–3. Horie, Perceptions of Ecclesia, 3.

G eneral I ntroduction



35

to the Church. Sacrament as the teaching of Christian faith was present throughout the liturgy, particularly the alphabet as referring to preaching. Lastly, the sacraments as means of salvation were represented in the use of water, salt, and oil in acts of purifying and sanctifying the church as if it were a soul. By including multiple senses of sacramentum, salvation history, and the centrality of Christ, the liturgy of the dedication of a church was a summary of Hugh’s sacramental theology. The dedication of a church was annually commemorated over the course of eight days and included special masses and dedication sermons;38 some Victorine dedication sermons are still extant.39 Baptism Having set out the orders of the clergy and the dedication of a church, Hugh moved on to what would become the seven sacraments of the Church, starting with Baptism. Hugh explicitly connected baptism with salvation, a connection he made again with Eucharist. The necessity of baptism for salvation raised a series of questions which organized De sacramentis 2.6: What is baptism? When was it instituted? What is the relationship between baptism and circumcision? Are there differences between John’s and Christ’s baptisms? Is baptism really necessary for salvation? To answer these questions, Hugh drew heavily from his correspondence with Bernard of Clairvaux. Bernard’s Letter 77, sometimes referred to as De baptismo, was a response to a lost letter from Hugh about an unnamed contemporary theologian, likely Abelard,40 who posited that the baptism imperative was established in Christ and Nicodemus’ secret conversation recorded in John 3:5 and that both love and the sacrament were necessary for salvation.41 In their 38 39

40

41

Horie, Perceptions of Ecclesia, 10. For example, Achard of St Victor, Sermon 2 and Sermon 13 in Achard of St Victor, Works, tr. Hugh Feiss, CS 165 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2001), 149–54; 205–53; Richard of St Victor, Sermones centum 1–3 (PL 177.901A–907D); Anonymous of St Victor, Sermo 6 (ed. Châtillon, Sermones inediti, 270–75). Ralf Stammberger, “‘De longe ueritas uidetur diuersa iudicia parit’: Hugh of Saint Victor and Peter Abelard,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 58, Fasc. 1 (Jan–Mar, 2002), 65–92; Hugh Feiss, “Bernardus Scholasticus: The Correspondence of Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugh of Saint Victor on Baptism,” Bernardus Magister: Papers Presented at the Nonacentenary Celebration of the Birth of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Kalamazoo, Michigan, sponsored by the Institute of Cistercian Studies, Western Michigan University, 10–13 May 1990, ed. John R. Sommerfeldt (Spencer, MA: Cistercian Publications, 1992), 349–78; Paul Rorem, Hugh of Saint Victor (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 98. Stammberger, “De longe,” 86.

36

G eneral I ntroduction

treatments of baptism, both Bernard and Hugh drew out the problematic implication of such a position. According to Hugh, “baptism is water sanctified by the word of God for washing away sin.”42 There were two aspects to making the sacrament: water and words of institution. The water was the appropriate element because it shared a natural likeness with the grace of the sacrament. Water washed away impurity just as the grace of baptism washed away sin. The elemental form of signification was evident, but the verbal aspect was less so. The words “in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” pointed to the reality and unity of Trinity. To know that these three terms, “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” refer to God indicated faith in the Trinity.43 Therefore, in baptism a person was baptized in the faith. Faith in the Trinity was what sanctified the water, so if the faith was sound, but the priest did not get the words exactly correct, the baptism was still efficacious. Additionally, Hugh paid attention to the specific instruction to administer the sacrament in the “name.” He argued that the name of a thing includes an aspect of public declaration, for when would a name be needed outside of communicating with another person? Therefore “name” entails public proclamation, which was a form of teaching. Thus, baptizing “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” fulfilled the command to “teach and baptize!”44 Hugh followed the discussion of the administration of baptism with how the sacrament worked within history. Since the Fall, God had been providing humans with works of restoration, including circumcision, which conveyed salvation: Some of the sacraments preceded and prefigured the incarnation and others follow and proclaim it, but they all serve the same end. The incarnation of Jesus Christ, therefore, is the center of all the works both historically and functionally. All other aids to salvation, such as the precepts of the Old Law (which in Hugh’s mind are closely related to the sacraments), refer to the central event of Christ’s incarnation in one way or another, and they derive their efficacy from it.45

The works of restoration were divided into three time periods: before Christ; during Christ’s life, death, and resurrection; and after the res42 43 44 45

Sacr. 2.6.2. Sacr. 2.6.2. Sacr. 2.6.2. Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments, 368.

G eneral I ntroduction



37

urrection. Prior to the incarnation, God provided the Old Law to the Jewish people as a means of avoiding perdition; the sacraments, after Christ, lead to glory.46 Circumcision, as a part of the Old Law, saved those circumcised from the fires of hell, but it was not until the passion of Christ that Christ rescued the circumcised and brought them into the Kingdom. Therefore, it was Christ’s passion that made circumcision salvific. Baptism, unlike circumcision, which belonged to a time of anticipating Christ, washed away sin through the sanctifying work of Christ’s blood. This made baptism greater than circumcision because it added access to glory directly to the avoidance of perdition.47 Circumcision and baptism were connected, almost like two sides of the same coin, but they were applicable for different times. The works of restoration unfold in history, progressively increasing in truth. The sacraments of each time period reflect the amount of truth in their respective times, so circumcision was appropriate for the time prior to Christ but, once the Word had become incarnate and revealed himself as the Truth, baptism was more appropriate and so superseded circumcision. A transition period, during which baptism was replacing circumcision, began at the Passion and it ended when Paul wrote to the Galatians, “if you are circumcised, Christ does you no good.”48 During this period, both baptism and circumcision were permissible: Just as before the passion circumcision was received in its role as a remedy, and nevertheless baptism was not disdained without danger to salvation by those to whom it was preached, so after the passion baptism was in its proper status received for salvation, nevertheless even then circumcision was not disdained without danger to salvation by those to whom its end was not yet clear.49

As baptism was phased in through preaching, circumcision was phased out. Circumcision was still salvific for those who received it before Paul’s declaration, but was not salvific for anyone after that point.50 Baptism became an imperative for anyone who had heard it preached, which Hugh thought included everyone by his time.51 However, for those who died unbaptized, all hope of salvation was not lost. Taking 46 47 48 49 50 51

Sacr. 2.6.3. Sacr. 2.6.3. Gal 5:2. Sacr. 2.6.4. Sacr. 2.6.4. Sacr. 2.6.5.

38

G eneral I ntroduction

the salvation of unbaptized martyrs as precedent for salvation without baptismal waters, Hugh argued that faith and conversion of heart was suitable for salvation when there was no opportunity for the person to receive the sacrament.52 Confirmation During the Patristic era, baptism and confirmation were joined into one rite. Immediately after a person was baptized, she was anointed with chrism. The waters of baptism washed the soul clean and the chrism sealed the recipient with the Holy Spirit, sanctifying the soul. Yet, by the second millennium the two rites had separated into two sacraments. David Power suggests that the separation may have been because of the logistical challenges that accompanied the spread of Christianity: “with the growth of what we could call parochial communities and the common practice of infant baptism, it became impossible for the bishop of the territory to be present at all baptisms.”53 While it is unclear if theology contributed to the initial separation, Hugh of St Victor provided a distinct theological grounding for confirmation. As with baptism, he identified an Old Testament antecedent which anticipated Christ. The kings and priests were anointed under the Old Law, which “prefigures that singular Anointed One who was anointed before all who participate in him.”54 Hugh used the paradigm of the offices of kingship and priesthood and the etymological relationship between “Christ” and “chrism” to describe the sacrament of confirmation. The word “Christ” was derived from “chrism,” therefore all “Christians” were called to be anointed. Through this anointing they participated in Christ’s royal priesthood. By connecting confirmation to the Old Testament precedent, Hugh once again incorporated his understanding of history as the setting for the unfolding of God’s works of redemption. Hugh recognized that baptism and anointing were once joined into a single sacrament but did not offer an explanation as to when or why baptism and confirmation became two sacraments. He did point to Pope Sylvester as the figure who made a liturgical accommodation for the reality that a bishop may not always be present at a baptism. 52 53

54

Sacr. 2.6.7. David N. Power, “Baptism and Confirmation,” Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, ed. Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress: 2011), 506. Sacr. 2.7.1.

G eneral I ntroduction



39

In those cases, the priest laid hands upon and anointed the forehead of the newly baptized, so that the baptized would not be without the grace of strengthening, while she awaited the arrival of the bishop. Given issues of the availability of bishops and time sensitive situations (deathbed baptism, grave illness), the priestly application of chrism on the head acted as a safeguard against the threat of damnation, should death arrive before the bishop.55 Hugh addressed three practical questions, which emerged from the separation of baptism and confirmation: Which sacrament is greater?56 Can confirmation be repeated?57 How long should one leave the chrism on her forehead?58 In terms of administration, confirmation was the higher sacrament because it was administered by bishops, exclusively. But, in reality, “these two are so joined in the making of salvation that they cannot be separated unless death intervenes.”59 Since baptism and confirmation were originally united, the same principle that governed the repetition of baptism applied to confirmation: it is not to be repeated.60 Finally, a person should keep the chrism on her forehead for seven days. Seven days was the duration of time the church celebrated the pouring out of the Spirit upon the apostles and there were seven gifts of the Spirit. There is an echo of the sacrament of confirmation in the liturgy for church dedication. There, too, it was the bishop performing the act. He went to the altar and anointed each corner with oil and the sign of the cross, symbolizing the outflowing of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Within Hugh’s sacramental theology, the liturgy of a church dedication reunited the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, at least symbolically, bringing together the two parts of salvation: the washing away of sins and the strengthening of the Spirit.61 Eucharist The centrality of the Eucharist was because of its salvific function. The Eucharist, along with baptism, was necessary for salvation, a designation Hugh attributed only to these two sacraments. While baptism 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Sacr. 2.7.3. Sacr. 2.7.4. Sacr. 2.7.5. Sacr. 2.7.6. Sacr. 2.7.4. Sacr. 2.7.5. Sacr. 2.7.3.

40

G eneral I ntroduction

washed away sin, the Eucharist sanctified the recipient in an ongoing way.62 Hugh described how the sanctification process occurred through his three-part understanding of a sacrament, a development in sacramental theology which was widely adopted in the twelfth century. The Eucharist consisted of three things: the visible appearance (bread and wine), the true body of Christ, and the power of spiritual grace.63 According to Coolman, around the mid-twelfth century, these three aspects were called (1) the sacramentum tantum, (2) the res et sacramentum, and (3) the res tantum.64 The visible appearance was only a sign; it always pointed to something greater. In the case of the Eucharist, the bread and wine pointed to the body and blood of Christ, which were the res et sacramentum. For Hugh, and later theologians, this was the true body and blood of Christ. As the Latin term suggests, the true body and blood of Christ was both the thing that was pointed to by the bread and wine (res), and also a sign (sacramentum) of another reality, the spiritual grace, that was “the effect or benefit associated with and derived from Christ’s presence.”65 While he did not have the Aristotelian terms of “substance” and “accidents,” which would be used in the thirteenth-century, Hugh’s terminology helped defend the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine and explained how they in turn point to sanctifying grace. Coolman identifies a framework for Victorine Eucharistic theology, set forth in two Pseudo-Hugonian, but Victorine works, Questiones in Epistulas D. Pauli, In epistolam I ad Corinthios66 and Speculum de mysteriis ecclesiae.67 First, there were two distinct realities in the Eucharist: (1) the real blood and body of Christ, and (2) “some saving benefit.”68 Second, while the two realities were received together, they were distinct, but related; “the substantial presence of Christ was the necessary… condition for the possibility of receiving the spiritual grace.”69 Third, the purpose of the true blood and body of Christ was to convey 62 63 64

65 66 67 68 69

Sacr. 2.8.1. Sacr. 2.8.7. Coolman, “The Christo-Pneumatic-Ecclesial Character,” Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology, ed. Hans Boersma and Matthew Levering (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015), 204. Coolman, “The Christo-Pneumatic-Ecclesial Character,” 204. Questiones et decisiones in Epistolas D. Pauli (PL 175.431–634A). The section regarding First Corinthians is found at PL 175.513A–544D. Speculum de mysteriis Ecclesiae (PL 177.335A–380D). Coolman, “The Christo-Pneumatic-Ecclesial Character,” 206. Coolman, “The Christo-Pneumatic-Ecclesial Character,” 206.

G eneral I ntroduction



41

the spiritual grace. It was the communication of grace which made the sacrament beneficial, not the presence of Christ’s blood and body. Fourth, this relationship of the two realities “position… the Incarnate Christ as the active agent and effective distributor of sacramental grace.”70 The reception of spiritual grace was explained by the difference between regular food and the consecrated bread and wine. Normal food was incorporated into the body of the person eating but, in the Eucharist, it was the recipient that was incorporated into a body, namely the body of Christ: “Christ wished to be eaten by us in order to incorporate us into himself.”71 Through the reception of Christ’s body and blood, the faithful are made “divine and participants in the godhead.”72 The Eucharist welcomes people into the very life of God. There can be no wonder why Hugh called it salvific and placed it at the center of his sacramental theology. Anointing of the Sick73 While for the previously discussed sacraments Hugh found anticipatory antecedents the in the Old Testament, he separated the anointing of the sick from the Old Testament precedent of royal and priestly anointing. According to the Old Law, royal and priestly anointing was the oleum principalis charismatis, which under the New Law was associated with confirmation and the giving of the Holy Spirit.74 The anointing of the sick did not give the Holy Spirit; therefore, it was unlike the oleum principalis charismatis. Rather, the anointing of the sick was given to the person to heal her body of disease and her soul of sins committed after baptism. Although Hugh did not state this, logically, circumcision anticipated, at least partially, the sin-removing effects of baptism, anointing of the sick, and confession, therefore it is unnecessary for the anointing of the sick or confession to have other Old Testament antecedents. 70 71 72 73

74

Coolman, “The Christo-Pneumatic-Ecclesial Character,” 206. Sacr. 2.8.5. Sacr. 2.8.8. Thus far, this introduction has treated the sacraments in the order that Hugh employed in De sacramentis but, for conceptual unity, I am treating anointing of the sick and vows out of order. Hugh made clear connections between the anointing of the sick, baptism, and confirmation through the use of oil, and Hugh’s theology of vows provided some elements found in his theology of marriage and confession. Sacr. 2.15.1.

42

G eneral I ntroduction

Instead, Hugh turned to the New Testament: James 5:14–15 was the biblical foundation for the anointing of the sick. The author of James advised his audience to care for the sick through prayerful petitions and the application of oil in the name of the Lord. This had a salutary effect. It may lead to the physical healing of the body and will certainly lead to the health of the soul: Hence, it is clear that whoever receives this anointing with faith and devotion without doubt merits and receives alleviation and consolation in body and soul, provided that it is to his benefit to receive alleviation in both. However, if it is not beneficial for him to have healing and health of body, he will surely receive health and alleviation of soul by receiving the sacrament.75

The function of the anointing of the sick, the healing of the soul in times of illness, made it more similar to Eucharist and prayer than to other sacraments that included the use of oil. It aided a recurring condition, physical and spiritual ill-health, so it could and should be repeated as needed. Vows Hugh began his treatment of vows with a rare witty statement; “Regarding vows, I am not released. I am forced to render what I promised.”76 This pun can serve as Hugh’s general understanding of vows. Once a vow is made, it must be fulfilled, that is, rendered in some sufficient manner. In typical fashion, Hugh provided a taxonomy of the subject: What is the difference between a promise and a vow? What kinds of vows must be fulfilled? What are appropriate ways to fulfill the vow? A vow was distinct from a promise because a vow involved God. “A vow is a kind of testimony to a freely given promise which concerns God alone or the things that more properly belong to God. To vow is to obligate oneself to God by the witness of a freely given promise and to put oneself in his debt.”77 In vowing, one added to a promise a kind of obligation or debt that must be given to God. A vow can be made either in secret or in public. Breaking either kind of vow was a sin, but to break a public vow was scandalous and harmful to the broader community.78 Hugh’s passing mention of the scandal of breaking a pub75 76 77 78

Sacr. 2.15.2. Sacr. 2.12.1. Sacr. 2.12.3. Sacr. 2.12.3.

G eneral I ntroduction



43

lic vow gestured to a social dimension of the Christian life that will become crucial in the discussion of marriage and confession, namely, sins that seem to be personal or private can have deleterious and unintended consequences within communities. Pastoral care was not only concerned with the health of the individual soul, but also the relationship between the individual and society. In Victorine treatments of marriage and confession, this sensitivity to the social dimensions of the illness and restoration of the soul was a salient feature. Hugh’s pastoral sensitivity was on display as he parsed out how vows were made and fulfilled. He set out five aspects of vow making: thinking, willing, deliberation, promise, and vow.79 These steps ought to lead a person to make well-thought-out and virtuous vows, but Hugh realized that that was not always the case and made accommodations for such a situation. Vows that were foolishly or evilly made must not be kept because they did not pursue the good. Also, the way a vow was discharged may change, as long as it is ultimately fulfilled. There was only one kind of vow that permitted no commutation: the vow of the self. There was no equal substitute for the self, so no alternative could have been offered in its place.80 While Hugh did not discuss the sacramental dimension of vows,81 his discussion of the vow of virginity may provide some clues. In the final paragraph of his treatment of vows, Hugh seemed to address a specific individual or group who had vowed their virginity and failed to keep it. Virginity was treated as both an object and a state of being. It was something of the flesh, so there was a material aspect similar to other sacraments, but it pointed to another spiritual reality of humility. Ideally, those who took a vow of virginity rendered both their bodily virginity and the spirit of humility, but in cases where the material aspect can no longer be offered, “render humility of heart; for broken flesh, render a broken heart… If you cannot render virginity, render humility in place of it, and it will satisfy both for itself and for virginity.”82 There was a parallel in baptism, when there is no water available. The absence of the sacramental matter, such as water or bodily virginity, was not insuperable, when true faith and humility, respectively, were present. This is suggestive that in vows, whatever one vows 79 80 81 82

Sacr. 2.12.2. Sacr. 2.12.5. Rorem, Hugh of St Victor, 107. Sacr. 2.12.6.

44

G eneral I ntroduction

to render is treated in a manner akin to bread, wine, water, and oil, and that behind that vow lies faith, love, or humility. There was no mention of grace in Hugh’s treatment of vows, something that was present in his discussions of the rest of sacraments, but his work on vows does cohere with his broader sacramental principles and will be employed in his treatment of marriage. Marriage Marriage was an outlier among the sacraments. Marriage preceded the earthly ministry of Christ, was practiced outside of Christianity, and was enacted by laity instead of clergy. These unique characteristics combined with the social, legal, and economic dimensions of marriage required a new clarity in theological statements. During the last half of the eleventh and the first half of the twelfth century, the theology of marriage started to be developed, but it received more precise definition in the thirteenth century, and found its dogmatic formulation at the Council of Trent.83 Irven Resnick summarizes the problem faced by theologians and canonists trying to define marriage: The zeal of the Gregorian reform engendered theological and canonical discussions of marriage for which the common understanding of the martial bond in medieval society was both too simple and too complex. Too simple, because the arranged marriages of the noble houses left no essential role for churchmen to play in effecting a martial union; too complex, because they suggested that several customary features had to be present at once in order to effect a marriage—the already agreed-upon marriage pact, an exchange of property, and the sexual act itself, which signified the completion of the union and was necessary to complete the sacrament. In defining marriage, theologians and canonists generally fell in two camps: consummation and consent. Both presumed some kind of consent was present, but for those wanting an objective definition of marriage, consummation was a clear metric. A physical examination of the woman or the production of children would be a sure sign of consent because, theoretically, only consenting partners could conceive. William of Conches, in addressing cases of rape, suggested that if a child was produced, 83

Philip Reynolds, “When Medieval Theologians Talked about Marriage, What Were They Really Talking About?” Law and Marriage in Medieval and Early Modern Times: Proceedings of the Eighth Carlsberg Academy Conference of Medieval Legal History, 2011 (Copenhagen: DJOF Publishing, 2012), 12.

G eneral I ntroduction



45

the woman’s rational will may not have consented, but her natural will had.84 Theologically, the consummation theory faced an issue: the marriage of Mary and Joseph. If Mary perpetually remained a virgin and consummation was necessary for a marriage to be complete, then Mary and Joseph did not have a true marriage.

In opposition to the consummation theorists were those who understood consent to be the essential factor in creating a valid marriage. For consent theorists, Mary and Joseph’s marriage became a model. Marriage was based on mutual consent of the two partners (a parent could not consent by proxy), not on sexual union. A marriage without sex would be considered true, more perfect, and spiritual than one with sexual relations. It would reflect the marriage of Adam and Eve before the fall.85 A chaste marriage was particularly attractive to some medieval couples. The notion that a spiritual marriage achieved a higher perfection influenced many lay people drawn to new experiments in religious life during the twelfth century. It was not uncommon for married couples that sought to enter the religious life to observe a long period of sexual abstinence before taking monastic vows. Their chaste marriage was perceived as an anticipation of another spiritual “marriage” that each entrant into a religious order contracts with the Lord by virtue of monastic vows.86

The idealization of sexless marriage had a few unintended consequences: it potentially devalued the goods of carnal marriages (for example, the procreation and raising of children), blurred the lines between defining characteristics of laity and clergy, and seemed too similar to intensely negative views of reproduction held by the heretical Cathars.87 Into this discussion, Hugh introduced his theory of double consent, first in On the Virginity of Blessed Mary and then in De sacramentis, both of which this introduction draws on. Hugh defined marriage as “a legitimate association between a man and a woman in which, even if they leave out carnal commerce, by mutual consent they owe their selves to each other, so that they keep themselves for the other and do not pass on to another association and they do not deny themselves to the other, so that neither withdraws from the society which they have 84 85 86 87

Resnick, “Marriage,” 361–63. Resnick, “Marriage,” 356. Resnick, “Marriage,” 356. Resnick, “Marriage,” 358–59.

46

G eneral I ntroduction

with each other.”88 The first consent was consent to be in a mutual and exclusive partnership with another person. The first consent, a covenant of love, was about sharing life with each other and offering oneself exclusively to one’s spouse. Hugh described a kind of marital intimacy that had nothing to do with sexual intercourse and would, in fact, thrive in its absence. Behold by what pledge of espousal they voluntarily bind themselves; from that point and forever each is for the other what each is for his or her self, in all sincerity of love, in the responsibility of solicitude, in every tender feeling, in every zealous compassion, in every strength of consolation and faithful devotion. Thus, each regards the other as one with his or her self, in all good things and in all bad ones, as a companion and sharer in consolation. Thus they also show themselves inseparable in tribulation and suffering. Finally, regarding what pertains outwardly to the needs of the body, they both undertake to foster the other’s flesh as though it were their own. Regarding what pertains internally to love of the heart, they both take care to keep the other, as if their own soul (animum), in peace and tranquility and without upset, insofar as they can. So it comes about for those who are in the peace and communion of a holy society that while both live not for themselves but for the other, both live more happily and blessedly.89

What was held for the other was not limited to just one’s body but encompassed various forms of intimacy and partnership. The spouses were one in mind, heart, and soul.90 In his exegesis of Genesis 2:23–24 (“a man will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife and they will be two in one flesh”), Hugh stressed that the marital relationship is about the priority of affection.91 This was the character of a true marriage, independent of intercourse. The second form of consent, carnal consent, had many of the same characteristics as the broader first consent. It constitutes a similar agreement between the man and the woman. It is not the cause of the marriage, but its accompaniment, a duty not a bond. However, the consent, when accepted by both with an equal vow, must be held with a similar obligation. The debt in this consent is also as I recalled in regard to the earlier one, twofold, namely that both keep themselves for the other, and that they not deny themselves 88 89 90 91

Hugh of St Victor, On the Virginity of Blessed Mary, IV.38 (ed. Jollès, 242; translated below). BM virg. I.10 (ed. Jollès, 194–96). BM virg. I.9 (ed. Jollès, 194). BM virg. I.14 (ed. Jollès, 204).

G eneral I ntroduction



47

to the other, that is, that each not grant to someone else power over their body for this work, nor deny it to the other.92

Hugh explicitly rejected the idea that carnal consent or consummation was the effective cause of a marriage. Carnal consent accompanied marriage, placing permissible sex squarely within the covenant of love. Carnal consent consisted of two elements: the exclusive sexual use of one’s body for one’s spouse and the grant to one’s spouse of the sexual use of one’s body. While these two elements were connected, they were not equivalent nor were they the same as consummation. To preserve oneself for one’s spouse was simply to not engage sexually with another partner. To grant one’s partner power over one’s body was to not deny him/her intercourse when asked. But, if one’s partner never requested intercourse, one could both remain a virgin and be a true spouse. This situation would also apply to partners who no longer engaged in sex, due to age, infirmity, or mutual consent to live chastely. These couples would still maintain their carnal consent even as they lived lives bound by charity without sexual desire.93 In the case of Mary, she truly gave her consent to marry Joseph and truly made a vow of virginity.94 Hugh explained this seemingly contradictory set of pledges by drawing a parallel with Abraham, who fully trusted God to bless Isaac and was willing to sacrifice Isaac.95 Mary, like Abraham, trusted that God would provide a way for both pledges to be kept. Hugh incorporated his theory of double consent into his understanding of the sacramentality of marriage. Continuing his exegesis of Genesis 2:23–24, Hugh connected the clinging of a husband to his wife, which is the character of marital consent, with the union between the soul and God. Unique marital love was “a sacrament of the invisible society that is realized between God and the soul.”96 The subsequent “becoming one flesh” was “a sacrament of the visible participation that is realized between Christ and the Church.”97 Just as there were two forms of consent in a marriage, there were two sacramental relationships which map upon the two forms of consent, respectively: the soul and God and the Church and Christ. Just as marital consent was greater and more essential to the relationship than sexual consent, the union of 92 93 94 95 96 97

BM virg. I.7 (ed. Jollès, 192). BM virg. I.8 (ed. Jollès, 192). BM virg. I.29 (ed. Jollès, 228). BM virg. I.30 (ed. Jollès, 230). BM virg. I.16 (ed. Jollès, 206–08). BM virg. I.16 (ed. Jollès, 216–17).

48

G eneral I ntroduction

the soul and God was greater than the relationship between the Church and Christ.98 Hugh writes, Thus, it is rightly said that a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they will be two in one flesh, so that insofar as he clings to his wife, it is a sacrament of the invisible society that is realized between God and the soul, but insofar as the two are one flesh, it is a sacrament of the visible participation that is realized between Christ and the Church. This is a great sacrament: they will be two in one flesh in Christ and the Church. However, this will be a greater sacrament: they will be two in one heart, in God and the soul.99

Marriage, unlike other sacraments, was instituted twice. In the first institution, before sin, marriage was a duty, which would support the propagation of the human race. In De sacramentis, Hugh connected the first institution with both the sacrament of the soul and God and the sacrament of the Church and Christ.100 The second institution, after the fall, set forth marriage as a remedy for sin. As a remedy, there was a sense that marriage ameliorated the situation. He wrote, “the second institution sanctified marriage as a compact of love so that the goods associated with it might excuse what resulted from weakness and sin in the mingling of flesh.”101 The goods that Hugh wrote about were Augustine’s: the raising of children and the permissible outlet for sexual desire. These were functional goods of marriage which may (but do not necessarily) accompany the sacrament of marriage. While non-Christians also marry, they do not enjoy the sacramental goods of marriage. Confession and Penance Marriage had a remedial effect on sexual desire, but confession and penance offered a remedy for the whole range of sins. While Hugh of St Victor’s treatment of confession and penance contained elements that would recur in subsequent Victorine authors, second and third generation Victorines produced more fully developed theologies and guidelines regarding confession as a sacramental remedy. The development of Victorine theologies of penance fits within the broader trajectory of sacramental theology and practice during the long twelfth 98 99 100 101

Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments, 383. BM virg. I.16 (ed. Jollès, unsure of page, 206–17). Sacr. 2.11.3. Sacr. 2.11.3.

G eneral I ntroduction



49

century. Penance was a public affair during the Patristic era, but by the beginning of the twelfth century private confession and penance were commonly practiced and there was more “attention focused on the penitent’s intentions and the role of the sacrament in spiritual growth.”102 Three issues about penance emerged: repeatability, when is sin remitted, and the role of the priest. Regarding the repeatability of penance, Hugh broke with biblical and Patristic precedents set by the Epistle to the Hebrews and St Jerome by affirming the ability of the penitent to complete penance multiple times throughout her life.103 The reality of continual human error necessitated the repeatability of penance. This position is consistent with Hugh’s theology of God’s graciousness toward and restoration of sinful humans. For Hugh, forgiveness of sin occurred during inner penance (contrition); merit was located in the penitent’s good will, not in the good works produced by the will.104 This did not obviate the need for a priest because “God’s forgiveness comes normally (and biblically) by means of human mediation, indeed fittingly so, since the proud sinner needs to yield humbly to a mediator.”105 Achard of St Victor treated confession in Sermon 14: On the Feast of All Saints. Confession must be made in a particular manner, which fell into two categories: the type of confession that is made and the quality of the confession itself. The first of these was itself subdivided into three types: confession of the heart, confession of the mouth, and confession in deed.106 Confession of the heart was the recognition that a person had not only done what she ought not to have done, but also had avoided doing what ought to be done. Confession of the heart was a “hidden accusation” made before God. Confession of the mouth highlighted the role of the Church in the sacrament of confession because it was to be made to a priest, “Christ’s vicar.”107 The insistence on making confession orally marked an important point in the historical development of confession. Hugh Feiss writes that “the distinction between confession to God and to his representative was bound up with 102 103 104 105 106 107

Thomas M. Finn, “The Sacramental World in the Sentences of Peter Lombard,” Theological Studies 69 (2008): 571. Rorem, Hugh of St Victor, 110. Sacr. 2.14.6; Rorem, Hugh of St Victor, 110. Rorem, Hugh of St Victor, 110. Achard 14.5. in Achard of St Victor, Works, tr. Hugh Feiss, CS 165 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2001), 267. Achard 14.5 (tr. Feiss, Works, 267).

50

G eneral I ntroduction

the controversy regarding the necessity of oral confession that occurred during Achard’s lifetime. For Abelard and his disciples, confession of the heart (= contrition) was crucial; oral confession, although obligatory in principle, was not necessary for remission of sins. The Victorines opposed this vigorously.”108 For Achard, like Hugh, full confession cannot be made outside the Church apart from clergy, and the penitent performs what the priest, Christ’s vicar, has imposed for what was committed.109 Through satisfaction, the penance required by one’s sins is accomplished. The quality of confession is just as important as the manner of confession. For confession to be made perfectly, it must be voluntary, bare, and pure. First, sin resides in the will, so confession must be made willingly. Because confession included a rejection of the offence and a resolution to not repeat it, an unwilling confession would be meaningless. In his concise account of voluntary confession, Achard spent the majority of his discussion counseling his audience to willingly accept correction from others. If someone else brings a fault to light, “let them not object, or resist, or give way to impatience and then erupt in anger, but rather let them turn within and in the end become contrite so that they bear with it calmly and are even thankful that another person has given them a wholesome reminder regarding what they may negligently have let slip from their mind.”110 Second, confession should be bare. “Let them not palliate their depravity and shroud it in circumstances that make it seem minor; let them tell it the way it happened and leave out nothing regarding either the measure or the manner.”111 Faults must be exposed, in all their detail, in order to be healed. Finally, confession must be pure. “That confession be voluntary and bare is not enough, if it is not pure as well… Some confess voluntarily and plainly, but impurely; their minds and consciences are impure.”112 The purity 108 109 110

111

112

Achard, Works, 267 n. 20. See this note for more on Victorine insistence on oral confession. Achard 14.5 (Feiss, 268): “exsequatur quod sibi a sacerdote, vicario Christi, pro commisso injunctum” (Châtillon, 179). Achard 14.6 (Feiss, 269). “non contradicat, non resistat, non ad impatientiam et per impatientiam prorumpat ad iram, sed magis, in se reversus vel tandem compunctus, equanimiter ferat, sed gratum habeat quod alter ei salubriter commemorat quod ei forte a mente negligenter exciderit” (Châtillon, 180). Achard 14.7 (Feiss, 269). “Turpitudinem suam non palliet et involvat quibusdam circumstantiis, ut minor videatur. Rem prout gesta est exponat et nichil subtrahat, sive de mensura, sive de modo” (Châtillon, 180). Achard 14.12 (Feiss, 277). “Non sufficit autem ut sit confessio voluntaria et nuda, nisi sit et munda… Sunt qui confitentur et voluntarie et nude, sed immunde; immunda siquidem est eorum et mens et conscientia” (Châtillon, 186).

G eneral I ntroduction



51

of confession concerns one’s motives in making the confession itself. Whereas the bare quality of perfect confession was concerned with honestly recounting one’s faults, despite the probable shame that one might feel, the purity of confession focused on those who manipulate confession for social gain. Between Hugh and Achard and later Victorines, such as a Richard of St Victor and Peter of Poitiers, Peter Lombard and his Sentences contributed to the development of confession and penance. Although he is not considered a Victorine, the Lombard spent some time at the Abbey of St Victor. He incorporated elements of Hugh of St Victor’s theology, but he also drew heavily upon the work of Peter Abelard and Gratian.113 He agreed with Hugh about both the repeatability of penance and the contrition as the point at which salvation was granted, but, in line with Abelard, Lombard thought that the role of the priest was merely to declare that sins were forgiven. His Sentences also attest to the common mid-twelfth-century opinion that the sacrament of confession and penance was composed of contrition, confession, and works of salvation.114 This threefold formation of the sacrament was consistent with the threefold form of the Eucharist. By the end of the twelfth century, Radulphus Ardens stated, “this sacrament has three parts: exterior satisfaction, interior contrition, and the remission of sins. The first is a sacrament and not a reality; the second is a sacrament and a reality; the third is a reality and not a sacrament. The first signifies the second; the second is signified by the first and signifies the third; the third is signified alone.”115 Exterior satisfaction, such as alms or fasting, acted like the bread and wine. They were the material elements of the sacrament which pointed to another reality, namely, interior contrition. Interior contrition, like the true body and blood of Christ, was a reality in itself, but it also pointed beyond itself to another sacred reality. In the sacrament of penance, interior contrition signified the remission of sins. Richard of St  Victor wrote two short texts to address some of the practical issues of administering penance: On the Difference in Punishment of Mortal and Venial Sin and On the Power of Binding and Loosing. In On the Power of Binding and Loosing, Richard cited 113 114 115

Atria A. Larson, Master of Penance (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2014), 315–42. Coolman, “Christo-Pneumatic-Ecclesial Character,” 211. Radulphus Ardens, Speculum universale 89, as quoted in Coolman, 211–12.

52

G eneral I ntroduction

Lombard twice, which places the writing of the text after 1157 and, as Hugh Feiss’ introduction to the text below suggests, he attempted to chart a middle path between Hugh and Lombard on the role of the priest. Richard noted, “When someone falls into some grave sin, it is then not in his power to be able to rise up on his own. He can go away from the Lord on his own, but he cannot return to him on his own.”116 The individual was held culpable for his grave sin and needed to bear the consequences or seek a remedy from God. Sin bound a person in two ways. The first was the bondage of guilt which had two parts: captivity and servitude. Captivity caused a kind of soul death. Just as physical death prevented the body from doing good work, the soul death prevented a person from doing the “works of eternal life.”117 Thus, this binding prevented a person from doing anything that could then remedy the situation. It is like a man who has fallen into a ditch and cannot get himself out. The second aspect was that of servitude, which bound the person to continue sinning.118 Servitude can be thought of as the man in a ditch who not only cannot climb out, but actually digs himself deeper into the ditch. The servitude worsened captivity. Beyond the captivity and servitude, the sinner also incurred the bondage of punishment, namely eternal damnation.119 The sinner’s situation was remedied only through God pricking “the sinful soul with compunction to be truly penitent. Therefore, the sinner at one and the same time was loosed from the bond of guilt and the debt of eternal damnation.”120 Richard carefully distinguished what happened at the moment of contrition. When the bond of guilt was loosened, the bond of eternal punishment was exchanged for temporal punishment in the form of penance. Temporal punishment was still necessary because sin, even once it was removed, left a lingering impurity in the soul that must be removed either in this life or the next. The priest, co-working with God, played a crucial role in aiding the sinner to expiate his sin.121 The binding and loosening of guilt and punishment were interconnected; God would not prick the conscious of a sinner without also requiring, when circumstances allowed, for the 116 117 118 119 120 121

Richard of St Victor, On the Power of Binding and Loosening, 2. Richard of St Victor, On the Power of Binding and Loosening, 2. Richard of St Victor, On the Power of Binding and Loosening, 2. Richard of St Victor, On the Power of Binding and Loosening, 3. Richard of St Victor, On the Power of Binding and Loosening, 4. Richard of St Victor, On the Power of Binding and Loosening, 6.

G eneral I ntroduction



53

sinner to also make confession to a priest to avoid purgatorial cleansing after death. Richard wrote, The Lord absolves the penitent from the debt of damnation with the condition that he must, insofar as he can, seek absolution of the priest and in accord with his judgment make satisfaction in the way required (debito more). If he neglects to do that he does not avoid eternal danger. However, once he has received absolution and fulfilled the conditions imposed, even if he should suddenly die, he would avoid damnation.122

The work of loosening the bond of punishment, eternal damnation, was God’s alone, but that punishment had to be replaced by a form of temporal punishment, for sin cannot go unpunished. If the penitent did not seek absolution from a priest, eternal punishment was not replaced and thus remained a threat. If possible, the penitent should make satisfaction through penance. Because priests were tasked with determining just forms of satisfaction for penitents, it was imperative that priests were educated in both theoretical and practical aspects of defining sins and determining the appropriate penance. The second text of Richard of St Victor included in this volume, On the Difference of Mortal and Venial Sin, also addressed the issue of punishment, namely the question whether venial sins added to the punishment of mortal sins for the damned. Inherent in the question was the difference between venial and mortal sins. Richard wrote that for those reborn in Christ, venial sins did not merit eternal punishment, but mortal sins did. Therefore, the answer to the initial question was no, venial sins did not add to the eternal punishment of mortal sins.123 Richard concluded his short text by distinguishing mortal sins in terms of their severity; “It seems to me that mortal sin is rightly distinguished by three things. A sin is mortal if one cannot commit it without grave corruption to oneself. Likewise, a sin is mortal if it cannot be committed without grave harm to one’s neighbor. Finally, a sin is mortal if it cannot be committed without great contempt of God.”124 If a sin gravely harmed oneself or neighbor or showed great contempt for God, it was a mortal sin; if not, it was a venial sin. 122 123

124

Richard of St Victor, On the Power of Binding and Loosening, 8. Richard of St Victor, On the Difference of Mortal and Venial Sin (De differentia peccati mortalis et venialis), ed. Ribaillier, Opuscules théologiques, TPMA XV (Paris: Vrin, 1967), 290–96; translated below. Richard of St Victor, On the Difference of Mortal and Venial Sin.

54

G eneral I ntroduction

Hugh and Richard’s works provided a theological framework for the sacrament of confession and penance, but by the opening of the thirteenth century more practical texts were necessary to advise confessors. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) required that every Christian who had reached the age of reason had to make confession to their local priest. Penitential handbooks began to be written and disseminated throughout dioceses to serve as guides for priests so that they could provide correct forms of satisfaction for their parishioners. Peter of Poitiers wrote such a text, during or soon after the Fourth Lateran Council, for Parisian priests. His handbook brought together the theoretical and practical elements, with a heavy emphasis on penance as an instrument for the care of souls. Like Achard, Peter included the necessary qualities of confession. Confession must be simple, humble, pure, done with faith and hope, true, frequent, bare, discrete, willing, modest, whole, secret, tearful, timely, strong, accusing oneself instead of excusing oneself.125 In the half century between Achard and Peter, the list of qualities of proper confession expanded greatly, but both men demonstrated keen awareness of human psychology and potential abuses in confession. Additionally, Peter was sensitive to balance the need for robust confession and the social dimensions of penance: “first, let him strive to induce the sinner to avoid all the circumstances and occasions of sin, especially the sin that he confesses. Second, not to put off confession. Third, not to be negligent in making satisfaction. Likewise, let him be discreet in enjoining penance, so that he does not impose an unbearable burden on another’s shoulders especially through a penance that would catch the attention of others.”126 Throughout his text, Peter advised his readers to take into consideration the penitent’s occupation and social status when determining the appropriate penance. For example, during the periods of harvest or vintage, laborers should not be enjoined to fast in such a way as would be harmful to their well-being or that of their families.127 The guiding principle for prescribing a penance was that it should not be so burdensome that people are dissuaded from seeking absolution. The text contains various sins that one might expect (fornication, violation of a trust, ill-gotten gains, etc.), but also sins that seem 125 126 127

Peter of Poitiers, Compilatio praesens, Homily of James of St  Victor, ed. Jean Longère, CCCM 51 (Turnhout: Brepols), 3. The entire penitential is translated below. Peter of Poitiers, Compilatio praesens, Homily of James of St Victor, ed. Longère, 2. Peter of Poitiers, Compilatio praesens, XVIII (ed. Longère, 21–22).

G eneral I ntroduction



55

to be specific to his location, such as striking a priest,128 which provide a glimpse into the world of early thirteenth-century Paris. Conclusion Peter’s text was part of the growing body of literature concerning the assignment of the proper form of satisfaction for each sin confessed, but it also gestured towards the developing hierarchical organization of the sacraments and the culmination of the Gregorian reforms. The Fourth Lateran council required the faithful to make confession to their local priest, a position supported in Peter’s text, but also, throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, there was an entire structure of bishops, rural deans, and confessor-generals (“penitentiaries”) to educate clergy, hear clerical confessions, and arbitrate difficult cases.129 Penitential manuals that clearly defined clerical roles and relationships speak to some degree of success of Gregory’s vision of a more centralized and organized church hierarchy. The Victorines were important figures in the reforming efforts of the long twelfth century. The administrative reforms are felt on the margins of some of the later Victorine texts, but the reform of the clergy and increased pastoral care of the laity are evident throughout the works of the masters of the Abbey of St Victor. Their writings concerning the sacraments provide a lens through which to view these efforts. In texts such as Hugh of St Victor’s De sacramentis and Peter of Poitier’s Compilatio praesens, clergy were instructed to be worthy of their offices. Hugh was insistent upon clerical celibacy and Peter warned clergy against the dereliction of duties resulting from holding too many positions. At the beginning of the twelfth century, sacramental theology was in a nascent stage of development. There were florilegia and collections of Patristic quotes, but there were no systematic treatments providing definitive lists or definitions of sacraments. While the Victorines were not the only theologians discussing the sacraments, one should not undervalue Hugh of St Victor’s contributions. His definition of a sacrament often would be repeated and commented upon throughout 128 129

Peter of Poitiers, Compilatio praesens LII–LIII (ed. Longère, 70–74). Joseph Goering, “The  Internal Forum and the Literature of Penance and Confession,” The History of Medieval Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140–1234, ed. Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 385–90.

56

G eneral I ntroduction

the twelfth and thirteenth centuries;130 his tri-part treatment of the Eucharist established a pattern of thinking about the sacraments that would become standard;131 and his theology served as a source for one of the most influential texts of the twelfth century, Lombard’s Sentences. The Victorine insistence that God works through clergy and material elements but can save people without the sacraments allowed them to develop a robust sacramental theology characterized by God’s graciousness, the goodness of creation, and the reformation of the soul. Coolman summarizes why the sacraments were essential even if they were not absolutely necessary for salvation: Hugh of St Victor espied an oft-repeated, threefold rationale: first, they foster humility; second, they instruct; and third, they provide a salutary exercise. The deep Victorine intuition behind these was that in the sacramental economy—indeed, in the whole economy of creation and salvation—the visible mediates the invisible: Per visibilia ad invisibilia. Accordingly, the sacramental life in this century was viewed as a kind of theological pedagogy that fostered a certain symbolic mode of thought and multilayered way of seeing reality.132

The sacraments involve a kind of epistemological method. God’s work of restoration utilized God’s works of creation. Through the visible world, elements of which are used in the sacraments, the reality of indivisible grace is made known. Later generations of Victorines did not stray far from Hugh’s fundamental sacramental insights, even as they tackled the sacramental issues of their own days. The  development of Victorine sacramental theology went hand in hand with Victorine pastoral care. The  sacraments, along with preaching,133 were the key components for the care of the soul in the twelfth century. The sacraments reformed the soul, calling the faithful to mark different stages of their lives, take inventory of their souls’ health, and pursue holy lives. By the Fourth Lateran Council, it was required for clergy to provide pastoral care and incumbent upon the faithful to partake in the Church’s offerings. Because of the contributions of the Victorines, along with other theologians, sacramental theology was no longer a rough sketch, but was fully integrated into the Catholic life and thought. 130 131 132 133

Poirel, “Sacrament,” 277. Coolman, “Christo-Pneumatic-Ecclesial Character,” 203. Coolman, “Christo-Pneumatic-Ecclesial Character,” 203. For Victorine sermons on the Liturgical Year, see Victorine Texts in Translation VIII.

CHRIST, THE CHURCH, AND THE SACRAMENTS

HUGH OF ST VICTOR: CHRIST, THE CHURCH, AND THE SACRAMENTS INTRODUCTION

The Historical Context In his study, The Definitions of Sacraments in the Early Scholastic Period (1050–1240),1 Damien van den Eynde assigned to the years 1050–1120 the introduction of Augustinian definitions, and to the period 1120–60 the elaboration of systematic definitions, after which the definitions formulated then were modified and stabilized. In the first period, there were different descriptions of sacraments received from Augustine, emphasizing the sacrament as sign, and Isidore, who wrote of the presence and efficacy of divine power in the res gesta celebrated.2 The tensions between these two ways of describing sacraments became apparent in the controversy over the Eucharistic teaching of Berengarius.3 The controversy centered on the interpretation of Augustinian texts, especially the one Hugh mentions at the beginning of his treatise: ­sacramentum signum sacrum. Ivo of Chartres cited this definition and two others of Augustinian inspiration that Berengarius himself had cited: In Book 10 of On  the City of God… a sacred sign. And elsewhere: A sacrament is a visible form of invisible grace. And likewise Book 2 of On Christian Instruction: a sign is a thing that of itself causes to come to mind something else besides the appearance that it brings to the senses.4

In Sic et Non, Abelard cites directly or indirectly a wider collection of Augustinian definitions that Berengarius had assembled: a sacrament 1

2 3 4

Les définitions des sacrements pendant la première période de la théologie scolastique (1050– 1240) (Rome: Antonianum, 1950), 1–46. Van den Eynde focuses primarily on the definition of a sacrament, which is only one aspect of Hugh’s teaching on the sacraments. Isidore, Etym. 6.19.39–42 (PL 82.255C–256A; http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore.html; tr. Barney, et al., 148–49). This is discussed in the introduction to Hugh’s treatment of the Eucharist. Ivo of Chartres, Decretum 2.8 (PL  161.148C); and similarly in Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, ­Panormia 1.130–31 (PL 161.1074A).

60

HUGH OF ST VICTOR – CHRIST, THE CHURCH, AND THE SACRAMENTS

is a visible sign of an invisible divine reality, a sign of a divine mystery, a visible word, sacred but mutable and temporal.5 As the notion of sacrament was refined in the first half of the twelfth century, fewer things and deeds were classified as “sacraments.” Some, Hugh of St Victor among them, added new elements to the definition of a sacrament. The definition sacramentum signum sacrum was modified to become rei sacrae signum, a phrase that was widespread by the time Hugh of St Victor cited it.6 Another Augustinian definition of a sacrament—sacramentum invisibilis gratiae forma, the way Abelard cited it in Sic et non—was also modified under his lead to become sacramentum invisibilis gratiae visibile signum. Christ, Church and Sacraments In a seminal work, Karl Rahner argued that Christ is the primordial sacrament of salvation: Christ is the actual historical presence in the world of the eschatologically triumphant mercy of God. It is possible to point to a visible, historically manifest fact, located in time and space, and say, because that is there, God is reconciled to the world. There the grace of God appears in our world of time and space. There is the spatio-temporal sign that effects what it points to. Christ in his historical existence is both reality and sign, sacramentum and res sacramenti of the redemptive grace of God.7

The Church in its turn is the fundamental sacrament: By the very fact of being… the enduring presence of Christ in the world, the Church is truly the fundamental sacrament, the well-spring of the sacraments in the strict sense… Viewed in relation to Christ, 5 6

7

Sic et non, 117 (PL 178.1534B–1535A; ed. Blanche Boyer and Richard McKeon [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976–77], 407). Dial. sacr. (PL 176.34A). Hugh goes on to elaborate (PL 176.35A) in a way that adumbrates his more careful definition in Sacr. 1.92.: “D. Quid interest inter signum et sacramentum? M. Signum solum ex institutione significat; sacramentum etiam ex similitudine repraesentat. Item signum rem significare potest, non conferre. In sacramento autem non sola significatio est, sed etiam efficacia: ut videlicet simul et ex institutione significet [PL significat], et ex similitudine repraesentet et conferat ex sanctificatione” (“Disciple: What is the difference between a sign and a sacrament? Master: A sign only signifies through institution; a sacrament also represents through likeness. Likewise, a sign can signify a thing, but it cannot confer it. In a sacrament, however, there is not only signification but also efficaciousness, so that simultaneously it signifies by institution, represents by likeness, and confers by sanctification”). Karl Rahner, The Church and the Sacraments, Quaestiones Disputatae 9 (NY: Herder & Herder, 1963), 15.

I ntroduction



61

the Church is the abiding promulgation of his grace-giving presence in the world. Viewed in relation to the sacraments, the Church is the primal and fundamental sacrament.8

The Church is most herself when she celebrates the sacraments to bring grace to her members: Where the Church in her official, organized, public capacity precisely as the source of redemptive grace meets the individual in the actual ultimate accomplishment of her nature, there we have sacraments in the proper sense, and they can then be seen to be the essential functions that bring into activity the very essence of the Church herself.9

Rahner’s understanding of the intertwined sacramentality of Christ, the Church, and the sacraments is very close to the thinking of Hugh of St Victor. For Hugh, Christ is the fullness of grace, and that grace flows from Christ to the members of his Body, the Church. In the sacraments, the Church acts to intensify the life of grace and the faith and devotion of her members. Hence, the section “On the Institution of the Sacraments” includes some key parts of Hugh’s treatment in the De sacramentis of Christ and the Church, brief discussions of which will be included in this introduction. The Meanings of “Sacrament” in Hugh of St Victor In a very helpful article, discussed by Nicole Reibe in her introduction to this volume, Dominique Poirel notes that Hugh’s notion of “sacrament” is “broader, more complex and more supple than ours.”10 He distinguishes five principal significations. The broadest of these is “a sacred sign.”11 In this sense, “human paternity is a sacrament and image of divine paternity,”12 and faith is a sacrament of the contemplation of heaven.13 We live in a sacramental universe, which in its entirety and its parts is a book written by the finger of God,14 and 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Rahner, Church and Sacraments, 18–19. Rahner, Church and Sacraments, 22. Dominique Poirel, “Sacraments,” in A Companion to the Abbey of Saint Victor in Paris, ed. Hugh Feiss, OSB, and Juliet Mousseau, RSCJ (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 277–97. Dial. de creatione mundi (ed. Giraud, 332); Sacr. 1.9.1 (PL 176.317). Inst. in decal. (PL 176.12D) = Sacr. 1.12.7 (PL 176.355B). Sacr. 1.10.9 (PL 176.342D). De  tribus diebus (Poirel, CCCM  177, 9–10; PL  176.814BC; tr.  Feiss, VTT  1:63–64); see ­Gabriel  Josipovici, The  World and the Book: A  Study of Modern Fiction (Stanford, CA: ­Stanford U ­ niversity Press, 1971), 25–52.

62

HUGH OF ST VICTOR – CHRIST, THE CHURCH, AND THE SACRAMENTS

each part of it an image of a higher reality.15 A second very general understanding of “sacrament” applies it to the words of Scripture (not in themselves, since Hugh denies that words and pictures are properly called sacraments),16 but insofar as the things that Scripture signifies are sacraments of something else, as “lion” refers to an animal that is a sign of Christ.17 That is to say, the things, people, and events written about in Scripture are signs insofar as their allegorical meaning refers to Christ and the Church. However, the events of sacred history recounted in the Bible all point to or derive from the Incarnation, the first and greatest sacrament, on account of which all sacraments that preceded or follow it were created.18 Perhaps one could say that the Incarnation is the light of the sun, refracted through the pieces of glass that are the details of the unfolding of salvation history. A fourth signification of “sacrament” in Hugh’s usage is the doctrines that constitute the Christian Creed, the mysteries of faith listed in the Didascalicon and treated in the De sacramentis. All these teachings and the realities to which they refer are signs of and signposts to the Incarnation.19 The fifth signification of “sacrament” in Hugh of St Victor’s writings is the one with which we are particularly concerned here, but before we consider it, it will be helpful to look at two of the sacraments in this fourth sense, Christ and the Church. Christ the Redeemer Fallen humanity unjustly turned away from the just God. The Son of God became the Son of Man by assuming human nature through which he could address humanity in its own guise. By bearing their punishment, he proved to them his affection for them. He maintained justice so he could cure humanity. While remaining one with God in nature, He became one with humankind in person to make them one with him and so with the Father with whom he was one. He became our head in grace so that he could make us one in and through him in glory and with the Father with whom he was one.20 15 16 17 18 19 20

Sacr. 1.10.9 (PL 176.342BC). Sacr. 1.9.2 (PL 176.317C). Script. 5 (PL 175.13BD). Sent. div. (ed. Piazzoni, 921; tr. Evans VTT 1:121). Didasc. 6.4 (Buttimer, 119; tr. Harkins, VTT 3:168); Sacr. Prol. (PL 176.183). Sacr. 2.1.12 (PL 176.412A–413A; tr. Froula, VTT 7:173–74).

I ntroduction



63

The fullness of grace resides in Christ, the head. His members participate in it. This grace enlightens ignorance and heals moral weakness, illuminating to knowledge of the truth and inflaming to love of virtue. The Holy Spirit comes from Christ to his members, making them one body.21 “Holy Church is the Body of Christ vivified by one Spirit, united by one faith, and made holy.”22 God distributes gifts to individuals in the Church, but these gifts are given not for the individuals alone but for the whole Church.23 The Church embraces two orders, laity and clerics, who are like two sides of a single body. The laity serve in what is necessary for this life; clerics dispense the things that pertain to the spiritual life. There are different orders of clerics, and within each order different powers or responsibilities.24 In the visual presentation of the story of salvation in the De archa Noe and the Libellus de formatione archae, Christ occupies the very center of the drawing, the cubit at the top of the mast that is the center and support of the ark. Christ is ontologically and chronologically the Center.25 The work of redemption that restores, completes, and transcends the work of creation consists of “the Incarnation of the Word with all his sacraments.”26 As all the decks in the ark drawing lean upon the mast, so all the sacraments of the work of restoration, whether before or after Christ, draw their efficacy from the Passion of the Savior. Christ entered human history as teacher, helper, example, and savior. “The Son of God became Son of Man in order to make the sons of men into sons of God.”27 Christ instituted the sacraments of the law of grace to be the perfect remedies.28 Hugh’s inclusion of institution by Christ in his definition of sacraments accentuates the centrality of Christ. Even the sacrament of marriage, which existed from the time of Paradise in regard to its purpose (officium) and became a remedy after the Fall, bestows holiness only on those united through Christ to God internally through faith, charity, and devotion.29 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Sacr. 2.2.1 (PL 176.415B–416B). Sacr. 2.2.2 (PL 176.416BC): “Ecclesia sancta corpus est Christi uno Spiritu vivificata, et unita fide una, et sanctificata.” Sacr. 2.2.2 (PL 176.416C–417A). Sacr. 2.2.3–4 (PL 176.417A–418D). For what follows in this section, see in addition to Poirel’s article, Blessing, De ore, 36–67. Sacr. 1. Prol. (PL 176.183B); Script. 2 (PL 175.11B; tr. Van Liere, VTT 3:214). Sacr. 2.1.2 (PL 176.372D). Sacr. 1.8.12 (PL 176.314A). Sacr. 1.8.13 (PL 176.314C), 2.11.8 (PL 176.496B).

64

HUGH OF ST VICTOR – CHRIST, THE CHURCH, AND THE SACRAMENTS

The “Institution” of the Sacraments De sacramentis 1.9, “On the Institution of the Sacraments” (“institution” both in the sense of establishing them, and in the sense of something established), is one of the most carefully crafted parts of Hugh’s summa of Christian faith. He seldom cites his predecessors, but most of the ideas in it were in air when he wrote. His contribution is to arrange them in a coherent whole. In the first paragraph, he lays out in logical order the four questions he will discuss. What is a sacrament? Why have sacraments been instituted? What is the matter of each sacrament by which is confected and sanctified? How many kinds of sacraments are there? In the course of answering these questions, Hugh introduces some technical vocabulary, beginning with the word “sacrament,” which he first describes as a visible sign of a sacred thing, then carefully defines: “a sacrament is a corporeal or material element proposed to the senses, representing by likeness, signifying by institution, and containing by sanctification some invisible and spiritual grace.”30 Here, we can summarize Hugh’s treatment by paying attention to the vocabulary he uses and to ideas that appear in his other writings. The word “sacrament” came to Hugh through a long tradition of Christian usage, going back to Paul’s use of the Greek word musterion, translated into Latin as sacramentum. By this term, Paul meant God’s hidden plan, his dispensation or arrangement of time to renew all things in Christ.31 God and his plan are immutable and eternal, beyond the comprehension of man; but the plan unfolds as God administers it in time. This plan or dispensation is dependent on God’s choice; God could have arranged to bring humanity to divine life some other way, but because God has chosen Christ and the sacraments stemming from Christ as the way to salvation, those who know about Christ must believe in him and, if they are able, receive those sacraments.32 Sacraments are constituted to meet human beings in their current condition of body and soul. Because of the lure of sin, human beings tend to make material things the object of their love (in many treatises Hugh analyzes love in Augustinian terms, whereby only God 30 31

32

Sacr. 1.9.2 (PL 176.317BD). Eph 1:9–10: “ut notum faceret nobis sacramentum voluntatis suae secundum bonum placitum eius quod proposuit in eo in dispensationem plenitudinis temporum instaurare omnia in Christo.” Sacr. 1.9.5 (PL 176.323C–326B).

I ntroduction



65

is to be loved most of all and solely for his own sake).33 They turn to material things beneath them, rather than to God who is above them. So, God’s dispensation is to save human beings through a variety of material elements that are signs of spiritual reality. Sacraments are material, in order to meet fallen humanity in its inclination toward material things; varied, because human beings, seeking fulfillment in material things that cannot satisfy them, are unstable and changeable (the starting point of Hugh’s treatise On the Ark of Noah).34 Hugh calls the material aspect of a sacrament its elements. They are threefold: things (material objects, res), deeds (actions, such as the sign of the Cross), or words (invoking God’s blessing or expressing the meaning of the sign).35 Nature (the world of birth and death), as God created it, does not make elements into sacraments. To the elements of nature must be added institution according to the plan of God and grace infused through a blessing. The Creator made the elements or vessels, the Savior instituted them as signs of grace, and the Dispenser makes them vehicles of grace. Sacraments, then, are appropriated to the persons of the Trinity. Although Hugh did not use the term appropriation for the assignment of acts of divine nature ad extra to specific persons of the Trinity, he pioneered the understanding of this feature of theological speech, particularly in his work On the Three Days.36 The sanctification that the Spirit brings to the recipient of the sacrament is the reality (res) signified by the sign, the power or virtue (virtus) with which the element is endowed by Christ’s institution and the Spirit’s bestowal (dispensing) of grace,37 of which in most sacraments the priest is the minister. The minister is the agent through whom the Holy Spirit works to confect (that is, to bring about together) the sacrament.38 Hugh refers to the sacrament as a container (vas) of spiritual grace,39 and idea that works well in regard to the Eucharist, wherein the real presence of Christ’s body and blood is the vessel by which Christians are sanctified. Salvation is achieved when a person is made holy (sanctified) so that he directs himself to God with faith and devotion. Devotion is the heart 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

See the discussions and texts in VTT 2:33–232. Sacr. 1.9.3 (PL 176.319B–322A). Sacr. 1.9.6 (PL 176.326B–327A). Sacr. 1.9.4 (PL 176.322AB). Sacr. 1.9.2 (PL 176.318B–319A). Sacr. 1.9.4 (PL 176.322C–323A). Sacr. 1.9.3 (PL 176.320B).

66

HUGH OF ST VICTOR – CHRIST, THE CHURCH, AND THE SACRAMENTS

of prayer (as Hugh establishes in his treatise On the Power of Prayer) and the effect of the sacraments.40 Hugh distinguishes three ages: nature, the written law, and grace. At the center between the second and third ages stands Christ, the eternal Son of God.41 To each age, Christ has offered sacraments of healing and salvation. From the very beginning of time, there have been Christians in fact if not in name,42 members of Christ’s family,43 members of the Body of which he is the Head. For all of them, there have been sacraments. This Body of Christ is the Church vivified, united in one faith, and sanctified by the one Holy Spirit. Whatever grace comes to a member of Christ through the Church is given to him not only for himself but also for all the faithful.44 The sacraments of each successive age become more evident and more effective signs; those of earlier ages are shadows of the later ones.45 The people of the Old Law were sanctified through signs, such as tithes, oblations, sacrifices, and circumcision. Hence, Hugh places his discussion of sacraments in this part of the first Book of De sacramentis, which deals with the time up to the Incarnation of Christ. People in the time of the Old Law were saved by the sacraments, precepts, and promises that God extended to them. They were not, Hugh insists, bound to receive the sacraments of the New Law in order to be saved.46 Granted that human beings are body and soul, and that in their current state they are inclined to inconstancy and preoccupation with material things, God instituted the sacraments to help them become devoted to him. The sacraments do this first of all by inculcating humility. Human beings are required to find sanctification in simple material elements, in what is by nature beneath them. In their pride, they disobeyed God and turned away from God to material things; it is by obediently accepting the humble elements of the sacraments and the human minister that they return to God. Secondly, the sacraments instruct. The elements present in them are apt to teach about the spiritual effect produced by the sacrament: the water of baptism signifies 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Sacr. 1.9.3, 5 (PL 176.319CD, 324D). Sacr. 2.1.2 (PL 176.372C). Sacr. 1.8.11 (PL 176.312D). Sacr. 1.8.11 (PL 176.312C). Sacr. 2.2.2 (PL 176.416B–417A). Sacr. 1.11.6 (PL 176.345D); Archa Noe 4.9 (Sicard, 114; PL 176.679AB). Sacr. 1.9.5 (PL 176.323A–326B); Sacr. 1.12.4 (PL 176.351C) and Sacr. 1.11–12 (PL 176.343B– 363D).

I ntroduction



67

cleansing; the bread and wine of the Eucharist, spiritual nourishment. Thirdly, the sacraments are physical actions (exercises); by performing them a human being is formed spiritually. Outer action deepens and expresses inner virtue (a key idea of Hugh’s treatise On the Formation of Novices).47 Hugh is fond of describing the work of salvation in medical terms. His application of this medical metaphor to the sacraments is a fair summary of his thinking: human beings are the patients; God is the physician; the priest is the minister or servant; grace is the medicine to cure the illness; the container of the medicine is the sacrament. In more modern terms, the patient has a serious, even deadly infection; the physician prescribes an antibiotic; the nurse administers it; the syringe is the sacrament containing and conveying the medicine. The Kinds of Sacraments Hugh divides the sacraments of the time of grace into three kinds: (1) those that bestow salvation, such as Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist; (2) those which foster practice of the Christian life (ad exercitationem) such as the conferral of ashes or the use of Holy Water;48 and (3) those which support or prepare (ad preparationem) for the other sacraments (like sacred vestments).49 Thus, for Hugh, there are three major sacraments, what today are called the sacraments of initiation, and many minor sacraments.50 Soon after Hugh’s death, Peter Lombard identified seven sacramenta salutaria, which included Hugh’s three sacramenta maiora and four of his sacramenta minora. Peter Lombard wrote that “a sacrament is properly so called because it is a sign of God’s grace and a form of invisible grace in such manner that it bears its image and is its cause. And so, the sacraments were not instituted only for the sake of signifying, but also to sanctify.”51 This imparted capacity to sanctify is the key distinguishing mark of those things and actions that Hugh includes in the fifth signification of “sacrament.” 47 48 49 50 51

Sacr. 1.9.3 (PL 176.319A–322A). Sacr. 2.9.1 (PL 176.471D). Sacr. 1.9.7 (PL 176.327AB). Sacr. 2.Prol. (PL 176.363–64). Sent. 4.1.4: “Sacramentum enim proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei et invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat and causa existat. Non igitur significandi tantum gratia Sacramenta instituta sunt, sed etiam sanctificandi” (Quaracchi [1916], 746; tr. Silano, 4:4).

68

HUGH OF ST VICTOR – CHRIST, THE CHURCH, AND THE SACRAMENTS

Signs and Realities Hugh’s theology of the sacraments is made possible by his symbolic worldview, which he develops most thoroughly in his commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius’ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and which corresponds to the first signification of “sacrament” in Poirel’s analysis.52 From PseudoDionysius Hugh derived two basic ideas: illumination and participation. Created things are as it were reflections or rays of the uncreated light in which they participate. They bear varying degrees of likeness (similitudo) to the Creator. Because every good is from the highest good, so in every good one can contemplate the highest good according to a participated likeness.53 Human beings were created in the image and likeness of God. The human capacity to know and choose was damaged by sin. The eye of the flesh (by which one knows the physical world) remained intact, but the eye of reason (by which one can know oneself and what is within oneself) was damaged, and the eye of contemplation (by which the soul contemplates God) was blinded.54 As noted earlier, human beings can now only reach knowledge of the invisible by way of visible things.55 To recover contemplation of God, human beings must use their oculus carnis and oculus rationis, illumined by the grace of faith, to know of the semblances that are in the world. However, the likeness that most expresses God is the humanity of Christ. He became one with humanity so that, by becoming one with him, humanity could become one with God.56 The semblance of the world leads one to knowledge of the Creator’s existence, whereas the semblance of the humanity of the Word illuminates the eye of contemplation, pours into human hearts understanding of the truth, and enables them to recognize the presence of God. Conveyors of Grace Christ has the fullness of grace. The goal to which the sacraments lead is sanctification, restored participation in God. Faith, in itself 52

53

54 55 56

Super Ierarchiam Dionisii, ed. Dominique Poirel, CCCM 178 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), with the studies collected in Dominique Poirel, Des symboles et des anges: Hugues de Saint-Victor et le réveil dionysien du xiie siècle, BV 23 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013). For what follows, see Blessing, De ore, 58–68. Super Ierarchiam, II–i (Poirel, 415; PL 175.935D–936A): “sicut omne bonum a summo bono est, ita in omni bono secundum emulationem participationis summum bonum contemplari potest.” Sacr. 1.10.2 (PL 176.329C–330A). Super Ierarchiam, II–i (Poirel, 435; PL 175.949AB). Sacr. 2.1.12 (PL 176.412A–413A).

I ntroduction



69

a sacrament, enables one to participate in the sacraments of faith.57 The  sacrament of faith and the sacraments of faith work together, teaching the truth, and purifying and intensifying the affects of believers so that they grow in loving devotion and in the certitude of their faith.58 In the controversy over the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist ignited by Berengarius, to Augustine’s vocabulary sacramentum (sign) and res (reality), a third term was added, res et sacramenteum, a reality signified (Christ’s bodily presence) that also signified a further reality (res), the inner grace by which believers are united to Christ.59 In his treatise on the sacraments in general and in other important passages in the De sacramentis, Hugh describes the effects of the sacraments in various ways: he uses terms such as save or heal (curare, sanare), work (operari) and effect (efficere, efficax esse), bring about participation (participes facere), and make holy (sanctificare, sanctificationem conferre).60 Saving and healing cure the effects of sins: ignorance is remedied by the increasingly clearer sacramental signs of the three ages of salvation history; concupiscence by obedience of the body, the submission of its desires for earthly things to the soul, and love of spiritual things; and pride by humility.61

57 58 59

60

61

Sac. dial. (PL 176.36A); Sacr. 1.10.9 (PL 176.341D). Sacr. 1.9.3 (PL 176.319A–322A). See, for example, Sententie Anselmi, ed. Bliemetzrieder, Anselms von Laon Systematische Sentenzen, BGPTMA 18.2/3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1919), 116–20: “Est tamen Christus et sacramentum et res sacramenti. Corpus enim eius, quod diversis respectibus visibile et invisibile dicitur, res est visibilis sacramenti; sacramentum panis coelestis et invisiblis, quo vivunt angeli.” The ternary appears more clearly in the Quest. in ep. Pauli, 1 Cor 10:16, quest. 85 (PL 175.530AB): “In quo sacramento sunt tria: scilicet visibilis species panis et vini, et corpus et sanguis Christi, et gratia spiritualis. Primum est sacramentum secundi, secundum est res primi et sacramentum tertii, tertium est virtus primi et res secundi. Primum itaque est tantum sacramentum, secundum est et sacramentum et res, tertium vero tantum res. Habet ergo sacramentum primum res duas, unam signatam et contentam, scilicet verum corpus et sanguinem Christi, alteram signatam, et non contentam, scilicet unitatem Ecclesiae.” Hugh developed his own terminology in his commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius’ Ecclesastical ­Hierarchy, where he distinguishes between the truth (veritas) of the Body and Blood and the power (virtus) of the spiritual grace. “Nam cum unum sit sacramentum, tria ibi discreta proponuntur: species videlicet visibilis, et veritas corporis et virtus gratiae spiritualis” (Super Ierarchiam II–i [Poirel, CCCM 178, 440; PL 175.952B]). Hugh calls the third member of the ternary “res sacramenti” in De sacr. corp. (Wilmart, 243; translated in this volume). Sacr. 1.9.2 (PL 176.317B–319A); Sacr. 1.11.2 (PL 176.343CD); Sacr. 2.8.8 (PL 176.468); Heinrich Weisweiler, Die Wirksamkeit der Sakramente nach Hugo von St Viktor (Freiburg: Herder, 1932), 134–35. Sacr. 1.8.13 (PL 176.316B–D); Sacr. 1.9.3 (PL 176.319C–320A).

70

HUGH OF ST VICTOR – CHRIST, THE CHURCH, AND THE SACRAMENTS

The Afterlife of Hugh’s Teaching Hugh’s definition and discussion of the nature of sacraments were influential in the years immediately following his death. His definition’s emphasis on objects (water) rather than actions (pouring) and his idea of sacraments as “vessels” of grace, were adopted by some of his immediate successors. Overall, though, Peter Lombard’s treatment of the sacraments overshadowed Hugh’s.62 In the thirteenth century, Hugh’s definition was widely cited and often conflated with that of the Lombard. His identification of the three things necessary for a sacrament: likeness, institution, and sanctification was very influential.63 Hugh was quite successful in synthesizing many aspects of previous thought to develop a thorough and coherent theology of the sacraments. His formulation that sacraments are things that contain grace was problematic, but it was balanced by his emphasis on the grace of headship that flowed from Christ through the Spirit to believers who received the sacraments. His distinction between greater and lesser sacraments and his definition of a sacrament, which encompassed three functions of teaching, fostering humility, and sanctifying, were important contributions. The teaching of the Catholic Church at Vatican II that the Church, which existed from the beginning of humankind, is a sacrament of Christ at work in the sacraments of the Church recovered ideas that are central to Hugh’s theology.64 The Christological foundations of Hugh’s theology of the sacraments are found in De  sacramentis 2.1.12, which was translated in VTT 7. Here, there are translated his prologue to De sacramentis 2, the first three paragraphs of De sacramentis 2.2, which discuss the action of the sacraments in his Body, the Church, which is vivified by the Spirit, and De sacramentis 1.9, where he discusses the nature, components, and varieties of sacraments.

62 63 64

Van den Eynde, Définitions, 35–37. Van den Eynde, Définitions, 113–14. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), 1–3 (Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Study Edition [Northport, NY: ­Costello, 1987], 350–51).

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 2. PROLOGUE TO THE SECOND BOOK ON THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH TRANSLATION

There are great depths of spiritual meanings in the Sacred Scriptures.1 Because the same grace of understanding is not given to all, the Sacred Word contains some things by which it nurtures the faith of simple people. These things when joined to deeper things complete the one rule of faith. For this reason, in expounding the Sacred Word the same form of speaking ought not be maintained throughout, because the more profound sacraments of faith are to be treated reverently with a more excellent form of speaking (sermone) worthy of holy things. Lesser tools of the divine sacraments are to be explained by a humbler form of speech according to the capacity of the simple, so that what is written is realized: in golden threads surrounded by varieties.2 As the holy Church of the elect is adorned beautifully by a variety of good customs and virtues, so Sacred Scripture, from which holy Church herself takes her form of living, is in its language woven from a beautiful variety. However, in her that very variety is suited not to give birth to schism, and the concordant diversity not to give birth to adversaries. In her, great things do not despise middling ones, nor on the other hand are middling ones displeased to associate with great ones. Rather, they adorn each other in one truth and all are pleased because of the truth. Therefore, let no one be surprised if, after and among the great sacraments of the faith, mention is made of things that seem in their order to be inferior; things that are one in truth do not find it abhorrent to be together. God himself deigned to humble himself, descending to human things in order afterward to raise humanity to divine things.

72

H ugh of St   V ictor

NOTES 1 2

This prologue is translated from PL 176.363–64. Ps 44:14–15: “Omnis gloria eius filiae regis ab intus in fimbriis aureis circumamicta varie­ tatibus.” Douay-Rheims: “All the glory of the king’s daughter is within in golden borders, clothed round about with varieties.” NABRE (45:14–15): “All glorious is the king’s daughter as she enters, her raiment threaded with gold.” In the Vulgate Latin, “surrounded” modifies the “daughter of the queen,” a  feminine singular noun. However, here Hugh might take “circumamicta” as a neuter plural modifying sacramenta.

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 2.2.1–3, 5: ON THE SPIRIT AND GRACE AND THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH TRANSLATION

2.2.1. On the Grace that Is Given through Christ and the Spirit Poured Down from the Head to the Members It is written that the law led no one to perfection.1 The Law could instruct ignorance; it could not help weakness. There were two evils in humankind, and from these all the other evils of humankind arose. One was ignorance, the other concupiscence, that is, ignorance of the good, concupiscence of evil. From ignorance came transgression (delictum); from concupiscence came sin (peccatum).2 These two were in humankind from the beginning. However, so that man would know his illness, he was left all on his own lest, if he did not first recognize the lack resulting from his weakness, he would consider grace superfluous.3 Therefore, humankind was placed in the time of the natural law so that its nature could operate on its own, not because it was capable of anything on its own but so that it would recognize its own powerlessness. Left to itself, it began to wander from the truth through ignorance and so be convinced of its blindness and afterward also of its weakness. The written Law was given to enlighten ignorance, but it did not strengthen weakness: so that, insofar as humankind recognized its weakness, it was helped, but where it thought it could stand on its own, it was abandoned. Having received knowledge of truth through the Law, it began to try to fulfill it but, pressured by concupiscence, it fell short from the performance of virtue because it did not have helping grace. Humankind was condemned in both: namely, because on its own it could neither recognize the truth nor accomplish the good. After these, grace was fittingly given, which both gave light to the blind and healed the weak. It enlightened ignorance and it cooled

74

H ugh of St   V ictor

down concupiscence. It gave light for knowing the truth; it enflamed to love of virtue. Therefore, the Spirit has been given in fire, so humanity may have light and flame: light for knowing, flame for loving. As the spirit of man flows down by way of the head to vivify the members, so the Holy Spirit comes through Christ to Christians. The head is Christ; the member is the Christian. The head is one; the members are many. There is one body, composed of head and members, and in the one body, there is one Spirit. Its fullness is in the head, participation in the members. If the body is one, and the Spirit is one, whoever is not in that body cannot be vivified by the Spirit. As it is written, whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.4 In the one body is one spirit. Nothing in the body is dead; nothing outside of it is alive. We are made members through faith; we are vivified through love. Through faith we receive union; through love we receive vivification. We are united in the sacrament of baptism; we are vivified through the body and blood of Christ. Through baptism we are made members of the body of Christ; through the body of Christ we are made participants in vivification. 2.2.2. Regarding the Church: What is the Church? Holy Church is the Body of Christ, unified by one Spirit, united and sanctified by one faith. Each believer and all of them together are members of this Body; all are one Body through one Spirit and one faith. Just as in the human body each of the members has its own distinct functions, and each one acts alone but does not act for itself alone, so in the Body of holy Church the gifts of grace are distributed, but each one does not have for itself alone even what it has alone. Only the eyes see, and nevertheless they do not see for themselves alone, but for the whole body. Only the ears hear, but they do not hear for themselves alone, but for the whole body. Only the feet walk, but they also do not walk for themselves alone, but for all the body. In this way, what each has only in itself it does not have for itself, since according to the arrangement of the best of all givers and the wisest of all distributors, each one of them belongs to all and all belong to each. Therefore, whoever merits to receive a gift of God’s grace ought to know that what he has does not pertain to him alone, even if he alone has it. In accord with this likeness, holy Church, the totality of the faithful, is called the Body of Christ with reference to the Holy Spirit that it receives. Participation in the Spirit given to a human being is sig-

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 2 . 1 – 3 , 5



75

nified when, from Christ, he is called Christian. This name signifies the members of Christ, who participate in the Spirit of Christ. Just as from “the anointed one” comes “anointed,” “Christian” is named from “Christ.” Christ is interpreted to mean “anointed,” namely, by that oil of gladness that he receives in its plentitude before all who participate in it.5 By participation, he pours it on all who participate in him, as it were from the head to the members. It is the ointment on the head that descends from the head to the beard and then all the way to the hem,6 that is, to the extremity of the garment, in order to flow out over the whole of it and vivify it all. Therefore, when you are made a Christian, you are made a member of Christ, a member of the body of Christ, a participant in the Spirit of Christ. What, then, is the Church if not the multitude of believers, the totality (universitas) of Christians. 2.2.3. The Two Walls of the Church: Laity and Clergy This totality embraces two orders: laity and clergy—as it were, the two sides of one body. The laity are, as it were, on the left side. They serve what is necessary for this life. I do not refer in this way to the left side with reference to those who, set on the left, will be told, go accursed into eternal flame.7 Far be it from me to presume to put good lay people there. For those who are good, whether lay people or clerics, will not be there, and those who are bad will be there, whether lay people or clerics. It is not on that left side that I put lay Christians who are true Christians, but at that left side of which it is said, on his right long life, on his left riches and glory.8 What is on the left side of the body is of the body and it is good, although it is not best. Lay Christians, because they handle earthly things and the necessities of earthly life are the left part of the Church’s body. Clerics, because they dispense the things that pertain to spiritual life are, as it were, the right side of Christ’s body, and of these two parts consists the whole Body of Christ that is the Church universal. “Laity” is interpreted to mean, “pertaining to the people.” The Greek laos is expressed in Latin as populus.9 Whence, also, the king is thought to be called basileos, as though basilaos, that is “the support of the people.”10 “Cleric” comes from the Greek cleros, which translated into Latin means “lot,” either because God has him chosen by lot for the service of God, or because God is his lot,11 because a cleric should not have any other portion on earth except God and the things that look to God’s portion. It is established that the tithes and oblations that are offered to

76

H ugh of St   V ictor

God should sustain him. It is granted to lay people to possess earthly things, but to clerics only spiritual things are entrusted, just as formerly in that earlier people, the other tribes, which were a type (typum) that prefigured the laity, received portions as an inheritance, while only the tribe of Levi, which prefigured ecclesiastics, was sustained by the tithes and oblations and the sacrificial victims. 2.2.5. That All Ecclesiastical Administration Consists of Three Things: Orders, Sacraments, and Precepts.12 All ecclesiastical administration consists in three things: in orders, in sacraments, and in precepts. We consider orders in the persons of prelates, sacraments in their ministry, and precepts in the way of life of subjects. Each of these needs its own kind of consideration. Regarding orders, one should first take note that some are distinguished according to different levels, such as deacon and priest, and others are on the same level and distinguished according to their greater power, as are a deacon and an archdeacon: there is one level in the sacrament, but not one power in their ministry. A deacon ministers to the priest in the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood. In addition to ministry at the altar, an archdeacon has under and in place of the bishop responsibility (curam) for the churches,13 and he examines ecclesiastical cases and assigns ministries. Likewise, a priest and a bishop or supreme priest are on the same level in the sacrament,14 but there is a difference in power in their ministry. Because both can consecrate the body and blood of Christ, catechize, baptize, preach, and bind, there is, as it were, one same dignity, nevertheless special power is given to bishops to dedicate churches, ordain, impose hands, consecrate sacred chrism, and give a general blessing over the people. Thus, the difference of levels in sacred orders is one thing, and the difference of dignity within the same level is another. The order in earthly or secular power is one thing, and the order in spiritual power is another.15

N otes



77

NOTES 1

2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12

13 14

15

The complete title of Sacr. 2.2 in Berndt’s edition is, “On the Spirit and Grace and Oneness of the Church and the Arrangement of Ecclesiastical Administration, and about the Things Which Pertain to Earthly Power.” Here, only the first three paragraphs on the Spirit, grace, and oneness of the Church (Berndt, 335–38) are translated. In  the list of chapters at the beginning of De sacramentis, Book 2 (PL 176.363) Sacr. 2.2 is entitled, “De unitate Ecclesiae quae corpus est Christi” (“On the Unity of the Church Which Is the Body of Christ”), but before the text of Sacr. 2.2 (PL 176.415–16) the title is given simply as, “De unitate Ecclesiae” (“On the Unity of the Church”). The sections translated here are found in PL 176.415B– 417A. For the idea that the Church is the Body of Christ, see the introduction to the section on the Eucharist below. Hugh’s idea seems to be that through ignorance one can transgress the Law without being culpable of sin. The  text from here to “the performance of virtue,” is found in Richard of St  Victor, Serm. cent.  70 (PL  177.1121AC). On  Serm. cent. 70, see VTT  4:450, and the translation, VTT 4:463–68. Rom 8:9 (Old Latin). Ps 44:8. Ps 132:2. Matt 25:41. Prov 3:16. Isidore, Etym. 7.14.9 (Lindsay, www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore.html; tr. Barney, et al., 172). This bogus etymology, “basis” + “laos,” is not from Isidore. The word “basis” (support) is a rare, non-classical term of which Blaise, Lexicon, gives one instance in Abelard’s Theologia christiana, and Niermyer, Lexicon minus, gives another in a charter written about 1165. Isidore, Etym. 7.12.1–2 (Lindsay, www.thelatinlibrary.com/isidore.html; tr.  Barney, et  al., 170). This chapter title indicates the concerns of Sacr. 2.1–15. Sacr. 2.3–4 treat the different orders of clerical life, sacred vestments, and other accouterments. Sacr. 2.5–11, 14–15, discuss other sacraments, and Sacr. 2.13 concerns virtues and vices. 1 Cor 11:28: “solicitudo omnium ecclesiarum.” Vatican Council II (1962–65) declared that there is a difference in sacramental level or order between priests and bishops: see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (1997), ##1554–71, which cites the relevant documents from Vatican II (online at www.vatican.va). Hugh’s distinction of ministries within the same level of orders corresponds roughly to what later Canon Law referred to as the power of governance (jurisdiction), which is distinct from the power of order (that comes with ordination). See, for example, the current Code of Canon Law, #374.1 (online at www.vatican.va).

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 1.9: ON THE INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENTS TRANSLATION

1. Four Things Are to Be Considered Regarding the Institution of the Sacraments For those who wish to treat of the sacraments, there are four things that should be considered first: (1) What is a sacrament? (2) Why have sacraments been instituted? (3) What is the matter of each sacrament by which it is confected and sanctified? (4) How many kinds of sacraments are there?1 To put it another way: the definition, cause, matter, and division. If these four things have been diligently discussed, one can reach an understanding of the things set forth. Let us then first take up the first item to be treated. 2. What Is a Sacrament? Teachers have designated what a sacrament is with a brief description: a sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing.2 Inasmuch as there are two things in a human being, a body and a soul, and likewise two things in one Scripture, letter and meaning, so in every sacrament there is one thing that is visibly handled and seen exteriorly, and another that is invisibly believed and received interiorly. What is visible and material outside is a sacrament; what is invisible and spiritual within is the reality (res) or power (virtus) of the sacrament. Always, the sacrament that is handled and sanctified is a sign of spiritual grace, which is the reality of the sacrament and is received3 invisibly. Likewise, because not just any sign of a holy thing can fittingly be called a sacrament of it—because the letters of the sacred meanings (sensuum) and the forms or pictures of sacred things are signs, but they cannot reasonably be called sacraments of them—therefore it seems the description recalled above should be referred to the interpretation or expression of speech rather than to the definition. Should someone want to define what a sacrament is more fully and perfectly, he can define it thus: a sacrament is a corporeal or

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 1 . 9



79

material element proposed to the senses representing by likeness, signifying by institution, and containing4 by sanctification some invisible and spiritual grace. This definition is recognized as being so proper and perfect that it is found to apply to every sacrament and only to them. Everything that has these three things is a sacrament, and everything that lacks these three things cannot properly be called a sacrament. Every sacrament must have some likeness to that reality of which it is a sacrament by which it is suited to the reality it is to represent, institution by which it is ordered to signify that reality, and finally, sanctification by which it contains it so that it may be efficacious to confer it on those to be sanctified. It seems that every sacrament has a likeness by a first instruction, institution by an added dispensation, and sanctification by a word or sign of blessing directed toward it. In order that we may recognize in one sacrament these three things that are said regarding all of them, let us take the water of baptism as an example. There, water is the visible element that is the sacrament, and these three things are found in one: representation by likeness, signification by institution, and power by sanctification. The likeness is by creation, the institution by dispensation, and the sanctification by benediction. The Creator decreed the first, the Savior added the second, and the Dispenser5 administered the third. There were water, the visible sacrament, and invisible grace, which is the reality or power (virtus) of the sacrament. All water has by its natural quality a certain likeness with the grace of the Holy Spirit because, as it washes away impurities from bodies, so it cleanses the stains of souls. From this innate quality all water is able to represent spiritual grace, even before it signifies by the institution added to it. The Savior came and instituted visible water to signify through the washing of bodies the invisible cleansing of souls through spiritual grace. Because of that, water now represents not just by a natural likeness, but also by the added institution it signifies spiritual grace. However, as we said, because these two are not yet perfectly sufficient, the word of sanctification comes to the element and it becomes a sacrament6 so that the sacrament is visible water representing by likeness, signifying by institution, and containing spiritual grace by sanctification. These three things should be considered in this way in the other sacraments. 3. Why the Sacraments Have Been Instituted Having treated the first part of what we proposed, let us proceed to the second. It is recognized that the sacraments were instituted for

80

H ugh of St   V ictor

a triple cause: humility, instruction, and exercise.7 Humility, so that when by the command of God a rational human creature is subject to insensate elements that had been created by nature beneath him, through this occasion for humility he might merit to be reconciled to his Creator. A human being had been made in such a way that his good was only the One from whom he was; all other things were made beneath him so that his good was not in these, but rather they would be the means of his allegiance to Him. For every good is greater than he whose good it is, because it is not truly good unless it makes good the one whose good it is. Everyone who is good is good by the good that is proper to him. He is inferior to that by which he is good, because without that good he is not good. Therefore, the good of a human being was above the human; only one who was above the human was the good of humans. As long as humanity remained in the order of his creation, he was immediately joined to this good. Therefore, he freely enjoyed it because he willingly went to it and abided in it in freedom. Afterward, drawn away by concupiscence, he turned from what was superior toward what was inferior. He plunged down and subjected himself to what he made his good. By a just recompense, he who did not want to be subject to his superior through obedience, subjected himself to his inferior through concupiscence, and now found there was a median of division between him and God, and not a mediator of reconciliation. This median divider brought both darkness so that he could not recognize his Creator and cold so that he did not seek him through love. It was there that humanity, which first deserted God through disobedience and subjected itself to earthly things through concupiscence, now should seek God in humility to deepen more fully his feeling of devotion and incline himself to the same things through obedience to God’s command. Just as the pride that did not wish to be subject to what was his superior was toxic, so devotion to submit oneself even to inferiors on account of what is superior is praiseworthy and fruitful. Just as it was condemnable pride to despise what was present, so it is commendable humility to seek what is absent and not cease from the quest until it is found with persevering love, so that there may be devotion in humility and humility in devotion. Surely, there is no one who does not know that rational humanity is superior by creation to the mute and unfeeling elements. Nevertheless, when this same humanity is ordered to seek salvation in them in order to experience the virtue of obedience, what else is it then but the subjection of the superior to his inferior? Because of this the eyes

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 1 . 9



81

of unbelievers, which see only visible things, think it contemptible to venerate the sacraments of salvation because they see in them only what is external and contemptible in its visible appearance and do not recognize the invisible power within and the fruit of obedience. They do not know that believers do not seek salvation from these elements, even if they seek it in them. They seek it in these things, but from and by him who commands them to seek, and they believe that they receive it in them. These things do not confer what is bestowed through them. Rather, he who orders that salvation be sought in these things confers salvation through them. It is in this way that one should understand us when we said that visible sacraments have been instituted to make human beings humble. The sacraments were also instituted for instruction so that, through what is seen externally in the sacrament in visible appearance, the human mind (mens) may be instructed to recognize the invisible power that exists internally in the reality of the sacrament. Humanity, which had known visible things, had not known invisible ones. There was no way it could recognize divine things unless it were alerted to them by human ones. Therefore, when the invisible good that he had lost was restored to him, its signification was presented to him externally through visible appearances (species) so that, alerted externally and restored internally, he might recognize in what he touched and saw what he receives and does not see. The spiritual gifts of grace are as it were invisible antidotes. When they are set before humanity in visible sacraments, in containers so to speak, what else is this but hidden power appearing openly? The sick person cannot see the medicine, but he can see the container in which the medicine is given. For this reason, the power of the medicine is expressed in the appearance of the vessel so that he recognizes what he receives and through that recognition advances to love. It is thus that one should understand that the sacraments are instituted for instruction. The sacraments are also instituted for exercise so that when the human mind is instructed by being exercised outside by various kinds of actions, it is made fertile interiorly for a multiple yield of virtue. To be sure, the good of a human being is one, and as long as he clung to it through love he did not need this multiplicity. However, after he permitted his mind to be divided to these multiple and passing things through concupiscence, he could not be stable because as by loving many things his affection was divided among them so by pursuing mutable things it underwent change. Whatever peace and consolation

82

H ugh of St   V ictor

he sought in all these things, his mutable condition turned to labor and sorrow. Therefore, as he was compelled to go toward these lest he perish, so afterward was he forced by these to go away from them in order to rest. He seemed like another Cain, a wanderer and fugitive upon the earth;8 a wanderer seeking consolation in various things, a fugitive, everywhere leaving the affliction he has found. A man walks, and if he has been walking forever, he grows weak. He sits or stands in order not to grow weak. However, if he is always sitting, he grows weak. We are hungry and we are weak; we eat in order not to be weak, but if we always ate we would grow weak, and what was sought as consolation turns to sorrow. Thus, all the changeableness of a human being is weakness. It is never complete; we grow weak because we change, but still we never cease to change so we do not grow weak. Because here human life cannot be without changeableness, against this cause, which generates the weakness of mutability, another changeableness is opposed, one that produces an advance. Because he cannot stand in order to stay the same, he moves and advances always in order to be better. The first good was to stand on the summit; the second good is to ascend higher. Therefore, so that a changeable life does not always decline by its dissolute mobility toward worse things, it was to be nurtured by strivings in which, moved by the variety of things outside and enkindled inside by zeal for virtues, it would find an opportunity to advance. Times were divided, places differentiated, corporeal impressions presented, studies enjoined, and works to be done so that the exterior man would prepare medicine for the interior man and learn to support and profit him. For, although previously human life ran through two kinds of activities, in one toward necessity and in the other toward pleasure, in one to utility and in the other toward vice, to utility through nature, to vice through sin, in one to sustenance, the other to disaster, it was fitting that a third kind of exercise be added so that through it one of the two would be eliminated because it was toxic and the other would be perfected because it was not adequate. Therefore, human beings were presented exteriorly with works of virtue for exercising interior edification so that, occupied with them, they would never be occupied with works of iniquity, and not always with works of necessity. By a wonderful dispensation, in these virtuous efforts God provided multiplicity, variety, and interludes so that the human mind found exercise in multiplicity, delight in variety, and recreation in the interludes. Certain places are made sacred, basilicas are built, and certain times are determined in which the faithful people gather into one,

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 1 . 9



83

and the united gathering is encouraged to render thanks, offer prayers, and fulfill vows. There, God is sometimes simply prayed to in silence, at other times devoutly and jointly praised by harmonious voices, so that alternately the hearts of the faithful are composed in peace and aroused to devotion. In those divine praises the same form of joint praise is not always exhibited. Sometimes psalmodies enkindle devotion, sometimes hymns and songs excite divine delights, sometimes readings are given to shape believers and teach a good life. Even our actions in the divine services do not progress according to the same fixed form. Sometimes standing, sometimes prostrate, sometimes by a bow, sometimes by turning, we express the state of our mind by a bodily gesture. For the same reason, even the things in which the devotion of the faithful is exercised by action and adorns the divine cult are providentially many and varied. As a result, there are many sacred things and sacraments. Faith finds in them both perfect material for exercise and cause for refreshment. As the faithful soul (animus) is led exteriorly to various efforts of holy activity, it is renewed always more and more interiorly toward holiness by its devotion. In this way, we think one should understand the statement that sacraments were instituted for exercise. 4. The Distinction of the Three Works and the Three Agents There is, therefore, this triple cause of the institution of all the sacraments: the humility, instruction, and exercise of human beings. If these three causes did not exist, the elements could not by themselves be sacraments, that is, signs or instruments of sacred things. First of all, nature does not make elements sacraments; that is done by institution set in place by an arrangement (dispensationem) and grace infused through a blessing. If the elements had not received these after first receiving their nature, they could not have been sacraments in the proper sense. Nature first gave the capacity that they could be this; secondly, institution added authority that they become this; and thirdly, blessing added sanctity to this so that they were these things. First, they were made by the Creator; then, they were set in place by the Savior; and thirdly, they were administered through the Dispenser. First, the Creator formed the vessel through his majesty; then the Savior set them in place through his institution; finally, the Dispenser purified these things through a blessing and filled them with grace. Something wonderful appeared: what was greater made what was less, and what

84

H ugh of St   V ictor

was less made what was greater. Sanctification conferred more than Creation, because in their creation they received nature so that they existed, but in sanctification they received grace so that they were good and holy.9 If God creates and the priest sanctifies, a man seems to do more than God. This would be completely absurd and unsuitable if God did not also do what man does. God created without man, but man does not sanctify without God, so that in some way grace begins from the summit and is perfected at the bottom. In this the descent of grace to us is signified because unless grace descended it would not elevate those lying prone. God created first through himself and in what is his, alone and in majesty. Afterward, the Savior instituted through himself but in what is ours, that is, alone and in humanity. Then, the priest sanctifies neither through himself nor in what is his, because it is not he alone who acts, nor is it his power that is bestowed through sanctification. The One by whose power what is to be sanctified is sanctified through the ministry of the minister cooperates with the minister so that there is power through one work to one effect. This power is differentiated, two working simultaneously, because it is given through the one and ministered through the other. There is one who gives it, another through whom it is sent. When that grace comes to us, it comes through him from whom it comes, because the author of the gift cooperates with the minister, but it does not come in a similar way from him through whom it comes, because he who is only the minister of the dispensation cannot be the author of the gift. Therefore, let no one say that a human being sanctifies, when God sanctifies through man, for in this it is more true to say that a human does what God does through him. This is so because what a human does through himself and in what is his, he does not do truly, because he does not do the truth, because through himself, and in what he is, he does only evil.10 God alone works wonders, because Scripture says of Him, he alone does great marvels.11 Without Him (ipso) no one does anything, and everyone who acts does so through Him, and through everyone who acts He acts. Therefore, He acts alone, because it belongs to Him alone that what everyone does, He does. Nevertheless, it is written of the servant of God, he did wonders in his life,12 because he acted by God and God acted through him. No contradiction follows from these. God alone sanctifies and blesses because from him are all sanctification and blessing. Nevertheless, the priest, a minister of God, sanctifies and blesses because through him there is a sanctification and blessing that are also from God, who is the author in the gift, and

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 1 . 9



85

through God, who is the co-worker in the ministry. With such a consideration, one reasonably distinguishes what in each of the sacraments creation effects, in regard to the nature of the element, and institution and sanctification, in regard to the power of the sacrament, and in that sanctification, how much is from him who is the Giver of the gift, and how much is from or rather through him who is only the minister of the dispensation. To conclude, five things are involved: (1) God, the physician, (2) humanity, the sick person, (3) the priest, the minister or herald, (4) grace, the antidote, and (5) the sacrament, the vessel. The physician gives, the minister dispenses, the vessel keeps what heals the sick person, who receives spiritual grace. Thus, if the vessels are sacraments of spiritual grace, they do not heal on their own, because the vessels do not cure the sick persons, the medicine does. Therefore, the sacraments were not instituted that from them would be what is in them. Rather, to show his skill, the physician prepared a remedy in that from which the one who was weak received a favorable opportunity in his illness. Because humanity had been corrupted and desired visible things, it was fitting that humanity should receive an opportunity for healing in those same visible things, so it could rise through the same things through which it fell. 5. On God’s Part, the Sacraments Are a Matter of Dispensation; On Man’s Part, They Were a Matter of Necessity On the part of God, their author, the institution of the sacraments is a matter of dispensation; on the part of obedient people, it is a matter of necessity. It lies in the power of God to save humankind apart from them, but it is not in the power of humankind to attain salvation without them. God was able to save humankind even if he had not instituted them, but no human being could be saved if he or she looked on them disdainfully. Scripture says, whoever has not been baptized will not be saved.13 Whoever has not done this or this cannot be saved, and we confess that it is true and that a human being cannot be saved who lacks these things without which a person cannot have salvation. A human being cannot be saved without these, but God can save without them. To be sure, a human being could be saved without these if it were in the power of a human being to be saved without them and if a human being could by his free will abandon these things that are set forth for obtaining salvation and by his choice reach salvation by

86

H ugh of St   V ictor

another way. However, because this is impossible for a human being, it is most rightly said that a human being cannot be saved without these. On the other hand, God can save a human being without these, because he can grant a human being his power, sanctification, and salvation in whatever way he wants. If he wanted, he could without a sacrament justify a human being by the Spirit, who teaches a person without any word, because the power of God is not subject to [physical] elements by necessity, even if by dispensation the grace of God is given through sacraments. Hence, we read that certain ones were justified even without sacraments, and we believe they are saved. In this way, we read that Jeremiah was sanctified in the womb,14 and it was prophesied that John the Baptist was to be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb,15 and the just under the Old Law pleased God. We do not read that they had these sacraments, though we have no doubt about their salvation. Those of them who received the sacraments after justification, received signs of the justification they had in them rather than its cause. Those who received through the Spirit of God whatever is conferred in them, but without them, are not subject to damnation because they lack them, because either the nature of the time did not require or necessity did not permit them to receive them, and it was never contempt of religion that was the cause. Therefore, let no one put this law of divine justice in the elements in such a way that a human being, even if he has been just, cannot be justified without them when some necessity kept him from receiving them, or, as was said, the time period did not require that they be received. Just as those who were just under the natural law were not initiated in these sacraments, so they were not held by precepts of this sort. Whoever had the reality of the sacrament, in right faith and true love, did not lack in a damnable way these same sacraments, because either he did not have to receive them because of the time period or he could not receive them because of pressing need. What are you thinking, you venerators of God’s sacraments? When you think you honor God’s sacraments, you dishonor God. You insist on the necessity of the sacraments, but you both take away the power of their author and negate piety. You tell me that whoever does not have the sacraments cannot be saved, and I tell you that whoever has the power (virtutem) of God cannot perish. Either deny that the power can be where the sacrament is not, or, if you grant the power, deny the damnation. What is greater, the sacrament or the power of the sacrament? Which is greater, water or faith? If you wish to speak truly, say

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 1 . 9



87

“faith.” Therefore, if the sacrament of water that is less saves certain ones who do not have faith, it is not to be held against them that they do not have faith, for they cannot have it. How can faith, which is greater, not free those who have faith but not the sacrament of water? Are not those who do not have the sacrament of water much more to be pardoned for not having the sacrament of water, which indeed they wanted to have, but could not? But you say, how shall we understand what is said, unless someone has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit he will not enter the kingdom of heaven?16 And I ask you how you think one should understand what is written, whoever believes in me will not see death forever.17 You say that whoever does not do this is not saved, and I say that whoever does this is not damned. What will be the mediating position that will include people of this kind, not to be saved because they do not have water, and not to be damned because they have faith? There is a man who has faith and, with faith, love. He does not have water although he does not disdain it, and he would like to have it, but he cannot. Will the absent water damn him, and not rather the present faith and devotion save him? You ask, what is my situation with the sacraments? I have faith and love and other virtues. I will be good and that will suffice for me. See, however, whether you can have the love of God and contemn his precepts. If you have the love of God, strive, exert yourself, try as much as you can to fulfill his commandments. If you fall into need, seek pity. If the need is not what it is pretended to be, contempt is not excused. The sacraments are the spiritual medicines of God that are applied outwardly to bodies by a visible sign, but inwardly heal souls through invisible power. Their institution was a matter of dispensation for the one who enjoined them, but their reception is a matter of necessity for the one obeying. You want to know what, in these things that appear visibly, God did not take up as a remedy to cure spiritual illness but established only as a sacrament. Take note of a sacrament of a sacrament. Hezekiah took sick and Isaiah the prophet was sent to him and predicted imminent death for him. When he heard this, he was moved to compunction by terror and sorrow; he poured out tears with prayer, and he begged for mercy. Isaiah sends back immediately and announces that fifteen years are to be added to his life. To commend the power of the sacrament even more, he prepared a new medicine in a new way to cure his wound.18 The medicine was applied exteriorly so that the hidden power would work interiorly. His health came not from the medicine, since in itself the medicine was contrary to health. Thus, it was shown

88

H ugh of St   V ictor

clearly that what was through it was not from it. A great sacrament about sacraments is to be commended. The human race is sick because it was languishing inside through evil and outside, not just through the death threatening in the present, but also the one to come. Those who are terrified confess, weep, pray, and seek mercy. A prophetic word is sent that makes us certain that the span of a longer life has been granted. The promise of eternal life by that same Scripture consoles the repentant, while it terrifies those persisting in sin with a threat of the damnation of perpetual death. Medicine is applied to cure our wounds, which although it appears by its quality to be contrary to the illness in the healing of the sick person, the power not of the medicine but of the physician is very clearly expressed. These medicines are the sacraments. When they are applied externally to us in a bodily way by the ministers of the sacred dispensation, the wounds of our souls are healed invisibly so that, cured and healed, we can attain the promise of life. This life is signified by the number of fifteen years, which in the present begins through a sevenfold rest of the mind and, in the future, is perfected in an eightfold immortality of the flesh. As regards its nature, this medicine is likely to increase rather than cure sickness, because all earthly things contribute to the corruption of souls rather than to their cure. However, when God perfects our health through these, what does he show if not the power of his virtue because, by the things by which we contract the sickness of weakness and corruption, he procures our remedy. Therefore, we are not to ascribe to these things what is administered to us through them, nor are we to venerate what appears visibly in them in such a way that we are convicted of subjecting the invisible truth to them. To those who pay close attention to this reflection, it is clear how much they owe to what they see visibly and exteriorly in the appearance of the sacrament, and what they owe to what is at work interiorly and invisibly in the power of the sacrament. All these things pertain to what we proposed to investigate, namely, why the sacraments were instituted. 6. The Matter of the Sacraments It remains now to discuss the third of the four things that were proposed. All divine sacraments are confected in a threefold matter, either in things, or in deeds, or in words. Because the entire human being has been corrupted, all that belongs to a human being externally was to be taken up into the sacrament so that everything is sanctified

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 1 . 9



89

exteriorly in the sacrament and the power of the sacrament completely applies its remedy in it interiorly. Thus, in things the sacraments were sanctified so that the matter of the human being is sanctified in deeds, such as works, in speech, such as words, so that all may be holy, both what a human being is and what belongs to a human being. Sacraments are confected in things, such as the sacrament of baptism in water, the sacrament of anointing in oil, the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in bread and wine, and whatever other appearances there are by which divine sacraments are confected. Sacraments are also found in deeds, such as when we make the sign of the cross, either as protection in opposition to menacing forces or over certain things to sanctify them, or, with our hands extended or raised in prayer, by bowing or standing or turning, or some other gesture or movement or act, we express something sacred that is a sign of some sacred thing. A sacrament is found in words when the Trinity is invoked, and other such speech, when we express and signify by uttering words something sacred, that is, a sacrament. However, it is to be understood that although they are confected in these three ways, things are more properly and principally called sacraments when in them there is power through sanctification, and effects of salvation through exercise. Having briefly put down these things about the matter of the sacraments, we move on to the following. 7. There Are Three Kinds of Sacraments There are, first, three kinds of sacraments that need to be distinguished. There are some sacraments in which salvation primarily consists and is received: such are the water of Baptism and the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ. There are others that, although they are not necessary for salvation, which can be obtained without them, are profitable for salvation because virtue can be exercised in them and greater grace acquired: such are sprinkling with water, receiving ashes, and the like. There are also other sacraments that seem to have been instituted only so that through them things that are necessary for the sanctification and institution of the other sacraments are in some way prepared and sanctified, either regarding persons in the completion of sacred orders or in those things that pertain to the clothing of sacred orders, and others of this kind. The first are instituted for salvation, the second for exercise, and the third for preparation. Having treated these things as reason seemed to require, we move on to explain the things that remain.

90

H ugh of St   V ictor

8. Three Things Necessary of Salvation There are three things that have been necessary to obtain salvation from the beginning, either before the coming of Christ or after it: faith, the sacraments of the faith, and good works. These three are so connected that they cannot have a salvific effect if they are not all present. As Scripture testifies, faith without works is dead.19 Likewise, where there is no faith, there can be no good deed. Similarly, those who have faith that works and refuse to receive the sacraments of God cannot be saved, because those who despise his precepts regarding the sacraments do not have the love of God. Indeed, just as merit is not diminished even if the deed that one devoutly plans to do cannot be completed exteriorly, so where there is faith with love, the saving effect is not blocked, even if the sacrament that is truly willed and desired is excluded because of some necessity. However, where one can have the three together, they certainly cannot be absent without endangering one’s salvation, because faith does not have merit if it fails to act when it can, and no work is good if it is done without faith. Again, faith that works is not enough to sanctify a person if he is too contemptuous to receive the sanctification that exists in the sacrament of God. Therefore, there are three things together: faith, sacrament, and work. In faith, the Christian receives strength, in sacraments arms,20 and in good works weapons with which he will fight against the devil.

N otes



91

NOTES 1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8 9

10

11

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

This translation is based on the Latin text in PL  176; misprints in it are corrected from Berndt’s edition. Augustine, De  civ. Dei 10:5 (ed. B.  Dombart and A.  Kalb, CCSL  47 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1955], 277; tr.  R.  W. Dyson, The  City of God against the Pagans, Cambridge Texts in the ­History of Political Thought [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998], 397); Abelard, ­Sic et non, 117 (Boyer and McKeon, 802). percipitur: to take wholly, assume, receive, perceive, observe, feel. On  Hugh’s understanding of how the sacraments “contain” grace, see the chapter on the Eucharist below. Here and in what follows, “the dispenser” of sanctification is the Holy Spirit. In paragraph 4, the priest is singled out as the minister, but not the dispenser of sanctification. Augustine, Jo. ev. tr. 80.3 (ed. B. Willems, CCSL 36 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1954], 529, lines 5–6). The three Latin words are humiliatio, eruditio, and exercitatio. For none of them is there an exact English equivalent. By humiliatio, Hugh means the occasion that teaches someone humility, that is, awareness and acknowledgment of the reality of one’s standing in relation to God, a being of earth (humus) whom God instructs and sanctifies through physical gestures and things. The root meaning of eruditio is to free from roughness (ex + rudus), and more particularly from ignorance, to educate, but in Hugh’s outlook that includes both mental and moral formation (doctrina veritatis and disciplina virtutis). Exercitatio means putting into practice, doing, practice, exercise, and action. So, in celebrating a sacrament one does an act that sanctifies, teaches, and performs religious truth regarding human beings in relation to their Creator and Redeemer. Gen 4:12. Hugh distinguishes being and being beautiful (formata, formosa). See Arrha, 36 (ed. Sicard, Oeuvres 1:252; tr.  Feiss, VTT  2:215–16); Boyd Taylor Coolman, The  Theology of Hugh of St Victor: An Interpretation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 33–59. This pessimistic view of nature, traceable back to Augustine and through him to the New Testament, means that God must be at work through grace for a human being to do anything good. Hugh’s mention of it here seems confusing, because he is trying to specify how God acts in the minister of the sacraments, which is a more specific situation in which God brings about results in someone else that even a holy minister could not effect on his own. Ps 71:18. “Qui facit mirabilia magna solus.” In  what precedes and follows this quotation, Hugh uses the verb facere (facit, fecit), which means to do, make, act. It is translated here as do or act. Sir 31:9: “fecit enim mirabilia in vita sua.” “Non potest salvari qui baptizatus non fuerit.” Cf. Mark 16:16: “Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit; qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur”; John 3:5: “nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei”; for the necessity of faith, see John 3:3, 18, 36. Jer 1:5. Luke 1:15; cf. Bernard, Ep. 174:3–4 (SBO 7:389). John 3:5. John 11:26 (Old Latin). Isa 38:1–9. Jas 2:20. “arma”: defensive weapons, such as armor; whereas the next term is tela, offensive weapons, such as spears.

DEDICATION OF A CHURCH

DEDICATION OF A CHURCH INTRODUCTION

This introduction has three parts, dealing with the rite for dedication before Hugh, Hugh’s section on the rite in De sacramentis 2.5, and a third section summarizing what Victorines after Hugh said about the rite in sequences and sermons dedicated the rite. Before Hugh of St Victor In the early centuries of the Church, there was no elaborate ceremony for dedicating a building to liturgical use. Around the beginning of the sixth century in Rome there was a ritual by which the building was purified by a simple “lustration” or exorcism and in some cases by placing the relics of martyrs in or under the altar. About the same time in the Frankish or Gallican Church, there two rituals: the installation of relics and the blessing of the church and altar and the anointing of the altar with chrism. These were then combined into an ordo specifying texts and ritual actions. As we shall see, the Frankish and Roman practices were combined in the Carolingian Church. In the early Middle Ages, the liturgy that blessed a building for ecclesial use was usually called a “dedication.” In the later Middle Ages, the preferred term was “consecration,” which emphasized the purification of the building from evil influences so that it would be a holy place where Holy Sacraments could be fittingly celebrated.1

1

Peter Wünsche, “Quomodo ecclesia debeat dedicari. Zur Feiergestalt der westlichen Kirchweihliturgie, vom Frühmittelalter bis zum nachtridentinischen Pontifikale von 1596” in “Das Haus Gottes, das seid ihr selbst,” Mittelalterliches und barockes Kirchenverständnis im Spiegel der Kirchweihe, ed. Ralf M. Stammberger, Claudia Sticher, and Annekatrin Warnke, Erudiri Sapientia 6 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006), 113–41, here 113–14; Dominique Iogna-Prat, La Maison Dieu: Une histoire monumentale de l’Église au Moyen Âge (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 2006), 46. What follows regarding the development of the rite of dedication before Hugh’s writing about it is drawn from Wünsche, 115–24, and Iogna-Prat, 259–314. For the pre-Carolingian development of dedication rituals, see Iogna-Prat, 46, 172–76; on the Latin terminology used to refer to churches and their consecration, see Iogna-Prat, 48–53, 260–65.

96

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

The Gregorian Sacramentary, which reflects papal liturgy in the eighth and ninth centuries, places the dedication of a church in the context of the Eucharist, during which relics are placed in the altar. There are three orations, which, in order, refer to the introduction of relics, ask that God becomes present in the building and in the hearts of the faithful, and pray that God’s Spirit come upon the altar, the gifts, and the faithful. The Old-Gelasian Sacramentary which reflects liturgy at a titular church in Rome in the eighth century has two Mass formularies for the dedication of a church. In addition, this sacramentary describes ritual elements. Special water to which wine is added is blessed and used to mark the corners of the altar and to sprinkle the altar. What is left of the water is poured at base of the altar. Incense is burned. The Ordo Romanus 42 from the middle of the eighth century is focused on the deposition of the relics in the altar at the first Eucharist celebrated on the altar. Ordo Romanus 41 from the end of the eighth century has a formulary for the dedication of a church that combines Frankish and Roman components. The bishop comes to the church and processes inside with the ministers. He pronounces an exorcism and a blessing of the water that is mixed with chrism. Mortar is prepared. He washes the altar, then goes outside, and enters with the relics. The place that will contain the relics is blessed with chrism, then the relics, three consecrated pieces of bread, and three pieces of incense are placed within it before it is closed with mortar. The cover of the resting place of the relics is then sealed with mortar and signed with chrism. The four corners of the altar are anointed with chrism and the altar is clothed. The entire church is sprinkled and there is another reference to anointing the cover of the place where the relics are kept. The celebration of the Eucharist follows. The rite for the dedication of a church in Ordo Romanus 41 is the first witness to the ritual of writing the alphabet on the floor in the shape of a cross of St Andrew.2 This ritual follows the entry of the bishop, his prostration, and prayer. After the alphabet is written, water and salt are exorcised, then mixed together with ashes and wine. The bishop signs the four corners of the altar, sprinkles the altar seven times, does a ritual washing of the inside walls of the church (others wash the outside walls) and the floor. The remaining water is poured out at the foot of the altar. The altar is incensed and anointed with the 2

Wünsche, “Quomodo,” 122; Klaus Schreiner, “Abecedarium. Die Symbol des Alphabets in der Liturgie des mittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Kirchweihe,” in Stammberger and Sticher, eds, “Das Haus Gottes,” 143–87.

I ntroduction



97

oil of catechumens. There are several more anointings with the oil of catechumens and chrism, clothing of the altar, a relic procession, and a veiling of the relics. The development of these rituals for the blessing of a church quickly generated commentaries. One of the earliest, Quid significant duodecim candelae (c. 850), follows Augustine and others in seeing the stones of the church building as symbolic of the living stones of the Church. For example, the inscription of the Greek and Latin alphabets in the form of a cross points to the instruction of the catechumens, and its extension to the four corners of the church building to the mission of the Church to the four corners of the world. The twelve candles signify the twelve apostles. The commentary has a strong eschatological emphasis: the Church dwells here only temporarily. The Pontificale Romano-Germanicum that appeared at the Abbey of St Alban at Mainz in the late tenth century combined elements of Ordo Romanus 42 and Ordo Romanus 41, and became the basis for later developments that led to the fully developed Rite of Consecration of Church. The Rite of Consecration described and interpreted in Sermon 4 of Ivo of Chartres (1040–1115), which is the basis of Hugh’s description and interpretation of the rite, is very similar to these two Ordines Romani and to the Pontificale Romano-Germanicum, except that it does not include the rituals pertaining to relics.3 To Ivo and Hugh we now turn. Hugh of St Victor, De sacramentis 2.5 Hugh was not the first to think of the rite of consecration of a church as a baptism, which blessed the church to be the locale for further sacraments. It was an idea that appealed to his interest in physical things and architecture (e.g., the mechanical arts), his love of visible symbols (such as the ark), syntheses (such as the De sacramentis), and place (e.g. Sacr. 1.3.18; PL 176.220D–221A; 224B; 2.8.11; PL 176.496D).4 3

4

Hanns Peter Neuheuser, “Ritus und Theologie der Kirchweihe bei Hugo von St Viktor,” in Stammberger and Sticher, “Das Haus Gottes,” 255–61, provides a chart and commentary comparing the elements of the rite for the dedication of a church in the Romano-Germanicum Pontificale, a twelfth-century Pontificale Romanum, and Hugh of St Victor’s description of the Rite of Dedication in De sacramentis 2.5. Hugh has almost all of elements in the two pontificals, but he does not give an allegorical interpretation of all of them. Hugh may have been influenced by some form of the Romano-Germanicum or Roman Pontificals, as well as by Ivo of Chartres’ description. Iogna-Prat, 462–69, 475.

98

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

Migne’s Patrologia latina includes a series of 24 sermons by Ivo of Chartres. From the fourth of these, Hugh drew his description of the rite of blessing a church and much of his commentary on it. The order of the first six sermons corresponds rather closely to the order of the first six parts of the second book of Hugh’s De sacramentis: Ivo, Sermones 1–6

Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.1–6

1. Sacraments of Neophytes

6. Baptism

2. Excellence of Sacred Orders

3. Ecclesiastical Order

3. Meaning of Priestly Vestments

4. Sacred Vestments

4. The Sacrament of Dedication

5. Dedication of a Church

5. Connection of the Testaments

2. Unity of the Church

6. Why God Became Man and Suffered

1. Incarnation of the Word

The first of Hugh’s three paragraphs on the rite of dedication of a church (Sacr. 2.5.1) does not draw on Ivo. In this first paragraph, Hugh carefully situates the rite among the sacraments of the New Law. Hugh has treated Orders, liturgical garb, and other things associated with Orders first (Sacr. 2.3–4). Returning to a distinction he made earlier (Sacr. 1.9.7), Hugh says that Orders, though a sacrament in its own right, pertains to administration or preparation. Now it is time to treat of the sacraments for which Orders are, as it were, instruments. The first of these other sacraments to be considered is the dedication of a church, which is, so to speak, a first baptism. By its dedication, the church is baptized so that then people to be reborn to salvation may be baptized in it. So, baptism must be considered both as it is visibly prefigured in the dedication of a church (Sacr. 2.5), and then as it is manifest in the salvation of a believing soul (Sacr. 2.6). What is visibly expressed as a figure in this house of prayer is fully manifest in the believing soul through invisible truth. The believing soul is the true temple of truth by a consolidation of virtues; it is, as it were, a structure built of spiritual stones, where faith supplies the foundation, hope the walls, and charity the completion. The Church, too, is the house God constructed of living stones, gathered into one from a multitude of believers. Christ is the cornerstone of the Church, joining the two walls, Jews and Gentiles, into one faith. In making these comparisons, Hugh is very careful to qualify what he says with “as it were” and “so to speak.” The analogies

I ntroduction



99

are only approximate, even though Hugh thinks that the connections between church building, faithful soul, and Church are very close. At the end of this first paragraph, Hugh says that he will now treat first of the things that are visibly performed in the dedication rite (Sacr. 2.5.2) and then consider the mystery that they signify (Sacr. 2.5.3). In choosing this procedure, Hugh deviates from Ivo of Chartres, his source for most of paragraphs 2 and 3, since Ivo intermingled description and allegory, giving the mystical meaning of each element of the rite as it occurred.5 By this separation of description of the rite from explanation of the meaning of its elements, Hugh in effect detaches the allegorical meaning of each element from its place in the ritual. A single element (e.g., water) may have several meanings, and several elements (objects, numbers, actions) can have the same meaning (e.g., Christ).6 The allegories Hugh finds in the dedication ritual fit together in complex ways; for example, the bishop’s knocking and entrance symbolize Christ’s lordship, whereas the bishop’s prostration and prayer once he enters the church is a sign of Christ’s humility. Of the many mysteries signified in the dedication rite, Hugh focuses primarily on the redemptive suffering of Christ. Two other symbols central to Hugh’s allegorical explanation of the dedication of a church are the bishop acting in the person of Christ and the sign of the cross. In describing the ritual of the sacrament of the Dedication of a Church (ch. 2), and its allegorical meaning (ch. 3), Hugh often cites Ivo’s text, sometimes verbatim,7 yet he subtly alters it to express his own theological outlook. An example of Hugh’s procedure is to be found in his description of the beginnings of the dedication rite in De sacramentis 2.5.2: he strikes the lintel of the church with his pastoral staff, saying, lift up your gates, O princes, and be lifted up eternal gates. To this the deacon located inside answers: who is this king of glory? The prelate replies: the lord of armies, he is the king of glory. Finally, after he has knocked a third time and the door has been unlocked, the prelate enters with the priests and deacons and says three times, “peace to this house.” 5

6 7

In his very influential Rationale divinorum officiorum, 1.6.8–30 (tr. Timothy M. Thibo­deau, Records of Civilization [New  York: Columbia University Press, 2007], 63–71), William ­Durand the Elder (c. 1230–96), bishop of Mende, follows Hugh’s procedure by first outlining the rite (par. 8), then explaining the parts (par. 9–30). Neuheuser, “Ritus und Theologie,” 262–77. Neuheuser, “Domus dedicanda,” 394–95.

100

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

Then, with the priests and deacons, the bishop prostrates himself to pray for the sanctification of this house that is to be dedicated. After that he rises from prayer but he does not yet greet the people with “the Lord be with you,” but simply urges all to pray.8

Ivo had written: he strikes upon the lintel with his pastoral staff at the singing of the antiphon, lift up your gates, O princes, and be lifted up, O eternal gates… The people inside, as though wondering at the admonition of the prelate, ask, who is this king of glory? … When the door is opened, the prelate enters with the clergy and people, saying, “peace to this house” three times. When the prelate enters the new church to sanctify it, he immediately turns to prayer… Rising from prayer, he does not yet greet the people by saying “the Lord be with you,” but only urges them to prayer.9

Having finished his description of the ceremony in paragraph 2, in paragraph 3 Hugh retraces his steps, giving an allegorical interpretation of what he has just described: The house to be dedicated is the soul to be sanctified… The prelate is Christ, the staff is power. The three strikes against the lintel is domination of heaven, earth, and the nether world. The question of the one enclosed is the ignorance of the people. The opening of the door is the taking away of sin. The prelate entering the church implores the peace of the Lord, because Christ entered the world and made peace between God and men. Prostrate, he prays for the sanctification of the house, as Christ humbled himself and prayed to the Father for the disciples and all who would believe saying, Father, sanctify them in your name. Rising from 8

9

Sacr. 2.5.2 (Berndt, 370.9–16): “percutit virga pastorali superliminare ipsius dicens, tollite portas principes vestras et elevamini porte eternales (Ps 23:7). Cui diaconus intus positus respondet, quis est iste rex glorie? (Ps 23:8). Pontifex autem ipse est rex glorie (Ps 23[24]:10). Tercia demum vice, reserato hostio, intret pontifex cum clero et populo et dicens tercio, pax huic domui (Luke 10:5). Deinde cum sacerdotibus et levitis ad orationem prosternitur pro sanctificatione ipsius domus dedicande. Postea consurgens ab oratione nondum salutans populum dicendo ‘Dominus vobiscum,’ tantummodo hortatur cunctos ad orandum.” Here and in the next quotation from De sacramentis, I have modernized the punctuation. Ivo, Serm. 4 (PL 162.529C–530D): “percutit super liminare virga pastorali, cantando antiphonam tollite portas principes vestrae, et elevamini portae aeternales (Ps 23:7)… [Populus] intus admonitionem pontificis quasi admirans interrogat, quis est iste rex gloriae? (Ps 23[24]:8) … Aperto vero ostio, intrat pontifex cum clero et populo, dicens, ‘pax huic domus’ ter… Pontifex ergo dum in novam ecclesiam eam sanctificaturus ingreditur et statim ad orationem se confert… surgens ab oratione, nondum salutat populum dicendo, ‘Dominus vobiscum,’ sed tantum ad orationem cunctos hortatur.”

I ntroduction



101

prayer he does not greet the people, because since they are not sanctified they are not to be greeted, but to be prayed for.10

In his interpretation, Hugh goes through Ivo’s text, extracting, condensing, and connecting Ivo’s allegorical commentaries. Here are those parts of Ivo’s allegory that Hugh took up: The pastoral staff is understood to be priestly power… The Son received that power from the Father when through the humility of the assumed humanity he received dominion over the things of heaven, the earth, and the netherworld… Whence, after the threefold striking, the door is opened because, when a priest indignantly guards his power, the opposite side cannot resist. For before the priest enters it, the church itself has the form of a people enclosed in darkness by the ignorance of unbelief… When the door has been opened, the prelate enters with the clergy and people saying “peace to this house” three times, because Christ by the mediation of his coming re-formed peace between God and man, between earthly things and heavenly ones… When the prelate enters into the new church to sanctify it, he immediately gives himself to prayer. Thereby, he fulfills the saying of the Apostle, who warned that first of all prayer should be made on behalf of all people, and thus he is still a type of those who begin to teach an ignorant people. Hence, rising from prayer he does not yet greet the people by saying, “The Lord be with you,” but only urges all to prayer, because the new people does not yet seem worthy of the priestly greeting.11 10

11

Sacr. 2.5.3 (Berndt, 371.18–372.3): “Domus dedicanda sanctificanda anima est… Pontifex Christus est, virga potestas. Trina superliminaris percussio, celi, terre, inferni dominatio. Interrogatio inclusi ignorantia populi. Aperitio hostii sublatio peccati. Pontifex ecclesiam ingrediens pacem domini imprecatur, quia Christus mundum ingrediens pacem inter deum et hominem fecit. Prostratus pro sanctificatione domus orat, ut Christus humiliatus pro discipulis et pro credituris omnibus patrem orabat dicens, Pater sanctifica eos in nomine tuo (John 17:11). Surgens autem ab oratione populum non salutat, quoniam qui necdum santificati sunt applaudendum non est ipsis, sed orandum pro ipsis.” Ivo, Serm. 4 (PL 162.529C–530D): “Virga enim pastoralis potestas intelligitur sacerdotalis… Quam potestatem a Patre Filius accepit cum per humilitatem assumptae humanitatis, coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum dominatum accepit… Unde post trinam percussionem ostium aperitur, quia sacerdoti potestatem suam indigne conservanti, pars adversa resistere non potest. Nam ipsa ccclesia, antequam pontifex eam ingrediatur, populi ignorantia perfidiae tenebris inclusi figuram tenet… Aperto vere ostio intrat pontifex cum clero et populo dicens, ‘pax huic domui’ ter, quia Christus… pacem inter Deum et hominem, inter terrestria et coelestia sui adventus mediatione reformavit… Pontifex ergo dum in novam ecclesiam, eam sanctificaturus ingreditur et statim ad orationen se confert, Apostoli vocem complet, qui primum omnium pro omnibus hominibus orationem fieri monet (1 Tim 2:1), et ita adhuc eorum typum tenet, qui rudem populum docere incipiunt. Inde est quod surgens ab oratione nondum salutat populum, dicendo ‘Dominus vobiscum,’ sed tantum ad orationem cunctos hortatur, quia novellus populus necdum sacerdotis salutatione dignus videatur.”

102

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

Hugh’s treatment is considerably shorter than Ivo’s, and his description of the rite is also easier to follow. The allegorical meanings that Hugh detects (usually the same meanings assigned to the rituals by Ivo and others before and after Hugh) are separated from their contexts in the rite and given a wider application; e.g., the altar is the Church; water is penitence, and the bishop is Christ. Hugh and Ivo comment on almost the same thirty or so elements of the rite for the dedication of a church, although Hugh does not comment on some antiphons. Hugh also does not distinguish between two successive anointings of the altar, one with oil, the other with chrism. He mentions, but does not comment on the aspersion of the four corners of the altar, the aspersion of the middle of the church, and the final incensing of the altar.12 All this attention to the rite for the dedication of a church may seem excessive, but the ritual was used much more often in medieval times than it is now. The dedication or rededication of churches and construction of altars occurred rather frequently in the twelfth century.13 In his studies of Hugh of St Victor’s brief description of the dedication of a Church, Neunheuser identifies distinctive theological features of Hugh’s treatment,14 beginning with Hugh’s conviction that the fundamental sacrament of the opus restaurationis is the Incarnation of the Word.15 Hugh’s introductory paragraph (De sacramentis 2.5.1) indicates the intent of his theology of the dedication of a church: (1) the Church is the place where all other sacraments occur; (2) hence, the church is baptized because Christians will be baptized there; (3) the consecration of the church figures the sanctification16 of the souls of the faithful; 12 13

14 15 16

Neither Ivo nor Hugh mentions the part of the ceremony concerned with the translation of the relics; compare William Durand, Rationale 1.7.23–25 (tr. Thibodeau, 83–84). Nancy Spatz, “Church Porches and the Liturgy,” in The  Liturgy of the Medieval Church, ed. Thomas Heffernan and E. Ann Matter, 2nd ed. (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2005), 315–16. William Durand, Rationale 1.6.31–34 (tr. Ribodeau, 70–71) lists reasons why a church would need to be rededicated. “Domus dedicanda [part 2],” Ecclesia Orans 19 (2002): 7–41; Neuheuser, “Ritus und Theo­ logie,” in “Das Haus Gottes,” 273–92. Sacr. 1.1 (PL 176.371C); Sacr. 1, Prol. (PL 176.183B): “Opus restaurationis est incarnatio Verbi cum omnibus sacramentis suis.” Neuheuser, “Domus dedicanda,” 34–35, “Ritus under Theologie,” 282–84, lists the following: “domus dedicanda, anima sanctificanda” (PL 176.441A); “pro sanctificatione domus” (PL  176.441B); “in sanctificatione animae fidelis” (PL  176.439B); “nondum sanctificati sunt” (PL 176.441B); “populus sanctificatur doctrina fidei et memoria passionis Christi” (PL 176.442A); “ecclesia intus aqua sanctificata asperigitur, ut et intus et exterius anima sanctificanda ostendatur” (PL 176.442A). Hugh also uses the term “dedicare” often and, twice, the term “consecrare.”

I ntroduction



103

(4) the church made of many stones symbolizes the Church made of living stones, on the foundation of Christ, on which the walls formed of Jews and Gentiles rest; (5) the dedication of a church belongs. with sacred vestments, to the category of sacraments that are preparatory for the other sacraments.17 From Hugh’s discussion of the rite of dedication, lineaments of his own ecclesiology emerge.18 Baptism forms a person into a temple of God, constructed from many virtues: faith is the foundation, hope the walls, and charity the roof. So, too, the Church is built of many faithful incorporated into one by the Spirit and faith. In Christ, all believers of all time, Jews and gentiles, are united into one edifice of spiritual stones. The Church, and the church, are places of sanctification.19 The Church and her sacraments, symbolized by and performed in the church, are the vehicles whereby salvation history, the opus restaurationis, occurs in the present. To faith are revealed profound mysteries; these are given outward shape (forma) in sacraments, and made manifest in the liturgy. Hugh probably had personal reasons to be interested in the dedication of a church. The church at St Victor was financed by the largesse of his uncle Hugh, archdeacon of Halberstadt, who followed Hugh of St Victor into the abbey.20 If the younger Hugh was present at its dedication, it must have made a deep impression on him. Adam of St Victor The Victorines who followed Hugh at St Victor did not write commentaries on the rite of the dedication of a church, but they did quite frequently preach on the anniversary of the dedication of a church. For his part, Adam celebrated the liturgical commemoration of the 17

18 19 20

Hugh is not entirely clear regarding this fifth point. In Sacr. 1.9.7 (PL 176. 397AB), Hugh distinguishes (1) sacraments in which salvation is primarily found, such as Baptism and the Eucharist, (2) those which are not necessary for salvation but through which virtue is exercised and grace is more amply acquired, such as sprinkling with holy water or receiving ashes; (3) sacraments which seem to have been instituted only so that through them things that are necessary for sanctifying the other sacraments are in some way prepared and sanctified. The first pertain to salvation, the second to exercise, the third to preparation. In Sacr. 2.5.1, Hugh says he has treated what concerns Orders and now he will turn to those things that are instrumental for the other sacraments, beginning with Dedication of a Church. This seems to indicate that both Orders and Dedication of a Church belong to category (3) preparation. See Jean Châtillon, “Une ecclésiologie médiévale: L’idée de l’Église dans la théologie de l’école de Saint-Victor au xiie siècle,” Irénikon 22 (1949): 115–38; 395–411. Sacr. 2.2.2 (PL 176.416BC). Necrologium abbatiae Sancti Victoris Parisiensis, ed. Ursula Vones-Liebenstein and Monika Seifert, Corpus Victorinum, Opera recollecta 1 (Munster: Aschendorff, 2012), 166–67.

104

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

dedication with two sequences. Quam dilecta tabernacula, begins with a paraphrase of Psalm 83:2: “How beloved are the tabernacles and the forecourts (‘atria’) of the Lord of armies.”21 The tabernacle (tent), as will be seen below, is the figure that Richard of St Victor evoked at the beginning of his first two sermons on the dedication of a church. According to Adam, this tabernacle has had carefully selected architects; storms and flood only make it stronger. Its magnificent foundations are adumbrated by converging mysteries. Adam evokes a long list of Biblical types of the Church in chronological order, some of them obscure: God’s constructions; the replacement of the Synagogue by the Church formed of Jews and Gentiles; rescues from danger; nurture; weddings; and fine clothes. For example, the birth of Eve from Adam’s side foreshadows the birth of the Church from the water and blood flowing from Christ’s side, and her union with Adam prefigures the union of Christ and the Church. The list ends with “the future realities, which the figures covered like clouds, and the day of grace has uncovered for us. / Let us now rest on the couch with the Beloved and sing psalms, for the wedding is nigh.”22 Thus, this sequence uses other prefigurations or types of the Church to explain one, the tabernacle;23it does not refer to any feature of a church building other than its indestructibility; and it ends on a strongly anagogic note. Adam also composed a sequence for the octave of the celebration of the dedication of a church, Rex Solomon fecit templum.24 Solomon’s construction of the temple is an exemplar of Christ’s establishment of the Church. By means of grace, Christ is the ruler, foundation, and founder of the Church, a statement suggesting the Trinity. The foundation and walls are marble. Chastity is white; squared stones stand for the virtue and constancy of prelates. The length, width, and height stand respectively for faith, hope, and charity.25 The three parts of the 21 22 23

24 25

Jean Grosfillier, Les sequences d’Adam de Saint-Victor, BV 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), 348–52; 666–70. Adam’s authorship of the sequence is not certain. “Hec futura, que figura obumbravit, reseravit nobis dies gratie. / Iam in lecto cum dilecto quiescamus et psallamus, assunt enim nuptie” (Grosfillier, 351 lines 62–71). Garnerus of St Victor, Gregorianum (PL 193.23–462), compiled primarily from the writings of St Gregory the Great, a carefully arranged concordance of the allegorical meanings of Scripture. Book 13 (PL 193.389C–420C) is devoted to buildings and their parts. Included in its twenty-four chapters are most of the architectural constructions mentioned in sermons on the rite of the dedication of a church: (1) city, (5) tower, (6) house, (7) tabernacle, (8) temple, (9) foundation, (10) wall, (11) gate, (12–13) lintel, (14) door, (15) window, (16) bases, (21) atrium, (22) pavement. Grosfillier, Sequences, 353–56; 671–86. Richard of St Victor, Serm. centum 2 (PL 177.904A = LE 2.10.2 [Châtillon, 377]).

I ntroduction



105

temple, equal and inseparable, point to the Trinity: the lower level is the living; the top part is the dead; and the middle part is those returned to life (in heaven, presumably). The temple is suffused with many sweet odors (recalling the incense of the rite of dedication), signifying good works and prayers. It is fitting for teachers and ministers to be taught and purified by the fire of the Holy Spirit. As both Jews and Gentiles contributed to building Solomon’s temple, so the Church is established from both.26 To you, Christ, the stone that unites both, be praise common to them both. Achard of St Victor Achard of St Victor’s surviving sermons include two on the dedication of a church.27 Sermon 2 is a brief elaboration of Psalm 19:4–5, he pitched his tent (tabernacle) in the sun, and like bridegroom from his chamber. Christ the Sun illumines holy people through knowledge and love, and they in turn illumine others. In the life to come, the blessed will be one temple for the Lord. In Sermon 13, Achard develops a theology of Christian life based on a three-part construction that corresponds to a threefold participation in the power, wisdom, and anointing of God.28 These two sermons were given on the occasion of the feast of the anniversary of the dedication of a church (probably commemorating the dedication of the church of St Victor on June 5), but they do not refer explicitly to the dedication of the church building.29 Richard of St Victor Of the one hundred sermons in Richard of St Victor’s sermon collection, Sermones centum, Sermons 1, 2, 3 are entitled “for the dedication of a church.” Sermons 39, 40, and 44, are allegorical sermons on Jerusalem as a figure for the Church, and Sermon 45 compares the 26 27

28

29

Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.5.1 (PL 176.439C), translated above. Sermon 2 in Achard de Saint-Victor, Sermons inédits, ed. Jean Châtillon, TPMA 17 (Paris: Vrin, 1970), 36–41, tr. Hugh Feiss, Works, CS 165 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2001), 147–54; Sermon 13, ed. Châtillon, Sermons inêdits, 131–68; tr. Feiss, Works, 201–53. See Feiss, commentary on and translation of this sermon in Writings on the Spiritual Life, ed. Christopher P. Evans, VTT 4:70–129. For further commentary on Achard’s sermons for the dedication of a church, see Hideki Nakamura, “Kirchweihpredigten Richards von Sankt Viktor,” in Stammberger and Sticher. “Das Haus Gottes,” 300–03. See William W. Clark, “The Twelfth-Century Church of St Victor at Paris,” in From Knowledge to Beatitude: St Victor, Twelfth-Century Scholars and Beyond, ed. E. Ann Matter and Lesley Smith (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013), 68–85.

106

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

Church to a wine cellar.30 All of these illuminate Richard’s ecclesiology, but only the first three are On the Dedication of the Church. The first is said to approach the topic “historically,” the second, “tropologically,” the third, “anagogically.” Each sermon starts from elements of a church, then gives an interpretation of those elements as figures of the Church or the soul as the tabernacle (tent) or temple of God. After listing the parts of a church, the first sermon then gives an allegorical or ecclesiological interpretation of these elements: “all are full of sacraments and offer spiritual patterns.”31 Richard identifies the referent of each item, then comments on that referent. For example, the faithful, who are symbolized by the stones, are square by the stability of faith and firm by the virtue of patience. In Sermon 1, these are the elements and what they symbolize allegorically: stones:

the faithful, square and firm

cement:

charity

foundation:

prophets and apostles

walls [upward thrusting]:

contemplatives

roof [down hanging]:

active people

length:

the Church viewed in relation to times (three times: before the law, under the law, under grace)32 or from east to west

the width:

the multitude of peoples (north to south)

the height:

difference of merits or dignity (laity, priests, bishops, archbishops, pope)

sanctuary:

virgins

choir:

the continent

nave:

married

atrium:

baptized Christians who are false because riddled with vice

30

31 32

The Sermones centum are printed among the works of Hugh of St Victor, PL 177.899–1210. There is only one extant manuscript of all 100 sermons, but the first 27 are also included in his widely circulated Liber exceptionum (ed. Jean Chatîllon, TPMA 5 (Paris: Vrin, 1958), 375–430. The sermons have no titles in the critical edition of the Liber exceptionum. PL 177.901A–903C. See, for example, Hugh of St Victor, Dial. sacr. (PL 176.32AB); Richard of St Victor, LE 1.4.1 (Châtillon, 129).

I ntroduction



107

altar:

Christ, upon whom we offer the sacrifice of good works and prayers

tower:

the name of the Lord (Prov 18:10)

bells:

preachers

glass windows:

spiritual men who enlighten us with divine knowledge

whitewashed exterior and interior:

bodily cleanness and clean hearts

twelve candles:

apostles

the dedicating prelate:

Christ, who goes around his Church in each of the three eras mentioned above in connection with the length of the church

In Sermon 2, Richard gives the moral or tropological meaning of the elements he mentioned in the first sermon: stones:

virtues, immovable in the face of vitia

cement:

charity

foundation:

Christ

walls:

contemplation of the good things of heaven

roof:

good action

length:

faith

height:

hope, lifting one from the earthly to the heavenly

width:

love of friends in God and neighbors for God’s sake

sanctuary:

humans as made in the image of God through having a soul

choir:

likeness to God

nave:

sensory capacities

atrium:

flesh, from which come sparks of concupiscence

altar:

heart

glass windows:

spiritual senses

108

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

tower:

name of God

bells:

preaching

interior and exterior whitening:

cleanness of heart and body

twelve candles:

doctrine of the twelve apostles, which through faith leads to good action

prelate:

the Trinity (which Richard elaborates)

Richard concludes by urging his hearers to make themselves into such a tent where the Trinity can dwell by grace and glory. The first two sermons start from Psalm 45:5: The Lord [Altissimus] has sanctified his tent. This verse often appears in liturgies and sermons for the dedication of a church.33 Richard’s third, anagogic, sermon comments on “Praise the Lord, Jerusalem” (Psalm 147:1). He identifies a different set of elements with their referents: stones:

the faithful

wall:

virtues

towers:

contemplatives

buildings:

small: married; medium: continent; large: virgins; stone buildings: firm in faith; ivory buildings: those shining in chastity.

gates:34

through which people of various nations and cultures enter, namely,

sheep:

sheep innocent through justice by contrast to harmful wolves

fish:

penitence; compunction, confession, and satisfaction

old:

charity

valley:

humility of Christ

dung:

excommunication

Siloe:

faith in Christ, sent by the Father

33 34

See the references in Hideki Nakamura, “Kirchweihpredigten Richards von Sankt Viktor,” in Stammberger and Sticher, “Das Haus Gottes,” 298–300. See Neh [2 Ezra] 3:1–31; 12:38. These gates are discussed in Bede’s Commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah (PL 91.888A–891B) and the Glossa on 2 Ezra (PL 113.714D–716A).

I ntroduction

waters:

compunction

horse:

restraint of evil impulses

judicial:

discretion



109

Hideki Nakamura has studied the first two of these sermons carefully.35 Richard’s adoption of Hugh of St Victor’s tripartite division of the history of the world and of the Church affirms that the Church has existed from the beginning of creation. In enumerating the features of the church building, Richard does so in the context of salvation history, in which the church and the community he addresses are situated and find their meaning. Richard refers to various hierarchical categorizations of members in the Church: contemplative and active; lay, priest, bishop, archbishop, pope; virgins, continent, married. The altar is the center of the church; it stands for Christ. By including the consecrating prelate in this list of the static physical elements of the church, Richards adds a reference to the unfolding action of the rite of consecration. In both sermons, Richard urges his hearers to go from the visible things around them to the invisible things they symbolize and ultimately to contemplation and love of God. The sensory forms of knowledge and affect (nave) enable the human being created in God’s image and likeness (choir and sanctuary) to go to the altar (Christ) and to the invisible things of God. The visible building and community are sacraments intimating the invisible dimension of the Church, founded on Christ, existing through all eras, made up of living stones with different roles and capacities, particularly to preach and teach and contemplate. The second sermon describes how the invisible soul, the image (by rationality) and likeness (by love) of God,36 with Christ as her foundation, is built up in virtues. The bishop, who circled the church three times when it was dedicated, stands for the Trinity, the Father (potentia), the Son (sapientia), and the Spirit (benignitas), who confer, respectively, fear, knowledge, and consolation.37 Richard’s strategy begins with identifying tabernacle with church. Then he describes the parts of the church whose consecration by a bishop is being remembered, and finally he gives an ecclesiological 35 36 37

“Kirchweihpredigten Richards von Sankt Viktor,” 293–327. In what follows, I blend his ideas with my own. LE 1.1.1 (Châtillon, 104); see Nakamura, “Kirchweihpredigten Richards,” 311–13. Much of VTT  1: Trinity and Creation, deals with how these essential attributes may be ­appropriated to the persons of the Trinity.

110

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

and a moral (or, as Nakamura insightfully calls it, an anthropological) interpretation of those parts. Richard makes this interpretation in light of who (the faithful), where and what (church), and when and why (anniversary day or octave), drawing on a long tradition of biblical exegesis and meditation on the visible things whose deeper meaning he seeks. That meaning centers on Christ. Richard is voicing the selfunderstanding of the Church, of the gathered church community, and the individuals from whom Church and community are constituted, as they celebrate the mysteries of salvation. Anonymous of St Victor In a sermon collection from the Abbey of St Victor that Jean Châtillon edited, there are two anonymous sermons for the dedication of a church.38 The first starts from the verse, Jacob saw in a dream a ladder standing on the earth, and angels descending and ascending on it, and its top seemed to touch the heavens.39 The author does not refer to the church building or to the feast of the dedication. He is very fond of threefold divisions. His main contribution is to distinguish two parts of the “general Church,” the militant on earth and the triumphant in heaven. He cites terribilis est locus iste,40 not to affirm the awesomeness of the church, but to warn against the seduction of created things, which makes life on earth unsafe. The second sermon begins with, my house shall be called a house of prayer.41 Unlike many of the sermons presented thus far, this sermon makes explicit reference to the solemnity of the dedication of a church.42 The Old Testament is full of signs of truth, such as the signs connected with the construction of ark of Noah, the tabernacle of Moses, the temples of Solomon and Ezekiel. These must be understood spiritually for spiritual edification. In the New Testament, there are also signs, which we not only read in books but touch with our hands.43 The author will concentrate on a few of the signs regarding 38 39 40 41 42 43

Galteri a Sancto Victore et quorumdam aliorum sermones inediti triginta sex, ed. Jean Châtillon, CCCM 30 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1975), 245–49 (Sermo 1), 275–80 (Sermo 6). Gen 28:12; this verse and the entire story of Jacob’s ladder were frequently part of the liturgy for the dedication of a church. Gen 28:17. Isa 56:7; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17. Anonymous of St Victor, Sermo 6.3 (Châtillon, 271) “Praesens autem sollempnitas requirit ut de signis quae fiunt in dedication ecclesiae aliquid dicamus.” Anonymous of St Victor, Sermo 6.2 (Châtillon, 270–71).

I ntroduction



111

the dedication of a church that are present before our eyes: the crosses made with chrism on the walls, and the lights that glow all over the floor of the building. The shape of the cross indicates the quadrangle of charity:44 the latitude of love of neighbor, the length of perseverance till the end, the heights of doing all for God, and the depth of ascribing everything to the inscrutable grace of God. That good things be loved well, three things are required: that what should be loved is loved, and that it is loved in the way it should be loved, and that it be loved for a good reason. When someone does this, she rejoices in the Holy Spirit and in a betrothal gift of her future inheritance. This spiritual delight is symbolized by anointing; Christ is spiritual anointing. What is poured into him in its fullness is poured out by participation into his members.45 The house of God is built of these three: love, delight, and contemplation. This is the house of prayer from which one finally goes to a house not made by hands, the city of God.46 Absalom of Springiersbach Godfrey of St Victor has left one sermon on the dedication of a church that remains unpublished.47 Among the fifty-one surviving sermons of Absalom, who went from St Victor to Springiersbach in the early thirteenth century, are four sermons on the dedication of a church.48 The first of these, Sermo 38, starts from the text Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur.49 He begins by saying that this feast is more eminent than others: the altar is decorated, the clothing of the ministers is special, and the praises of God resound, for on this day the whole church is filled with light and the joys of the universal Church seem to be presented to us.50 The body of his sermon is a series of triads. The overarching one is the three cities of refuge for sinners,51 a tower 44 45 46 47

48 49 50 51

Anonymous of St Victor, Sermo 3.4 (Châtillon, 252–53). Anonymous of St Victor, Sermo 6.3–9 (Châtillon, 271–75). Anonymous of St Victor, Sermo 6.10 (Châtillon, 275). Phillipe Delhaye, “Les sermon de Godefroy de Saint-Victor,” RTAM 21 (1954): 198. It begins, “Scitis, dilectissimi Domini mei et fratres, quod materialis hec domus Dei cuius hodie dedicationis diem annua revolutione sollempniter celebramus, mistice significat spiritualem domum Dei, que nos esse dicimur.” His Sermones are found in PL 211.23–294. Matt 21:13. PL 211.320B: “Sed in hac [festivitate] tota templi superficies lumine illustrata nobis exhibetur jucundior, unde universalis Ecclesiae gaudia nobis hodie repraesentari videntur.” Deut 4:41–42.

112

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

of strength for the justified, and a secret place of prayer for the perfect. These three appear often in the Bible. The three cities of refuge signify every congregation of believers united by charity. They provide the remedy of rebirth against original sin, of confession against actual sin, and a good way of life that excuses from punishment. The Church is a tower of strength built on the mountain of Christ, with a moat of spiritual gifts and a wall of continence. The house of prayer is those who adore God in spirit and truth, offering heartfelt prayer like incense. Their prayers are presented to God by angels. There are three dwellings in the house of God, for those entering, those fighting, and those reigning. The doors to these three dwellings are, respectively, the sacraments, the teaching of the truth, and in the Church triumphant, those virtues that will remain forever, such as love, peace, and goodness. The blessed are praying for us. Sermon 39 begins with, Zacchaeus, hurry down, because today I need to stay in your house.52 This is a solemnity superior to others because today all the joys of the Church are represented. Absalom then repeats the contents of Sermo 38 in a slightly different form. Turning to Zacchaeus, he says that the sycamore signifies bitterness of earthly pleasures. Zacchaeus’ name means “justified”; justification occurs by means of precept, example, and advice. We are to imitate Zacchaeus’ descent, so that nothing sordid remains in our church. This house, where Christ wants to stay, must be prepared so that it is a beautiful house with a rich table and suitable servants. The house is beautified by precious stones, which symbolize different kinds of people in the Church. The rich table is Sacred Scripture, notably the four senses of Scripture, the gifts described in 1 Corinthians 14, and the Sacrament of the Altar. In this table, four breads are provided: sacramental (sharing in the Body of the Lord), physical, spiritual (the Word of God), and intellectual (the bread of ecclesiastical unity). The eight parts of the vesture of the Old Testament priests signify what is required of New Testament minister, a topic Absalom elaborates from several angles. Sermon 40 begins from, Wisdom built herself a house, she cut out seven columns.53 In it, Absalom weaves a rich cloth of biblical allegories and Victorine ideas. This is the spiritual house that Christ has prepared for his bride. This house has three dwelling places: for those who work, 52 53

Luke 19:5. Prov 9:1. The sermon is found in PL 211.229B–233B.

I ntroduction



113

for those who desire, and for those who enjoy. The first sort of laborers return from the region of unlikeness to the house of their father. These put down the foundation of confession, the first three layers of stone: compunction, detestation of evil, and caution for the future. They use the cement of tears and devotion. Floods of temptation break upon this foundation, but it remains steady. Laborers of a second sort do not fall into carnal living, but are held back from journeying to God by the pleasures of the senses, which deprive some of them of the eye of reason and the eye of contemplation. The second dwelling place is occupied by contemplatives who are both higher and humbler, offering the incense of devotion on the altar of the heart. They bend their will through obedience. The third dwelling is for those who enjoy divine contemplation and jubilation. Their souls are nourished by Sacraments, Scriptures, prayer, and the beatitude of glory. That beatitude consists of knowledge of truth and perfect charity, as well as of health and beauty of body. Sermon 41 begins with the verse, the Feast of Dedication was held in Jerusalem.54 Its historical truth is the restoration of the temple by Judas Maccabeus.55 The Temple is the soul of the just person, the dwelling of God and the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit. Its foundation is knowledge, its walls are love, and its roof is good works. One comes to perfect knowledge through meditation, exercise, and learning. A wise architect erects four walls of love: discretion on the entrance wall, devotion at the opposite end, compassion on the left, and mildness on the right. Then one adds a roof of good works of mortification, virtue, and charity toward others. The Bible tells of three dedications of the Temple: under Solomon, after the exile, and by Judas Maccabeus. Our temple has three also: baptism (cleansing through laying aside the old, sanctifying by the grace of the indwelling Spirit, confirming by the confession of faith, strengthening by the anointing with oil), renunciation (contempt of the world), and laying aside the body. Then we will understand by the infusion of the highest truth. Now, love is perfect in constancy; then, it will be perfect in intensity. These Victorine sequences and sermons give some sense of how a feast of dedication was celebrated at the abbey during the seventy years from Hugh’s time until the early thirteenth century. That so many sermons for the feast were included in the collections of Victo54 55

John 10:22. 2 Macc 10:1–8.

114

H ugh of St   V ictor – D E D IC AT IO N O F A C H U R C H

rine sermons indicates how important it was for those who celebrated this feast. For them, the church building, the church community they formed, the universal Church, and the individuals who made up this Church and churches, were houses, tabernacles, tents, and cities of God. Each was built on Christ, each was indwelt, heated, and illumined by the Holy Spirit. They lived under grace, in the third and last age of the world. All that went before was full of signs, prefigurations, or sacraments of the realities they celebrated in their church. First of all, a church building was the place where the saving power of the cross of Christ brought a person into his Body through baptism. After the twelfth century, the Rite for the Dedication of a Church did not change very much. The fifteenth-century rite for the Dedication of a Church in the Use of Sarum is almost identical with Ivo’s.56 The ritual promulgated in the post-tridentine Pontificale Romanum of 1596 remained the basis for the Catholic ritual of dedication57 until 1962, when a new, simpler ritual was promulgated, which in 1977 was replaced with a ritual revised in the light of the liturgical teachings of Vatican II.58

56 57 58

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dedication. Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Appleton, 1908), 4:280–82, describes this rite. The Rites of the Catholic Church, Vol. 2 (New York: Pueblo, 1980), 203–33 or http://www. liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Rites/RDCA.pdf.

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 2.5: ON THE DEDICATION OF A CHURCH TRANSLATION

1. On the Dedication of a Church After Orders, which we placed in the first part about ecclesiastical administration, we move on to a consideration of the sacraments. It seems to us that we should speak first about the sacrament of the dedication of a church in which all the other sacraments are celebrated. Above, in the exposition about the sacraments in general that we put first, we made a distinction: some sacraments are of salvation; others are of administration; and others about practice. The first serve as a remedy, the second as a function, and the third for exercise.1 The sacraments that pertain to administration or preparation pertain to Orders, for they are sacraments of that order, as are the things that concern Orders, such as sacred vestments, vessels, and other similar things. Because, as was said, all these things concern Orders, they did not need to be treated separately. These things are set in place beforehand as tools to confect and sanctify the other sacraments, which need subsequent exposition. One should speak first of the dedication of a church as a first baptism by which the church itself is in some way baptized first, so that afterward in it people to be reborn to salvation are baptized. The first sacrament is, as it were, known to be baptism, through which all the faithful are numbered among members of the Body of Christ through the grace of a new regeneration. Therefore, this is treated first: first it is figured in the dedication of a church, then manifest in the sanctification of the holy soul. What is expressed visibly by way of figure in this house of prayer is fully manifest in the faithful soul as invisible truth. The latter is the true temple of God by a confederation of virtues, a structure built, as it were, of spiritual stones. In it faith supplies the foundation, hope erects the fabric of the building, and love (caritas) perfects it.

116

H ugh of St   V ictor

However, the Church itself, gathered into one from a multitude of faithful people, is the house of God constructed from living stones, where Christ is laid down as the cornerstone, joining the two walls of Jews and gentiles in one faith. We will first present the form of sacrament that is manifest in the dedication of a church so that then we can search out the mystical understanding of faith that is formed in it. 2. The Things that Are Visibly Done First, the bishop blesses water, adding figurative salt. Then he sprinkles the church outside, going around it three times with the clergy and people following him. While he is going around the church to be dedicated, meanwhile inside twelve lights are lit.2 Each time he comes to the portal of the basilica, which because of the symbolism of the sacrament should be closed, he strikes the lintel of the church with his pastoral staff, saying, lift up your gates, princes, and open up the eternal gates and the king of glory will enter.3 To this, a deacon located inside answers, who is the king of glory? The prelate answers, the Lord of armies, he is the king of glory.4 Finally, on the third time and after the door has been unlocked, the prelate enters with the clergy and people, saying three times, peace to this house.5 Then, with the priest, deacons, and clerics he prostrates himself to pray for the sanctification of this house that is to be dedicated. After that he rises from prayer,6 but does not yet greet the people, “the Lord be with you,” but simply urges all to pray. When these things have been done, he begins to write the alphabet on the pavement from the lefthand corner of the basilica on the east to the right-hand corner on the west, and again from the right-hand corner on the east to the left-hand corner on the west.7 Then he goes up higher and standing before the altar, he invokes the Lord’s help for himself, saying, O God come to my assistance,8 finishing the verse with the Glory, but without alleluia. After these things, he blesses water, mixing in salt and ashes, making the sign of the cross over it three times. Wine is also added to the mixture. After this, he touches his finger to the water and makes the sign of the cross through the four corners of the altar.9 Then he comes before the altar and going around sprinkles it seven times with an aspergillum made of hyssop.10 From there, he goes around the whole church inside, sprinkling the walls with this same water, doing this three times also. Meanwhile the Psalm, Rise up, Lord,11 is sung with an antiphon. This antiphon is also

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 5



117

sung: whoever dwells in the help of the Most High.12 Meanwhile, the bishop goes around through the middle of the church, also singing, my house will be called a house of prayer,13 and also, I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the middle of the church I will praise you.14 When these things are completed, the bishop turns to prayer, asking that all those who will enter that house to pray will rejoice that they have been heard. When this expiation is finished, he turns toward the altar, beginning the antiphon, I will go up to the altar of God15 with its psalm and pours out what is left of the water of purification at the base of the altar.16 Then the bishop wipes the altar with linen and brings incense over it.17 After that, he makes a cross in the middle of the altar and at the four corners with blessed oil.18 Then going round the church he anoints twelve crosses on the walls, three inscribed on each wall. Then returning to the altar he offers burning incense over it in the shape of a cross. When the consecration is finally completed in this way, the altar is covered with white coverings.19 3. What Is the Mystery of the Above? Many profound mysteries lie hidden in all these things. We touch on a few of them in order to stir up memory. The house to be dedicated is the soul to be sanctified. The water is penitence, washing away the stains of sin. The salt is the divine word, biting by rebuke and flavoring hearts that are flavorless. The threefold sprinkling is the threefold immersion that purifies through water. The twelve lights are the apostles, enlightening the Church through the four parts of the world and carrying the mystery of the cross to the whole world. The prelate is Christ. The staff is power. The three strikes against the lintel are domination of heaven, earth, and the netherworld. The question of the one enclosed is the ignorance of the people. The prelate entering the Church entreats peace for the house, because Christ entered the world and made peace between God and man. Prostrate, he prays for the sanctification of the house, as Christ humbled himself and prayed to the Father for the disciples and all who would believe, saying, Father sanctify them in your name.20 Rising from his prayer, he does not greet the people, because those not yet sanctified are not to be greeted but to be prayed for. The writing of the alphabet is simple teaching of the faith. The pavement is the human heart. The alphabet is written on the pavement when a carnal and rude people is initiated into the first and simple teaching of the

118

H ugh of St   V ictor

faith. The line from the left corner on the east to the right corner of the west, and likewise the one from the right corner of the east to the left corner of the west, express the form of a cross, which is impressed on the minds of people by the faith of gospel preaching.21 Because faith was first in the Jews and then passed to the gentiles, and again at the end when the fullness of the gentiles has entered, all Israel will be saved,22 these two verses brought together in the form of the cross signify the gathering of both peoples. Hence it is that Jacob, blessing the sons of Joseph with crossed hands expressing the shape of a cross, placed his right hand on the head of Ephraim and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, because when the first people had been rejected, the younger one was put on the right.23 The crozier or pastoral staff by which Scripture is figured signifies the ministry of teachers by whose study and preaching both the conversion of the gentiles comes about and that of the Jews is perfected. That he stands before the altar and calls out, “God come to my assistance,” signifies those who having received knowledge of the faith gird themselves for the fight against invisible enemies. Because they presume less on their own strength, they implore that divine help be with them. In this, because the labor of those struggling is expressed, as it were, amid sighs and groans, Alleluia is not yet voiced. After these things, water is blessed with salt and ashes; some wine mixed with water is added. Water is the people; salt is doctrine; ashes, the memory of the passion of Christ; the wine mixed with water is Christ, God and man; the wine, divinity; and the water, mortality. Thus, people are sanctified by the doctrine of faith and the memory of Christ’s passion. After these things, the church interior is sprinkled with holy water to show that the soul is to be sanctified inside and out. The aspergillum of hyssop signifies the humility of Christ. Holy Church is purified by being sprinkled with it. The bishop goes around the altar sprinkling the whole church, as it were washing all and extending care to all by word and example, offering himself generally to all. For this reason, he ends his work with a prayer, praying that those who ask for just things will be heard, for the work of a human being can be performed without divine help, but it cannot be fruitful without it. Finally, having finished his expiation,24 the bishop turns to the altar, pouring out what is left of the water of purification at its base, as it were committing to God what remains in his imperfectly holy ministry because it exceeds his strength. Then the altar is wiped clean with linen. The altar is Christ, upon whom we offer to the Father the gift of our

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 5



119

devotion.25 The linen is his flesh, brought by the blows of his sufferings to the whiteness of incorruption. Incense signifies the prayers of the saints; oil points to the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose plentitude is first in the head, from which participation flows down from it to the members. Therefore, from the consecrated altar twelve crosses are formed by chrism on the walls, because spiritual grace descends from Christ to the apostles, so that they preach the mystery of the cross through the four parts of the world along with faith in the Trinity. The white cloth with which the altar is covered refers to the glory of incorruption that clothed the humanity of Christ after the passion, when mortality had been swallowed up. Thus, it is written: you cut away my sackcloth and surrounded me with happiness.26

120

H ugh of St   V ictor

NOTES 1

2

3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24

See Sacr. 1.9.7 (PL 176.327A–328B), where Hugh says the three kinds of sacraments are for salvation (ad salutem), exercise (ad exercitationem), and preparation (ad preparationem). The last sentence here, where Hugh alters his terminology somewhat, is an example of his use of the rhetorical device of tricolon: prima ad remedium secunda ad officium tertia ad exercitium Caer. 1 (PL 177.383D–384B). As was indicated in the introduction to this section of De sacramentis, Hugh follows Ivo of Chartres’ Sermon 4 very closely. The references to Ivo can be found in Berndt’s edition and in Neuheuser’s article. Here, it will be enough to indicate a few parallels in other twelfth-century authors. There are close parallels to a work entitled De caeremoniis, sacramentis, officiis et observationibus ecclesiasticis, reprinted among Hugh of St Victor’s works, but not by him. Like Ivo and William Durand, the author of De caere­ moniis combines description and allegory as he works his way through the rite. Here, I will footnote only the description. Ps 23[24]:7. Caer. 2 (PL 177.384CD). Ps 23[24]:8, 10. Caer. 2 (PL 177.384D). Another Pseudo-Hugonian text, Speculum Ecclesiae, also contains an exposition of the rite for dedication of a church. Like Ivo and De caeremoniis, this work intersperses description and allegory. For the parallel to Hugh’s treatment to this point, see Spec. eccl. 2 (PL 177.339A). Ruth 1:8. Caer. 3 (PL 177AC); Spec. eccl. 2 (PL 177.339BC). Ps 69:2. Caer. 6 (PL 176.386) seems to refer both to a single cross covering the length and breadth of the altar, and then to crosses at each corner. Spec. eccl. 2 (PL 177.339D). Caer. 7 (PL 177.386D); Spec. eccl. 2 (PL 177.340A). Ps 67:2. Ps 90:1. Isa 56:7. Ps 21:23. Ps 42:4. Caer. 8 (PL 177.387A); Spec. eccl. 2 (PL 177.340B). Caer. 9 (PL 177.387CD); Spec. eccl. 2 (PL 177.340B). Caer. 10 (PL 177.387D–388A); Spec. eccl. 2 (PL 177.340B). Caer. 11 (PL 177.388AB); Spec. eccl. 2 (PL 177.340B). John 17:11. The crossing lines put down on the floor of the church are reminiscent of the beams drawn in the Hugh’s ark treatises in that they go from the four angles of the ark to the central cubit in the middle, which stands for Christ. See Libellus de formatione arche 1 lines 48–132 (Sicard, CCCM 176, 122–26, illustrated graphically in CCCM 176A, Figura ii). Rom 11:25–26. Gen 48:13–14. “expiatione”: Hugh takes this word over from Ivo. It is an interesting word choice. The verb “expio” can mean to purify, and that seems to be the meaning here. See above, p. 117.

N otes 25

26



121

In his work, On the Power of Prayer, 5, Hugh says that the very heart of prayer is devotion (Oeuvres 1:132–35; tr. Feiss, VTT 4:333). The phrase here (PL 176.442BC), “Altare Christus est super quem offerimus Patri nostrae devotionis munus,” is redolent of the end of On the Power of Prayer (Oeuvres 1:160; tr. Feiss, VTT 4): “mens in orationem accenditur et gratissimum Deo sacrificium in ara cordis adoletur.” This may be inspired by Augustine, Conf. 12.9.10 (O’Donnell, 1.18) and De civ. Dei 10.3, ed. Dombart and Kalb, CCSL 47 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1955), 275; tr. R. W. Dyson, City of God against the Pagans (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 394. See above, p. n3. Ps 29:12.

BAPTISM

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 2.6: ON BAPTISM INTRODUCTION

To put Hugh of St Victor’s theology of baptism in context, there follows a sketch of its New Testament background and some major developments in the theology and practice of the sacrament during the ensuing millennium. The sketch is divided into a summary of New Testament teaching on baptism, some witnesses from the Latin West to the developments in the theology and practice of baptism from the second to the sixth century, the understanding of baptism during Carolingian times, and some observations on Hugh’s treatise. New Testament John’s baptism seems to have been something original with him: a one-time rite of purification, expressing repentance and forgiveness with a strong eschatological emphasis.1 The word “baptize” suggests immersion, but the New Testament does not describe how John baptized. Christian baptism shared with John’s its non-repeated washing for the forgiveness of sins, but connected baptism with confession of faith in the dying-and-rising of Jesus and the sending of the Holy Spirit. Mark begins his gospel with the baptism of Jesus by John in the Jordan River (Mark 1:1–8). John called for repentance and confession of sins in 1

Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 86. Ferguson’s treatment of the New Testament and second and third centuries is very thorough; his study of the fourth and fifth centuries less so. He aims to give and generally does give an objective historical account, but he is particularly concerned to emphasize baptism by immersion and to deny all but irrefutable evidence for infant baptism. Other sources consulted for the period are Bernhard Neunheuser, Baptism and Confirmation, Herder History of Dogma (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964); Peter Cramer, Baptism and Changes in the Early Middle Ages, c. 200–c. 1150, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought (New York: Cambridge University Press 1993); Bryan D. Spinks, Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism, Liturgy, Worship and Society (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006); Owen M. Phelan, The Formation of Christian Empire: The Carolingians, Baptism and the Imperium Christianum (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).

126

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

preparation for the coming of the Lord. He baptized many, telling them of the coming of one who would baptize in the Holy Spirit. According to Matthew (3:1–12), John urged people to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. Someone was coming who was mightier and would baptize with the Holy Spirit.2 John’s baptism of Jesus marked the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. The gospel writers present the Father’s declaration that Jesus was his beloved Son and the coming of the Spirit upon him as anticipations of Christian baptism. According to Mark (1:9–11), Jesus deliberately came to be baptized. Jesus descended into the water and the Spirit descended into him like a dove, which seems to recall Genesis 1:2 and perhaps the dove Noah sent out from ark (Gen 8:8–11). Luke (3:21–22) adds that Jesus was praying and the Spirit’s coming was an anointing (Luke 4:16–21; Acts 10:38). Matthew (3:13–17) adds that Jesus accepted John’s baptism to fulfill God’s plan.3 Matthew also adds the phrase “with whom I am well pleased” to the Father’s declaration (cf. Matt 17:5), perhaps to anticipate the sending of the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). John’s gospel emphasizes Jesus’ superiority to John, who confesses him as Son of God (1:34). John indicates that Jesus and his disciples baptized (3:22–33; 4:1–2).4 Apart from his description of Jesus’ baptism, Matthew mentions baptism only in conjunction with the departing Jesus’ commission to the eleven disciples: All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.5

The long ending of Mark (16:15–16) resembles the command of ­Matthew 28:19, but adds, “the one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.”6 John’s gospel speaks of baptism with reference to John’s baptizing, the baptism of Jesus, and the baptizing that John and his disciples per2 3 4 5 6

Ferguson, Baptism, 25–96. Cf. Ignatius, Smyrn. 1.1, ed. and tr. Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, 1, Loeb 24 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912; repr, 1977), 252–53. Ferguson, Baptism, 99–103. Matt 28:19 NABRE. Ferguson, Baptism, 132–42.

I ntroduction



127

formed. One of John’s specific contributions to later baptismal theology is found in his references to water in the stories of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well (4:15–27), healings at pools in Jerusalem (5:1–7; 9:1–7), washing the feet of the disciples (13:5–10), and the flow of blood and water from Christ’s side at the crucifixion (19:34). Most important for the future theology of baptism is John 3:5, “unless someone is begotten of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”7 For Paul, baptism and faith mark the beginning of a new life. Paul connects this death and rebirth to the dying and rising of Christ, through which sin is forgiven and the Spirit given. Baptism in the dying and rising of Christ makes a person a member of his body, the Church. That dying and rising is for those who have put on Christ as their pattern for living.8 The Acts of the Apostles is important for its descriptions of baptism and its accounts of baptism’s relation to the sending of the Spirit. The risen Lord tells the apostles that they “will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:4–5). The Spirit comes upon them on Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Peter then tells the crowd that Jesus has risen as “Lord and Christ.” Hence, they should repent and be baptized in (epí) the name of the Lord Jesus: so their sins may be forgiven, and they may receive the Holy Spirit, and become members of Christ’s community, and receive salvation (2:41– 47). Acts uses three different prepositions to describe baptism “in” the name of Jesus: in (en), into (eis), and in this passage only, epi, which may connote a confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 22:16). The gift of the Spirit probably means the gift that is the Spirit. It is significant, as Spinks observes, that Christian baptism was not for something, but into someone, Jesus or his name (here “name” represents person, power, and lordship), and through him into the Trinity.9 Philip proclaimed to the Samaritans the Good News of the Kingdom and Jesus and then baptized them, but only later did the apostles 7 8

9

Ferguson, Baptism, 142–45. Ferguson, Baptism, 147–65. The key texts are 1 Cor 1:12–17; 6:11; 12:13; Gal 3:26–29; Rom 6:1–17; Col. 2:11–13; 2:20–3:18; Eph 4:4–6; 5:26; Titus 3:47. See also, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St Paul (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964); James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 442–59, who thinks that scholars sometimes are inclined to see baptismal references in Paul where there are none; e.g., the “seal of the Spirit” mentioned in 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30, or “to put on Christ.” Dunn (457) thinks the most important texts are Rom 6:4 and Col. 2:12: “baptism is the medium through which God brought the baptizand into participation in Christ’s death and burial.” Spinks, Early and Medieval, 5–8.

128

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

Peter and John come and lay hands on them so that they received the Spirit (Acts 8:4–25). Next, Philip preached to an Ethiopian court official and then went down into the water to baptize him (Acts 8:26– 40). Two of the accounts of Paul’s conversion mention baptism (Acts 9:1–19; 22:3–21). Ananias laid hands on Saul and his sight was restored. Then Paul was baptized and his sins were washed away as he called on Christ’s name and received the Spirit. In Acts 10:1–48 (an event later referred to in Acts 11:4–17 and 15:7–11), the Spirit came upon Cornelius’ gentile household. Peter told them the story of Jesus from the baptism of John, when Jesus was anointed with power and the Holy Spirit, to the Resurrection. Then the Holy Spirit came upon those listening to Peter and he commanded that they be baptized in the name of Jesus. Thus, Gentiles received what Jews received at the beginning of Acts. Cornelius’ household was the first of several converted in Acts (16:12–15; 16:16–34; 18:18; cf. 1 Cor 1:16). In Acts 18:24–19:17, Paul found people in Ephesus who had received only the baptism of John and had not heard of the Holy Spirit. He baptized them into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then he laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues and prophesied. In this instance, and in three others in Acts, the gift of the Holy Spirit was received in conjunction with baptism and manifested in visible phenomena, primarily speaking in tongues, which in two instances came through the laying on of hands. A final New Testament passage important for the theology of baptism is 1 Peter 3:21, a brief but difficult to interpret passage that presents Noah’s ark as a foreshadowing of baptism, which saves as “the pledge (stipulatio) to God of a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”10 Thus, baptism in the new Testament is a one-time initiatory rite, distinguished from the baptism of John by being the saving work of Christ, bringing one into the eschatological community and conferring salvation, forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit, rebirth, and participation in Jesus’ dying and rising; it is bound to repentance and faith in Christ, which commit one to a way of life.11 These many ideas are scattered here and there, but throughout the next millennium the Church recalled them all. Beyond the use of immersion into water, we know

10 11

Ferguson, Baptism, 166–85, 189–93. Ferguson, Baptism, 196–98.

I ntroduction



129

little about any New Testament rite of baptism, but soon the outlines of a rite begin to appear. The Second and Third Centuries The Didache, which may be the oldest surviving non-biblical Christian text, is a short document that seems to be of Jewish-Christian provenance. Whether it was a church order, or a kind of guide that sponsors of new members memorized, or something else is not clear. It has some sort of affinity with Matthew’s gospel, perhaps because it came from a related milieu. Baptism should be in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (though Didache 9.5 mentions baptism in the name of the Lord), in living water, but if that is not available in other water, preferably cold, but otherwise warm. If such water is not available, one should pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.12 The one being baptized, the one baptizing, and others should, if they are able, fast beforehand, a provision that closely connects its reception with the community. After baptism, the neophyte is instructed in the Christian way of life.13 Only those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord should eat or drink of the Eucharist.14 2 Clement exhorts its readers to keep their baptism pure and do holy and religious works, keep the seal they have received spotless in order to receive eternal life and avoid eternal punishment, and keep their flesh clean in order to participate in the Spirit and in the Church, the body of Christ.15 Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 107) seems to be the first to say that Jesus sanctified the waters: “he was born, he was baptized, that by himself submitting he might purify the water.”16 Baptism should not be conferred apart from the bishop.17 “Jesus received an anointing on his head that he might breathe immortality on the Church.”18 Baptism is armor, faith a helmet, and love a spear.19 Ferguson summarizes, “We may find 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Spinks, Early and Modern, 16, notes that the font at Dura Europos was a cistern in which someone could have water poured on him. Didache 7 (Lake, Loeb 24, 1:318–21). Didache 9.5 (Lake, Loeb 24, 1:322–23). 2 Clement 6.9; 7.6; 8.6, 14 (Lake, Loeb 24, 24, 138–41, 150–53). Ignatius, Eph. 18.2 (Lake, Loeb 24, 1:192–93). Ignatius, Smryn. 8:1–2 (Lake, Loeb 24, 1:260–61). Ignatius, Eph. 17.1 (Lake, Loeb 24, 1:190–91). Ignatius, Polyc. 6.2 (Lake, Loeb 24, 1:274–75); cf. Paul, Eph 6:10–17.

130

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

in Ignatius’ baptismal theology an interest in the purifying effect resulting from the righteous obedience of Jesus and his consequent passion, its connection with the Church and the Church’s unity, and its continuing application to a faithful Christian life.”20 Justin Martyr (d. 165) provides an exceptionally full description of baptismal practice in his First Apology. Those who come to believe and promise to live accordingly are taught to pray, asking God for forgiveness, while others pray and fast with and for them.21 Then they are reborn by being washed in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins. This bath is an illumination.22 In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin writes about John the Baptist in terms reminiscent of Matthew 3:11–12. He describes John’s Baptism of Jesus, connects baptism and the wood of the cross, and sees Noah’s ark as a type of baptism, connecting wood, water, and faith.23 Whereas John’s washing cleansed the body, Christian baptism washes filth from the soul. There is no need to worry about one who has been baptized with water in the Holy Spirit.24 Irenaeus (d. 202) wrote at length about Jesus’ anointing with the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the same person and human being before and after John baptized him; he did not become “divine” then. Irenaeus expresses three of his key ideas about baptism in Against the Heresies, 5.11.2: “You were washed, believing in the name of the Lord and receiving his Spirit.”25 The faith handed down by the disciples of the apostles 20 21

22

23

24

25

Ferguson, Baptism, 210. Colin Buchanan, “Questions Liturgists Would Like to Ask Justin Martyr,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, ed. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 154, suggests this may be evidence for a catechumenate of some sort. Apology 61.1–13; 65.1 (Apologie pour les Chrétiens, ed. Charles Munier, SC 507 [Paris: Cerf, 2008], 288–95, 302–03; Dennis Minns and Paul Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, Apologies, Oxford Early Christian Texts [New York: Oxford University Press, 2009], 236–43, 252–253; tr. Leslie Barnard, The First and Secord Apologies, ACW 56 [New York: Paulist, 1997], 66–67, 78). Dial. 49–51 (St Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, tr. Thomas B. Falls, rev. Thomas P. Halton, ed. Michael Slusser, Selections from the Fathers of the Church, 3 [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003], 74–78); 138.1–3 (tr. Falls–Halton, 207–08). Dial. 29.1 (tr. Falls-Halton, 44). For Justin on baptism, see Ferguson, Baptism, 237–44, 267. Buchanan, “Questions,” 156–57, notes that Justin’s description of the baptismal rite does not mention a baptismal profession, or post-baptismal laying on of hands, or anointing. Cited by Ferguson, Baptism, 304. Henceforth citations from Adv. haer. Books 3 to 5, will be from Irenaeus, Against Heresies (N. pl.: Beloved Publishing, 2015), which is a reprint with new pagination from the translation by Alexander Roberts, James Davidson, and A. Cleveland Coxe in ANF 1 (which is available on the New Advent website, and other Internet sites). The citation can be found in Irenaeus (tr. ANF-Beloved, 449).

I ntroduction



131

is a reminder “that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and was raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God, and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth unto the eternal and everlasting God.”26 Irenaeus’ surviving writings do not mention anointing, signing, or laying on of hands at baptism. Faith and baptism bring remission of sins.27 The Spirit who comes at baptism brings spiritual gifts.28 As the water purifies the body, the Spirit purifies the soul.29 Irenaeus says that Jesus lived through the five ages of human beings, infant, child, youth, young adult, elderly man, sanctifying each age and giving each an example.30 This may be an early, perhaps the earliest, reference to infant baptism.31 Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) says that the bath of baptism is an invitation to salvation and enlightenment. God made human beings from the soil, but regenerates them in water, “our mother.” Those who have put on Christ become a new, holy people and should maintain their baptismal innocence. Baptism is a gift by which someone is illuminated, adopted, perfected, and made immortal. Hearing leads to faith and repentance and they to baptism, which washes away sin. It is a seal. Jesus’ baptism perfected his humanity. His baptism was a pattern for Christians’ baptism, and it also sanctified the waters. Clement is reported to have taught that Christ baptized some of the apostles. Clement tends to shroud baptism with an aura of mystery.32 The Apostolic Tradition, associated with Hippolytus of Rome, is thought to be a composite work reflecting practice in different places from the second to the fourth century. Parts of the Latin translation of the work are missing, so it has to be reconstructed using other trans26 27 28 29 30 31

32

St Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 3 (tr. Joseph P. Smith, ACW 16 [New York: Paulist, 1952], 49). Against the Heresies 3.12.7 (ANF-Beloved, 241); 4.27.2 (ANF-Beloved, 372). Proof, 7 (tr. Smith, 51–52 with 144–45, n47). Against the Heresies 3.17.2 (ANF-Beloved, 265–66); 4.16.11 (ANF-Beloved, 335). Against the Heresies 2.22.4 (St Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies, Book 2, tr. Dominic J. Unger, rev. John J. Dillon, intro. Michael Slusser, ACW 65 [New York: Paulist, 2012], 74). See Unger’s note to Against the Heresies 2.22.4 (114 n22), where he argues that Irenaeus says that Christ came to save all who would be reborn to God (in all five ages of life including infancy), and that for Irenaeus baptism and rebirth are inseparable. For a more skeptical reading regarding the implications of this text for infant baptism, see Ferguson, 308, in the conclusion to his presentation of Irenaeus’ teaching on baptism, 303–08. Ferguson, Baptism, 309–21, who notes that when he discusses baptism Clement refers to Matt 3:16–17; 18:3; 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13; John 3:3, 5; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 3:9; 5:8.

132

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

lations (Boharic, Arabic, and Ethiopic) as well as parallel texts in the Apostolic Constitutions, the Canons of Hippolytus, and the Testamentum Domini. Hence, reconstructing its narrative regarding preparation for and conferral of baptism (that is, chapters 16–22) is somewhat conjectural.33 Candidates for baptism were brought to Christian teachers for instruction. They were asked about their marital and social (free or slave) status and their employment. Those with unsuitable employment had to quit their jobs. Instruction lasted three years. When the time for baptism approached, the chosen (“elect”) were examined (“scrutinies”), with testimony from their sponsors, to determine if they had been living virtuously and had done good works. Prior to baptism they did not exchange the kiss of peace with the baptized. They were assured that if they were arrested and killed, they would be baptized by their blood. They bathed on Thursday, fasted on Friday,34 and on Saturday prayed and were instructed and breathed on ritually, before being baptized on Sunday. Early in the morning, prayer was made over the water flowing (or poured) into the baptism pool. Baptism was received naked or lightly clothed. The order of baptism was children (someone in their family was to speak for them), then men, and finally women (with loosened hair and no jewelry). The ministers mentioned included bishop, priest, and deacon. The candidate renounced Satan and his works and was anointed with an oil of exorcism. The deacon then went down into the water with the person to be baptized and asked him to make a public declaration of Trinitarian faith. While this was occurring, the one baptizing held his hand on the baptizand’s head, then dunked it in the water after each of the three parts of the profession of faith. After the third immersion, a priest anointed the neophyte with oil. Finally, the neophyte went into the Church where the bishop laid his hand on him, anointed him, signed his forehead, and gave him the kiss of peace. The bishop prayed that the baptized receive “forgiveness of sins through the laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit.” In his commentary on baptism in the Apostolic Tradition, Cramer is struck by the ordinariness of the elements of water, oil, and the language of the rite. These ordinary things become the meeting place of 33

34

What follows is based on Ferguson, Baptism, 326–33, 366–67; Spinks, Early and Medieval, 28–31; and The Apostolic Tradition, ed. Paul Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edwards Phillips, ed. Howard W. Attridge, Apostolic Tradition, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Eerdmans, 2002), 82–136. See Didache 7.4; Justin, First Apology, 61; Tertullian, De bapt. 20.

I ntroduction



133

human desire and choice with divine grace. In this meeting, the transcendent God transforms and the transformed chooses in a stark way a new social and moral world, which is very different from the cultural and moral world that he renounces along with devil. The truth of the symbolum of Christian faith is made effective in the dialogue between sinful human beings and the God who rescues them.35 In his Commentary on Daniel, Hippolytus has an interesting reference to baptism: On that day [Easter] the bath is prepared in the Garden for those who are burning, and the Church… is presented to God as a pure bride; and faith and charity, like her [Susanna’s] companions, prepare the oil and unguents for those being washed. What are the unguents but the commandments of the Word? What is the oil but the power of the Holy Spirit, with which, like perfume, believers are anointed after the bath.36

Tertullian (d. 240) wrote the first surviving treatise on baptism. It was probably one of his early works. His purpose is partially apologetic. It is a wonder that death is washed away in a birth, and for that reason it is all the more to be believed. The God who made all material things uses one of them to provide heavenly life.37 Tertullian identified many Old Testament antecedents of Christian baptism including creation (water and the Spirit), the flood, Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea, Moses’ casting a tree into the bitter waters (Exod 15:22–26), water that flowed from the rock (Exod 17:16; 1 Cor 10:4), and the healing of Naaman in the Jordan River (2 Kings 5:10). John’s baptism was divine in its origin, but human in its call for repentance; only God can forgive sins and send the Spirit. Christ’s baptism blessed the water. Baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation (John 3:5), but Christ called the apostles and forgave their sins without it. Baptism presupposes faith and repentance: sins are cancelled in response to faith that is sealed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hence, Tertullian rejects infant baptism, except in the case where the child is in danger of death. Tertullian’s scattered references to the ceremonies of baptism largely coincide with what the Apostolic Tradition describes. The period of preparation included instruction, prayer, fasting, genuflecting, vigils, 35 36 37

Cramer, Baptism, 9–52. Cited and translated in Spink, Early and Medieval, 27, from Gustave Bardy and Maurice Lefèvre, Hippolyte, Commentaire sur Daniel, SC 14 (Paris: Cerf, 1947), 100. Cramer, Baptism, 54–56.

134

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

and confession of sins. Before the baptizand enters the water, the bishop lays a hand on him and the baptizand renounces the devil. Although Christ sanctified the water, there is a prayer for God to send his Spirit upon it. The one to be baptized is immersed three times while making a confession of faith, which included not just the three persons of the Trinity but also the Church. The words spoken are a seal of faith. The bishop is the minister of baptism, but he may assign the tasks to a priest or deacon; in an emergency, anyone can baptize. Tertullian explains that the anointing of Old Testament priests and the anointing that Jesus received so that he was called “Christ” foreshadow the post-baptismal anointing by the bishop. While the water cleanses, the laying on of hands imparts the Holy Spirit. During the rite, flesh is signed with the cross so it too may be sanctified. Since baptism is into the Lord’s passion and imparts the Holy Spirit, Easter and Pentecost are the most appropriate times for baptism, but any time is suitable. Baptism brings remission of sins, delivers from death, and effects regeneration and bestowal of the Holy Spirit. It connects one not only with Christ’s passion and resurrection, but also with the Church. It cleans, frees, and sanctifies. One may receive baptism only once. Mary’s virgin birth inaugurated a new kind of birth in water and the Holy Spirit. Baptism “seals” an agreement. It is a sacramentum, a solemn oath or initiation and a sacred symbolic action.38 Baptism is necessary for salvation (he cites Matt 28:19 and John 3:5). Heretics, who do not worship the true God, cannot confer baptism. Martyrdom is like a second baptism (he cites John 19:34 and 1 John 5:6).39 Whereas Tertullian used a somewhat abrasive and argumentative style in his book on baptism, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (c. 248–c. 257 or 258), appeals to emotion.40 He describes the ceremonies of baptism and their meaning in terms consonant with what Tertullian wrote: there are teachers and exorcists for catechumens, a bishop’s prayer over the water, renunciation of the world and the devil, a declaration of faith in response to questions, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, followed by an anointing with blessed oil, imposition of hands, and signing with the Spirit of newness. Christ’s baptism puts 38 39 40

Cramer, Baptism, 63. On the polysemany of “sacramentum,” see the section below on baptism in Carolingian times. Ferguson, Baptism, 336–50; Spinks, Early and Medieval, 31–33. See the description of his own experience of baptism in his Letter to the Donatus, cited by Cramer, Baptism, 50–51, and Spinks, Early and Medieval, xiii.

I ntroduction



135

an end to Jewish baptism. In baptism Christ washes away sin, drives out the devil. Cyprian defended baptism administered by pouring or sprinkling water when someone was sick and confined to bed, provided the baptism was done with the Church and the participant’s faith was sound. In taking this position, Cyprian showed how essential he thought baptism was. The same conviction lay behind Cyprian’s support of infant baptism and the validity of baptism by heretics.41 Baptism can be conferred any time after birth. Infants and children are equal with adults before God. Baptism is a divine gift, which frees an infant from the sin of Adam.42 Cyprian opposed Pope Stephen (254–57), who said heretics coming to the Church should not be baptized, but rather, that they might be admitted to communion, hands should be laid on them in penitence. Cyprian argued that there is only one baptism, but it is given in the Church. Ministers empowered by the Spirit to baptize are those in the one Church founded by Christ. Further, only those who have the Holy Spirit can convey the Spirit.43 When Stephen and Cyprian died in the persecution of Valerian (ad 357–60), the controversy died down. Stephen’s position gradually prevailed though with the restriction that, to confer a valid baptism, schismatics and heretics had to have an orthodox faith in the Trinity.44 Origen (d. 258) taught that the Old Testament describes shadows of baptism, while Christian baptism in water and the Spirit is an image of the eschatological mystery of baptism. Origen identifies many Old Testament types of baptism that occurred in the baptismal liturgy in medieval times and are still present today, such as creation, Noah, the crossing of the Red Sea and of the Jordan. Origen writes that the many circumcisions and baptisms of the Old Law, of which John the Baptist’s was the finale, were superseded by the one baptism of Christ in water and the Holy Spirit. Christ was reborn in baptism so that Christians might be reborn in a bath of regeneration that receives its efficacy from the invocation of the Trinity. The water of Christian baptism cleanses from sin and conveys the Spirit and divine gifts when it is received with faith. Referring to Acts, Origen distinguishes the conferral of the 41 42 43 44

Ferguson, Baptism, 351–61. Ferguson, Baptism, 370–72. Ferguson, Baptism, 357–60. Ferguson, Baptism, 383–99.

136

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

Spirit in baptism from a distinct baptism of the Holy Spirit. Baptism brings forgiveness of sins to those who are repentant. Having died to sin and been freed from the power of Satan through baptism into Christ’s death, the Christian must be constantly renewed in his daily life. As Christ’s death was a baptism, so is martyrdom. Those who want to become Christians are carefully screened. They are taught the practice of Christian morality, and then receive deeper instruction in knowledge of the Trinity, the sacraments, and other Christian beliefs. The rite of baptism includes a renunciation of the world and the devil. Those being baptized confess their faith in question and answer form. Origen refers to an anointing that is a traditional part of baptism; it makes Christians priests. The laying on of hands bestows the Spirit.45 Little children are baptized to wash them from sin, although Origen is not very specific about what that sin is. He refers to baptism of infants as a tradition from the apostles.46 Thus, by the middle of the third century, most of the features of the orthodox Christian practice and theology of baptism had been articulated. Hugh of St Victor was not familiar with most of these texts directly, but what they taught reached him through many channels. It remains to look at two of the most important of these: Ambrose and Augustine. To them we can add a third, Peter Chrysologus, an influential preacher who was bishop of Ravenna (431–51), where two fifth-century baptisteries express something of the profound mystery that Christians of the early Church experienced in baptism.47 Ambrose Ambrose, bishop of Milan (374–97), left posterity two sets of instructions to the newly baptized in which during Easter Week he explained the meaning of the sacrament.48 Water is not just water; history is not just past events. Ambrose appealed to sensory memory; he wanted “to give his audience of neophytes the sensation of being inside the transfiguration which makes figure, similitude or sign into reality 45 46 47

48

Ferguson, Baptism, 400–28. Ferguson, Baptism, 367–70. The catalogue of the library of St Victor prepared by Claude de Grandrue in the sixteenth century does not include any copies of the sermons of Peter Chrysologus; see Gilbert Ouy, Les manuscrits de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor, BV 10.1–2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999). Des sacrements, des mystères, ed. and tr. Bernard Botte, SC 25bis (Paris: Cerf, 1981). What follows summarizes Ferguson, Baptism, 634–47.

I ntroduction



137

(figura, similitudo, signum; veritas).”49 By the time Ambrose gave these sermons, many Christians were delaying baptism until later in life because they thought there was no other realistic form of forgiveness for post-baptismal sins. Ambrose said this was a mistake. Catechumens were enrolled at Epiphany. Thereafter, Ambrose spoke to them daily on the right conduct for those preparing for baptism. On Saturdays, there were scrutinies to determine the candidates’ fitness. The creed was delivered to them on the Sunday before Easter.50 On Holy Saturday evening, the rite of baptism began with the ephphetha or aperitio of the candidates’ ears and nose (rather than their lips). Then they entered the baptistery where a deacon and priest anointed their bodies. Then they renounced the devil and the world. The bishop invoked the Trinity and offered prayers of exorcism and consecration over the font. The inscription encircling the Milanese baptistery of San Giovanni alle Forni can serve as a summary of Ambrose’s theology of baptism. The inscription says that the waters of this eight-sided pool free from the stain of sin those who profess their faith, washing them in flowing water; without these waters, no one is holy. Those to be baptized descended into the pool with the bishop, priest, and deacon. They were baptized with a triple immersion performed with a triple confession of faith in questionand-answer form, in which “in his cross” was added to the second response. After they came out of the pool, the new Christians went to the bishop who anointed them with holy oil. Then the bishop and priests washed their feet. The bishop (only he can do it) sealed them, now clothed with white garments, with the sevenfold gifts of the Spirit. In his explanation of this rite, Ambrose explains a number of Old Testament types, but emphasizes the superiority of Christian baptism, a single rite that replaces many Old Testament washings. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one name or divinity. The one name is the same as the name of Christ, since the Trinity is inseparable. This explains the references in the Acts of the Apostles to baptism in the name of Jesus. Hugh of St Victor will expand on this explanation. Christ descended into the water to sanctify it so that the flesh might be cleansed. The Spirit descending upon him in the form of a dove represents the 49 50

Cramer, Baptism, 68. The brief Explanation symboli that Botte edited with the two longer works in SC 25bis may be the record of such an explanation.

138

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

innocence that baptism brings. The baptistery is a tomb in which the second immersion is the likeness of the cross; in it, the Christian is buried with Christ. The newly baptized rises from it, regenerated. Christ does not take Christians out of the stormy sea of the world, but enables them to swim in it without being harmed.51 As Christ was born of a virgin, Christians are reborn from the font—both births occur by the working of the Holy Spirit. Water, blood, Spirit (1 John 5:7), and faith are necessary for baptism to effect the forgiveness of sin. Ambrose broached the idea of baptism of desire. He thought unbaptized infants went to a place exempt from suffering, but not the Kingdom of God. Augustine (354–430) Augustine was enrolled as a catechumen shortly after his birth, but his baptism was postponed until adulthood. Ambrose baptized him in Milan in the manner just described. He says of his baptism: “we were baptized and disquiet about our past life vanished from us.”52 Augustine describes catechumens as “hearers.” He is particularly concerned with how baptism is related to the Christian life that follows, in which the Christian is to return to God and the image of God in which he was created. In baptism and the rest of the liturgy, Christ’s passing-over (transitus) is re-presented to faith, in hope of eternity, and the experience of love in the Spirit. The words, things, and deeds of liturgy work by a sympathy between them and the baptized (affectus animi compatientis), a sympathy that makes possible communication and that reached its apogee in the Incarnation.53 For the most part, Augustine’s theology of baptism was traditional. Christ’s baptism was an act and example of humility. Baptism is a sharing in the death of Christ on the cross, his burial, and resurrection. It is Christ who baptizes; he may have baptized the apostles. Baptism brings rebirth in the Spirit from God the Father and Mother Church. It cleanses from all sin and confers salvation and newness of life. The catechist interviewed the prospective catechumens and their sponsors to determine their suitability. Having received instruction 51 52

53

Cramer, Baptism, 70. Confessiones 9.6.14 (O’Donnell, 1:109; tr. Chadwick, 164). What follows regarding Augustine’s theory and practice of baptism is based on Ferguson, Baptism, 776–94, William Harmless, “Baptism,” in Augustine through the Ages, ed. Allan Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 84–91, and Cramer, Baptism, 87–129. Cramer, Baptism, 106–07.

I ntroduction



139

organized around biblical history,54 inquirers were finally admitted to the catechumenate by the sign of the cross on their forehead, laying on of hands, and tasting salt. From then on, the catechumen attended Christian assemblies, but was not allowed to be present at baptisms or the Eucharist. The catechumens observed a strict ascetical regime during Lent, during which their instruction continued. They were called competentes now that they had turned in their names to request baptism. There were two or more scrutinies. The devil was exorcized from them by an exsufflatio invoking Christ. They received the creed orally (traditio symboli) two weeks before Easter and were expected to memorize it. Augustine compared the creed to a contract or mark of identity. The catechumens repeated the creed back a week before Easter. They were also given the Our Father. On Holy Thursday, they bathed; on Good Friday, they joined the community in listening to the Passion account according to Matthew. The Easter Vigil began at sundown and lasted all night. Before dawn, the candidates and ministers processed to the baptistery. The candidates renounced Satan and his works. They stripped and stepped down into the pool as an indication of humility. They were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. An anointing with chrism and laying on of hands followed: this anointing expressed the royal priesthood of believers and incorporation into the Body of Christ, the Anointed One, while the laying on of hands was a prayer for the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. The newly reborn then put on a white garment that they wore during the octave of Easter. Their heads were covered. During that week Augustine preached to the neophytes. The ritual for baptizing infants was slightly different. They were exorcized. Adults spoke for the infants to renounce Satan and profess the faith. Children received the anointing of chrism and laying on of hands and took part in the Eucharist. In his controversies with the Donatists, Augustine appealed to the tradition of the Church that accepted baptism by non-Catholics and schismatics. He argued that there is only one baptism and its minister is God, who imparts an indelible mark. Though baptism could be received from those not in the communion of the Church, it only became operative in communion with the Catholic Church. Baptism is the outward sign of grace, not grace itself. Even if the one baptizing does not say the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 properly, if his intention is 54

De catechezandis rudibus is an example of such instruction.

140

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

correct he baptizes. An indelible character is bestowed by baptism no matter who baptizes or what the future life of the baptized. Augustine considered various possibilities, even baptism in jest. In response to the Donatists’ invocation of Cyprian’s authority, Augustine said that Cyprian was mistaken about baptism because he did not distinguish the sacrament from its effect. Augustine said that the baptism of infants is accepted by the whole Church as a matter of invariable custom and so is rightly regarded as handed down by the authority of the apostles. Infants receive the sacrament first, and then as they grow older conversion of heart follows. At their baptism, others make a confession of faith on their behalf.55 In his polemics with the Pelagians over original sin and grace, Augustine drew on ideas he had worked out in his controversy with the Donatists. He appealed to baptism of infants as evidence for original sin. As Ferguson put it, “if one baptizes infants, baptism must have some significance for them; therefore, they are born in need of regeneration, renovation from corruption, forgiveness and enlightenment.”56 In this instance, Augustine sees baptism as liberation from the enslavement of sin into which all people are born. Baptism is not so much a choice as the experience of being chosen. It is an act of the Church and of the Spirit. “The Spirit of rebirth is common to the adults who offer and the child they offer: and so, through this society of one and the same Spirit, the will of the offerers takes effect on the child offered.”57 Peter Chrysologus and the Baptistery of the Catholics in Ravenna Peter Chrysologus was bishop of Ravenna (431–51). His sermons on the liturgical year make passing references to baptism. John’s baptism brought forgiveness of sins through sorrow; Christ’s baptism regenerates, transforms, and makes a new person out of the old. Jesus entered 55

56

57

Most of what has been summarized in this paragraph is based on Ferguson, Baptism, 795–803, and can be found in Augustine’s De baptismo contra Donatistas, from which Hugh of St Victor cites a lengthy passage. On this work, see Maureen A. Tilley, “Baptismo, de,” in Augustine through the Ages, 91–92. Ferguson, Baptism, 804. Augustine elaborates his argument in Ep. 98 ad Bonifatium (PL 33.359–64; tr. Roland Teske, Letters 1–99, WSA 2/1 [Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001], 426–32 or tr. Sr. Wilfrid Parsons, FOC 18 [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953], 129–38); in Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones (C. F. Urba and I. Zycha, CSEL 42, 3–151; WSA 1/23 [1997], 34–132); and Sermo 294 (PL 38.335–48; tr. Edmund Hill, Sermons, WSA 3/89 [1994], 180–96). Augustine, Ep. 98 ad Bonifatium (PL 33.360), cited by Cramer, Baptism, 128.

I ntroduction



141

the Jordan to purify the waters so that those he assumed by his being born of earth, he would raise up to heaven through a rebirth. Thus, the waters of the Jordan became again the entry into the promised land. From Christ’s wounds on the cross flowed water for this spiritual rebirth.58 Peter preached and presided in a city where Latin and Greek Christianity, Catholic and Arian, met. It was home to two magnificent octagonal baptisteries. Originally, these baptisteries contained large round fonts, about 10 feet in diameter and two feet deep. The Baptistery of the Orthodox was built just before Peter’s episcopacy; its mosaics were added just after it. The Baptistery of Arians was built about ad 500. As octagons, they point to the eighth day, to the world beyond this one. The Baptistery of the Orthodox has biblical inscriptions and reliefs associated with baptism, such as John 13:4–5 (foot washing), Daniel in the lions’ den, Christ carrying a cross and treading on a lion, and Christ commissioning Peter. Around the central dome mosaic depicting Christ’s baptism is the circle of the apostles, and below them in the dome are four empty thrones with Christ’s cross and four altars with an open Bible. In the center of the ceiling mosaic, Christ stands in water up to his waist. He is flanked by John the Baptist and a personification of the River Jordan. Originally, it seems, John rested his hand on Jesus’ head and a cone of light came down over Jesus from the dove above.59 Thus, during their baptism, new Christians could look up to see Christ’s baptism and representations of heavenly glory to which they were now destined. What did they think and feel? Perhaps it was something like this: At the river the Father’s voice comes from heaven, and the Son comes up out of the waters, and the Spirit, like a dove, comes down upon him. And it’s through the Spirit we are freed from history. What happened then happened—it did, we can believe it—but Jesus died, and he sent his Spirit, and through the Spirit and in that Spirit what happened then is always happening… In moments like this we are taken out of ourselves, the way John the Baptist is, caught up in something greater than we are. But at the same time, because of this, we find ourselves—our true selves. In losing who we are, we discover who we are, beloved sons and beloved daughters.60 58 59 60

Ferguson, Baptism, 756–58. Ferguson, Baptism, 129–30. Chris Anderson, Light When It Comes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 21.

142

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

With Peter and the baptisteries of Ravenna the early development of the theology and practice of baptism has come to an end. The journey from the Jordan to Ravenna, and from earth to heaven has been rich in symbolism. In it, theology and practice have been interwoven. The symbols, the theology, and the practice will not change very much in the early Middle Ages, but theologians will try to systematize and harmonize the rich legacy of earlier centuries, while religious and secular leaders will baptize new peoples and form new nations. The Carolingians The teaching and practice of baptism in the sixth and seventh centuries (Gregory the Great, Isidore, Gelasian Sacramentary, Ordo Romanus XI) are very much in line with what was handed on from earlier centuries. Gregory the Great had no problem with a single immersion, although he used a threefold immersion,61 but the Carolingians insisted on a threefold immersion. They lived at a time when infant baptism was taken for granted, but they were also involved in missions to peoples such as the Avars, who if converted were baptized as adults. So, on the one hand, the Carolingians insisted on the baptism of infants as soon as possible, and on the other hand, after the tragic mission to the Saxons, on the role of free consent in adults coming to baptism. They wanted baptism to be a public, community event. The ritual for the sacrament changed only slightly from earlier times. The interrogatory form of the profession of faith was separated from the threefold immersion and put in indicative form. The scrutinies became exorcisms and then scrutinies of the candidate’s faith. The baptized tended to become somewhat passive recipients, but the forms of the rites called on all involved to see the ordinary things included to be vehicles of the Spirit, closely connected with Easter and Pentecost. The whole history of salvation, the Bible, the many times God poured water through his fingers are concentrated in this font of water.62 In it, night is illumination in the garden of the bee.63 Owen Phelan has argued, “around the turn of the ninth century, political and religious reformers worked to establish an imperium christianum—a Christian empire—a society whose most basic organizing 61 62 63

Neunheuser, Baptism, and Confirmation, 177. This caused Alcuin some difficulties; see Alcuin, Ep. 137 (Dümmlet, MGH Ep, IV, 215). Cramer, Baptism, 130–75. Cramer, Baptism, 176.

I ntroduction



143

principle was the sacramentum of baptism.”64 To structure their society on the theory and practice of baptism, the Carolingians drew on several of the meanings of sacramentum in pagan and early Christian writers: contracts, military oaths of allegiance, social compacts of various sorts, commitment to a way of life, religious mysteries. Tertullian used the term for oaths and rites that signified the Christian’s relation and allegiance to God and neighbor. For Augustine also, sacramenta had been signs that specified the community to which the Christian belonged. They were visible, tangible signs of spiritual grace. Charlemagne required that everyone in the empire swear an oath of fidelity (sacramentum) to him, an oath that had a sacral aura, just as the sacramentum of baptism had a political aura. For Alcuin, the main effect of the sacrament was to bind people to Christ and to each other.65 The sacramentum of baptism informed faith in the apostolic creed, incorporated one into a single unified community, and established new moral obligations. Alcuin’s writings often refer to this threefold effect, which he insisted should determine the pastoral and missionary practice of instruction in faith during the catechumenate, baptism itself, and moral education afterward, culminating in eternal life in heaven. In the first, pre-baptismal stage, Alcuin and his Carolingian contemporaries required that sponsors and adult catechumens should know the Apostles Creed and the Our Father. Imperial decrees insisted on the duty of priests to instruct catechumens and sponsors. In the third stage, the recently baptized were to be instructed and advised on how to live after their exorcism, renunciation of Satan, and rebirth.66 The preaching of the priest, the convert’s choice, and the grace of the Holy Spirit co-work in human salvation. Pastoral instruction must be adapted to the individual.67 In 798, Alcuin wrote a letter (Primo paganus) that circulated widely. It lists the elements in the conferral of baptism and gives a spiritual interpretation of each: First, a pagan becomes a catechumen. In his approach to baptism he will renounce the evil spirit and all his pernicious pomps. He will be 64 65 66

67

Phelan, Formation, 1. Phelan, Formation, 1–42. Phelan, Formation, 43–148. Alcuin found this three-step missionary method in Jerome’s commentary on Matthew. Alcuin changed the first word of the Matthaean commission from euntes to ite, perhaps because that was the way it was phrased in the liturgy of the Easter Vigil in the prayer for the consecration of the font (Phelan, Formation, 106–08). Phelan, Formation, 112–14.

144

H ugh of St   V ictor – BA P T I SM

breathed on so that after the devil has been put to flight entry may be prepared for Christ, our God. He undergoes exorcism, that is, the evil spirit is ordered to go out and draw back in order to give a place for the true God. The catechumen receives salt to cleanse his rotten and oozing sins with the salt of wisdom given as a divine gift. Then the faith of the apostolic symbol is handed on to him so that faith may adorn the empty dwelling now freed of his former inhabitant and so that a dwelling may be prepared for God. Next come the scrutinies that aim to determine frequently that after the renunciation of Satan the sacred words of faith given him have become permanently rooted in his heart. His nose is touched so that as long as he draws in air with his nose he will stay steadfast in the faith he has received. His breast is anointed with the same oil so that the sign of the holy cross may lock out the devil. His shoulder blades are signed so that he will be fortified on all sides. Likewise, the anointing of the shoulder blades signifies firmness of faith and perseverance in good works. Thus he is baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity with a threefold submersion. It is right that a human being, who was created in the image of the Holy Trinity, is renewed in that same image by the invocation of the Trinity, and that he who fell into death by the third step of sin, that is, consent, is brought up for a third time from the font to rise through grace to life. Then he is clothed in white garments. Next he is thoroughly anointed on the head with sacred chrism and covered with a mystic veil so that he may understand that he bears the crown of the kingdom and the dignity of the priesthood. As the apostle said, you are a royal priesthood offering yourselves to the living God as a holy sacrifice pleasing to God.68 Then he is confirmed by the body and blood of the Lord as a member of the body of him who suffered and rose for him. Finally, through the imposition of hands by the bishop he receives the Spirit of the sevenfold grace so that he who has been granted in baptism the grace of eternal life may be strengthened by the Holy Spirit to preach to others.69

There are fourteen elements divided into three parts in this description and interpretation of the rite: (1) pre-baptismal: renunciation, exsufflation, exorcism, salt, handing over the creed, scrutinies, anointing of the nostrils, chest, and shoulder blades; (2) baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with a triple immersion; (3) post-baptismal: head anointed and covered with a veil, reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord, imposition of hands. 68 69

1 Pet 2:9. Alcuin of York, Epistolae Karolini aevi, ed. Ernst Dümmler, MGH Epistolae IV (Berlin: ­Weidman, 1895), 202–03.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



145

In this description of baptism, Alcuin drew on John the Deacon’s Letter to Senarius and a Pseudo-Augustinian sermon.70 Alcuin’s selection and ordering of events is somewhat different from the description of the rites in these sources and the descriptions in the Gelasian Sacramentary and Ordo Romanus 11.71 He was not especially concerned with details of the ritual; his concern was proper formation of priests, catechumens, and godparents. In 811/12, Charlemagne sent out an encyclical letter to the metropolitans in his empire in order to assess the formation provided to those preparing for or emerging from baptism. As with Alcuin’s Primo paganus, this letter was primarily concerned with the formation of adult catechumens and of godparents, who served as fideiussores for young children. Charlemagne’s letter and the surviving responses from leading churchmen of the empire concerned the responsibilities of priests, parents, and godparents, and those who were being baptized. Scrutinies are now examinations on how well these persons know the creed and the Our Father. In 813, Charlemagne convoked five councils (Arles, Mainz, Rheims, Tour, and Chalons) that gave legal force to some of the issues regarding baptism raised in Charlemagne’s letter of 811/12 and the responses to it. For example, the fourth canon of the Mainz council legislated: “We wish the sacramentum of baptism… to be celebrated harmoniously, uniformly and continually, preserved among us in each parish according to the Roman ordo, that is the scrutiny for the ordo of baptism.”72 Hugh of St Victor’s Treatise on Baptism (Sacr. 2.6) If the aim of the Carolingians was to persuade and instruct, the aim of the theologians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was to analyze, reconcile, and systematize. Hugh stands at the beginning of this effort, a man steeped in the monastic tradition of reading and assimilating the Scriptures and the earlier Christian writers, but also someone attuned to the questions and methodological innovations among his contemporaries. As in any new approach, the efforts pioneered by the 70

71 72

John the Deacon, c. ad 500, Letter to Senarius (PL 59.399–408); see Ferguson, Baptism, 766–68; Spinks, Early and Medieval, 109–10; Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo (Fratres, si conresurrexistis) (PL 47.1151–52). On Primo paganus, see Phelan, Formation, 122–28; Spinks, Early and Medieval, 120–23. See Spinks, Early and Medieval, 110–15. Phelan, Formation, 149–206. The citation is on page 201.

146

H ugh of St   V ictor

masters of Laon, Abelard, Peter Lombard, and Hugh himself involved losses and gains. Hugh divides his discussion of baptism into fifteen paragraphs. The first seven are his own synthesis of the nature of baptism and his responses to questions raised by his contemporaries. The last eight describe the liturgical rite from an historical standpoint that takes into account the development of the sacrament in biblical history, changes in the rite during the history of the Church, and some pastoral and canonical issues that were raised in the early twelfth century. In the first seven paragraphs, his power as a thinker who strives to synthesize the disparate heritage of the Church is to the fore. In these paragraphs, he addresses questions that were important to his contemporaries. His thinking on several of these questions draws on a letter that he received from St Bernard of Clairvaux in answer to questions Hugh asked him. In the last half of his treatise for the rituals of baptism and their symbolism, Hugh is dependent very much on a sermon of Ivo of Chartres. In paragraph one, Hugh says that baptism is the first of all the sacraments that contain salvation. He cites John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, two influential texts on the necessity of baptism for salvation. He lists the topics that should be considered regarding baptism, ones that he will consider in paragraphs one through seven. As we have seen, in earlier centuries the theology of the sacrament was usually discussed in conjunction with the rite; here, theology is treated first, and Hugh defends his positions by reasoning and by appeal to the authority of Scripture and tradition. In this theological section, he treats the nature of Christian baptism (paragraph two) and its purpose (paragraph three), the relation of Christian baptism to Old Testament circumcision (paragraph four) and the baptism of John (paragraph six), and when the obligation to receive baptism came into effect (paragraphs five and seven). In the second paragraph, Hugh begins with a succinct definition of baptism that includes three dimensions that he identified in his definition of a sacrament in De sacramentis 1.9 (translated above): a physical element representing by likeness, signifying by institution,73 and containing grace through sanctifying (i.e., a sanctifying word). The rest of paragraph two is a long series of arguments about the verbal formula for baptism. The Carolingians were very insistent on the threefold Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19. By putting all three persons on 73

The manuscript of De sacramentis that Berndt edits erroneously has “extinctione” instead of “institutione.”

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



147

the same divine footing, it refuted Adoptionism. Like Bede, Hugh says he accepts the Church’s practice of the threefold formula, but he does not think baptism in the name of one of the persons of the Trinity is invalid, since the persons of the Trinity are inseparable. Much of this paragraph is a convoluted argument about the meaning of “in the name of.” Hugh concludes that the “name” of someone is his renown. Here, that is the knowledge prescribed by faith and made known publically by confession of the faith. Hence, Hugh is reluctant to offer a decisive opinion on the imagined case of someone who cannot speak but, in a case of necessity, baptizes another without using words.74 Commentators on the prayers of the baptismal rite had customarily compared and contrasted circumcision and baptism. In paragraph three, Hugh asks why it was that baptism was instituted to replace circumcision. His first answer is that the cross of Christ sanctifies baptism so that someone who is baptized and dies right afterward goes immediately to heaven, whereas the circumcised had to await the death of Christ. Hugh’s second answer is that through the three ages of before the Law, under the Law, and under grace ever more expressive signs of spiritual graces needed to be given so that knowledge of truth would increase. In paragraph four, Hugh lists a number of opinions regarding when baptism was instituted: when Jesus spoke with Nicodemus; after the resurrection, when Jesus sent the apostles to teach and baptize; when John began to baptize and foretold the coming of someone who was going to baptize in the Spirit; when, at his death on the cross, Jesus said, “it is finished.” Hugh’s answer is that baptism was gradually introduced, while circumcision was gradually and reverently phased out. The turning point in this process was the passion of Christ. Here, as in the previous paragraph, Hugh shows his customary sensitivity to historical development. A related question is broached in paragraph five: when does a person become obligated to receive baptism? Hugh says it is when he learns of the duty to be baptized, that is, when through the preaching of the apostles and their successors word of the command reaches him. Hugh doubts that there are any people in his day who have not heard the word unless it is because they made no effort to know of the command. 74

On whether an imperfect verbal formula can confer baptism, see Neunheuser, Baptism, 190–91. Peter Lombard agreed with Hugh that it can. The threefold profession is connected with a threefold immersion, which refers to burial with Christ who was in the tomb for three days (paragraph eleven) and to the three stages of the moral act: thinking, choosing, and doing.

148

H ugh of St   V ictor

Hugh’s answers, in paragraphs four through seven, are informed by a letter he received from St Bernard around 1127 in answer to questions that Hugh posed for him in a no-longer-extant letter written about 1125. Hugh’s questions were prompted by the opinions of a theologian whom neither he nor Bernard names, but who was very probably Abelard or someone associated with him.75 Hugh’s second question concerned whether all the just of the Old Testament had foreknowledge of the plan of salvation. Bernard responded that if this meant foreknowledge of the details of God’s plan, then either a tiny number were saved or God poured out a profusion of grace on countless people. Bernard thinks neither was the case. Rather, knowledge of the faith increased over time. Hugh incorporated Bernard’s lengthy answer into De sacramentis 1.10.6, “Whether faith changed with the changing eras.”76 Hugh’s first question to Bernard was, “at what moment was baptism instituted as law?” Bernard replies that baptism became law for all only when Christ’s command was known to all, which Bernard seems to have thought had happened by his time, although whether that is the case he says only God knows. Before and apart from baptism, there was never a time when God did not provide the means for salvation. To support his position, Bernard cites four auctoritates (authoritative statements), three of them from St Augustine, to show that faith is the most important requirement for salvation, not the sacrament. Infants are saved by the faith of others. Hugh’s third question, which was relevant to the status of those ignorant of the duty to be baptized, was whether one can sin through ignorance. Bernard cites thirteen Scriptural passages to prove that a sin of ignorance is possible, if one remains ignorant out of indifference or contempt.77 The difference between the baptism of John and that of Christ is that, whereas John’s baptism consisted in the sacramentum tantum, Jesus’ baptism brings the res or virtus of the sacrament, that is, the forgiveness 75

76 77

Bernard, Ep. 77 (SBO 7:184–200). On this letter, see Hugh Feiss, “Bernardus Scholasticus: The Correspondence of Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugh of St Victor on Baptism,” in Bernardus Magister, ed. John Sommerfeldt, CS 135 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1992), 349–78; Emero Stiegman, “Three Theologians in Debate,” which is the introduction to the translation of Bernard’s letter in Bernard of Clairvaux, On Baptism and the Office of Bishops, tr. Pauline Matarasso, CF 67 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2004), 85–147, and is ­followed by Matarasso’s translation, 149–77. Sacr. 1.10.6 (PL 176.336C–338C = Bernard, Ep. 77.11–15 [SBO 7:193.18–196.5]). Ep. 77.16–17 (SBO 7:196–97; tr. Matarasso, 170–72). Bernard mixes recrimination with the biblical citations concluding “is it not sufficiently clear… in what darkness of ignorance he is immersed who does not know that one can sometimes sin through ignorance.”

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



149

of sins. Here in paragraph six, as elsewhere in his treatment of the sacrament, Hugh emphasizes the forgiveness of sins that baptism brings. In paragraph seven, Hugh returns to a topic that comes up often in his writings: is there salvation of those who are not baptized Christians? He is not sure whether those who are asking the question are doing so sincerely or idly. Those who answer the question in the negative have many biblical authorities on their side. However, although there is no scriptural warrant for it, they have to admit that martyrdom counts for baptism. Following Bernard, Hugh argues that faith with hope, charity, and a contrite heart can also count for baptism, even if that too is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Whereas in his first seven paragraphs on baptism, apart from the citation from Bernard and an earlier one in paragraph two from Ambrose, Hugh refers to few authorities other than Scripture. In paragraphs 8–15, much of what he says is based on Ivo of Chartres, Sermo 1, “On the neophytes,”78 a title Hugh uses for paragraph eight. In paragraphs 12 and 13, he borrows from the Panormia, attributed to Ivo, for canons regarding godparents and rebaptizing.79 The second part of Sacr. 2.6 begins in paragraph eight with two key convictions: (1) from the beginning of the world there have been faithful and just people in every age, and (2) during those ages there were also sacraments that were signs of the redemption to be completed in the death of Christ.80 Hugh’s summary of the history of the sacraments is, like Ivo’s, arranged according to the six ages of the world delineated by St Augustine. In this summary of salvation history, Hugh highlights foreshadowings of Christ’s redeeming death and its effectiveness through baptism and the Eucharist, Christian life as a struggle against temptation and sin, and the eschatological fulfillment that follows. The reference to Christ’s attainment of the aetas virilis suggests the parallel between the ages of the world and the ages of each human life. Paragraph nine refers to the relations between teaching, faith, and baptism in adult catechesis and then focuses on the baptism of chil78

79 80

In the PL 162.505, Ivo’s Sermo 1 is subtitled, “sermo in synodo habitus.” Ivo begins by saying that visible sacraments are meant to instruct people so they may come to understand invisible things. Priests therefore must know their manner and order and the truth of the things signified. His sermon “on the neophytes” is aimed at making sure that priests know these things. For the exact references to Sermo 1 and the Panormia, see the apparatus to Berndt’s edition, 388–96. For example, the first of the two books of De sacramentis studies those sacraments, and the De arca Noe illustrates graphically how there were believers in every age.

150

H ugh of St   V ictor

dren, a practice, he says, that grew up after many nations had embraced the Christian faith. The Church did not want either adults or children to die without the sacrament of faith, so she kept the same form of baptism for children as she used for adults, but provided that children be baptized in the sacrament of faith through the faith of another, just as they were born alienated from God through another’s sin. Therefore, the Church listens on behalf of children and responds and promises for them until they can understand the faith and embrace the sacraments of faith, charity, and hope by themselves. The implication is that baptism, the sacrament of faith, must lead to the practice of love in the hope of eternal life. Hugh now proceeds to describe baptism. Exorcism (paragraph ten) expels unclean spirits. Along with catechesis and prayers, exorcism is a means to advance catechumens to baptism. Hugh describes the entire process as conception, birth, and nurture. Catechesis invites the free decision of faith; exorcism expels the power of the devil; and grace gives strength to free will. Hugh lists the forms of exorcism connected with baptism: tracing the sign of the cross on various parts of the body to protect all the senses; salt as a preservative to ward off the rot of sin; exsufflation and touching the ears and nose with saliva in the ephpheta. Paragraph eleven describes the events immediately connected with the central rite of baptismal immersion. The consecration of the font makes it clear that it is God who baptizes and sanctifies.81 The one to be baptized receives the traditio of the creed and is asked if she renounces Satan; if she is an infant, another answers for her. Then she is anointed on the chest and shoulder blades. She is asked if she believes in the creed. Then she is immersed three times and, co-buried with Christ, rises with him from the dead. After she rises from the font, she is anointed on the head with oil, which signifies that she is a joint heir with Christ by participation in the Spirit of Christ. She receives a white garment and her head is covered with a veil. Lastly, she is given a lighted candle. 81

Thomas Aquinas, Sum. theo. 3.66.1 corp. and ad 2 (Caramello, 3:374–75; tr. English Dominicans, 2380), and Neunheuser, Baptism, 186, think that Hugh overemphasizes the efficacy of the water apart from its actual use in the sacrament. There is a point to the criticism insofar as Hugh’s (seemingly rather static) understanding is that water has this efficacy independently from its being poured in baptism but, as we have seen in the tradition he received, Christ sanctified water by being baptized in the Jordan, though how that could be is not easy to imagine. Perhaps Hugh could say this (1) because of all the times God used water to cleanse, slake thirst, and liberate people in the Old Testament, and (2) because Christ entered into the Jordan to be baptized, water has a sacredness, a sacramental depth and force, that becomes pointedly effective in the sacrament of baptism.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



151

Hugh’s last four paragraphs discuss matters related to baptism. Each child should have a godparent (paragraph twelve), someone who is confirmed and not a vowed religious. Godparents stand surety for the child; and, when she is older, her godparent should admonish her to a good life and right faith, especially as these are encapsulated in the creed and the Our Father. Baptism can be performed by anyone (paragraph thirteen), provided he or she intends to baptize according to the Church’s faith. Baptisms performed in this way, even by heretics, are not to be repeated, but those so baptized are reconciled by anointing with chrism or the laying on of hands.82 Baptism is in water, because water is the universal cleansing agent (paragraph fourteen). The form of baptism, plunging into water, was anticipated in the Flood, the crossing of the Red Sea, and in the sprinkling of water in which the ashes of a red heifer were mixed (paragraph fifteen). Neunheuser thought that Hugh’s teaching on baptism was transmitted by way of the Summa sententiarum and Peter Lombard, the primary early scholastic influence on later medieval thinking about the sacrament.83 Lombard’s fourfold treatment of baptism—What is it? What is its form (words)? When was it instituted? Why was it instituted?—was commented on by countless aspirant theologians for centuries afterward. Hugh was more sensitive than Peter Lombard to the aesthetic and typological elements of the sacrament (what the Lombard called its sollemnitatem), more attuned to it as a ritual meeting of the transcendent God and the human desire for God and for wholeness. Hugh’s treatment is remarkably concise and complete, except for paragraph two on “in the name,” which had the merit of pushing back against rigid or scrupulous emphasis on the ritual words, and paragraph seven, which argued against too rigid an emphasis on the necessity of baptism for salvation. Hugh might have related the efficacy of the sacrament more expressly to the full Paschal mystery, the dying-and-rising of Christ, and he did not develop a theory of causality in baptism. However, his theology of baptism had the merit of being rooted deeply in Scripture and tradition, as Hugh himself was. It was also collegial in the sense that he cited not just Ambrose and Augustine, but also his contemporaries Ivo of Chartres and Bernard of Clairvaux, and so represented both the new and the old in theological method and reasoning. 82 83

See Neunheuser, Baptism, 188–89. Neunheuser, Baptism, 193.

152

H ugh of St   V ictor

TRANSLATION

1. Why It Is the First and the Questions that Need to Be Asked about It The sacrament of baptism is the first among all the sacraments in which salvation is proven to exist.1 The Lord says regarding it, unless someone has been born again from water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.2 And again, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.3 The things that we propose to be the principal topics of inquiry regarding the sacrament of baptism are the following. First, what is baptism? Secondly, why was baptism instituted, or why were circumcision and certain other sacraments of the Old Law changed? Thirdly, when was baptism instituted with reference to three ages: the first, when circumcision was in place before baptism; the third, when baptism was in place after circumcision; and the middle one, when circumcision and baptism were concurrent, the one to be ended, the other to be confirmed? Likewise, when did people begin to be obligated by the command to receive baptism? Likewise, what was the difference between the baptism of John and that of Christ? Likewise, what was the form of John’s baptism? Likewise, what was the form of Christ’s baptism? Likewise, whether anyone can be saved if he does not actually receive the sacrament of baptism? Regarding all these matters many things remain to be asked but, meanwhile, we will for the time being proceed regarding a few things according our ability. 2. What Baptism Is; The Name of God in Which Baptism Occurs; And Faith and the Sanctifying Word If someone asks what is baptism, we say that baptism is water sanctified by the word of God for washing away sin. Only water can be the element; there can be no sacrament until the word is united to the element so that then there is a sacrament. The word sanctifies the element so that it receives the virtue4 of a sacrament. Just as the element represents through a certain natural quality and it signifies when institution is added, so through sanctification it contains spiritual grace that is to be imparted through it to those to be sanctified. We understand the word,5 by which the element is sanctified so that it becomes a sacrament, to be that about which it is said, go, tell all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.6 The name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is the very word of God, through which the element is sanctified that it may be a

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



153

sacrament. It is right that the things that exist as created through the word of God be sanctified by the word of God: He spoke and they were made.7 Could he create by the word and not be able to sanctify by the word? Do you think that he who gave existence to them through the word could not apply grace through the same word? Therefore, do not be surprised if what has been constituted a sacrament as a remedy that brings salvation is sanctified through the word of God. However, maybe you are thinking, what is this word of God? What is this name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in which we are ordered to be baptized? Does this require that one think of this as some word (vocem)8 and sound brought forth to human ears? If the name of the Trinity must be understood to be some word, what and of what kind should one understand it to be? If we say that this word “God” must be understood in this name, it follows that where this sound is not brought over the water to be sanctified, there can be no sacrament of baptism. What then? He submerged someone and said, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. You say to me, this person is a Christian. He has been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I submerged him three times in water. As I was submerging him, I said, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I therefore am in attendance as a witness that he has been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. He has been baptized in the name of the Trinity. In what name? You have been told that the name of the Trinity is God. However, I have not heard this name here, when you said, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. So, what name did you wish to say? You said, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but you do not speak in the name about which you spoke. Therefore, how is the water sanctified in the name that has not been spoken? However, if you think, in doing this, you spoke the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit because you said in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is to be understood in such a way that because of the Father was spoken, the name of “Father” is spoken there, and because of the Son is spoken the name of “Son” is spoken there, and because of the Holy Spirit is spoken the name of “Holy Spirit” is spoken there, then there are many names not one name. I received that command of the Lord that I baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. However,

154

H ugh of St   V ictor

you have baptized in many names. Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit are three names and the name of three not one name or the name of one. The three (tres) are not one (unus), although the three (tres) are one (unum). He did not say in the names, but in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, because there is one name where there is one nature, one substance, one divinity, and one majesty. This is the name in which all must be saved.9 I would like, therefore, for you to show where you utter this one name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit when, submerging someone, you say, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, you conceive something of this sort and demand to be taught what is the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in which we are baptized and acquire remission of sins, I think the diligence of your faith is not to be disdained. How can we baptize in this name, if we do not know what it is? We call out every day, hallowed be your name.10 How can it be hallowed in us, if we do not know what it is? And if we ask that the word (vocem) be sanctified, let him who can say how we ask to be saved in that word. It says, God, save me in your name.11 If, therefore, salvation is in the word (voce), those who are silent or rather unable to speak cannot be saved because they cannot speak. Who will say this? Therefore, the name of God, in which it is necessary that we be sanctified and saved, must be sought outside the word (vocem) lest, perhaps, if we locate it only in the word, we create an obstacle to the truth. God is known in Judea; in Israel his name is great.12 Therefore, where there is knowledge, there is the name, because that knowledge is the name. Someone says, that man has a great name, and that man has a great name among the people. Perhaps it is because his name has many syllables that his name is great. Therefore, the name of God (de-us) is small, because includes only two syllables, and the name of God is formed by two syllables. You see now where the magnitude of the name of God is. It is where the magnitude of the name is that one needs to consider the name. Therefore, if we fittingly understand the magnitude of the name to be the magnitude of its renown and the magnitude of its celebrity, then we must understand the name as its renown or celebrity rather than some word or sound of a word that comes to one’s ears. Therefore, its fame and its celebrity are its name. Again, knowledge of it is nothing other than faith in it, so for the present time (interim) God is only known through faith alone. Afterward, he is also going to be known face to face. Faith in God is itself the name of God, through which knowledge of him is had in names when

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



155

his presence is not seen by human beings. I think now it is no longer murky or ambiguous how someone is saved by the name of God when, in what he can experience of him and, by experiencing, he believes that he is justified; and justified, set free; and again, how the name of God is hallowed when it is honored by those who know God. There is no doubt about this if, to him whom we now merit to know through faith, we show the reverence of chaste fear and love. How does this seem to you? If the name of God is knowledge of him, and we have faith in him, are they not baptized in his name who are baptized in the faith of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? There is one name and the name of one by which the Trinity is proclaimed and the unity is not denied. When, therefore, you baptize in the faith of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. You confess this name, that is, this faith, when you say, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This is to fulfill what is written, one believes with the heart unto justice, but confession of the mouth occurs unto salvation.13 However, our Lord Jesus Christ said to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If this name is to be understood as knowledge and faith in the Trinity, it will be sufficient, to complete the form of the sacrament and perfect its sanctification, to immerse the one to be baptized with faith alone without the utterance of words. The One who said that human beings were to be baptized in the faith of the Trinity did not teach what may be said, but showed what is to be believed. For this reason, lest, in the sanctification of the sacrament, the profession of faith seem to be meaningless, it is necessary that we understand in the statement in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit something more than if it had said in the faith of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. “Name” seems to include something more than faith. Faith is internal and lies hidden until it begins to be named and manifest. A name begins to be when it begins to be named and made public so it can be known. Thus, we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit when we baptize in the confession of faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He himself said, go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.14 Teach and baptize! If you wash and are silent, you wash but you do not teach; you have the “baptize” but not the “teach.” Therefore, believe and confess,15 speak and submerge, so the things to be cleansed may be washed in confession.

156

H ugh of St   V ictor

However, perhaps you ask how one should understand this form of professing the faith in carrying out the sacrament of baptism? This, I think, should be answered briefly. The form of baptism is that which our Lord Jesus Christ handed on when he sent his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.16 Therefore, you have done rightly if you confess what he commanded. He ordered that you baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. You submerge a person and you say, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. You do well in following the form of divine institution; you do what he commanded; you profess what he instituted. However, you say, what then? Suppose someone through error without awareness of his error, not keeping the form of these words but with complete faith, baptizes a person, saying, I baptize you in the name of the Father almighty, or in the name of the Son of God, or in the name of the Holy Spirit or even, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ,17 or something similar, which as far as the outward form of the words differs from the above-mentioned form of speech but is not contrary to the profession of truth. Ought there be a true sacrament of baptism in it? Perhaps one could formulate and show many lines of argument to solve this question of yours, and show where there is in the same faith a difference in wording that is not discordant to the integrity and unity of faith. However, on this point it seems to me that your question should be answered by authority rather than by my reasoning. In the book that Blessed Ambrose wrote on the Trinity, he said,18 those who said that they did not know the Holy Spirit, although they said that John the Baptist baptized them, were baptized afterward. John baptized for the remission of sins not in his own name but in the name of Jesus who was to come. Therefore, they did not know the Holy Spirit because, as John was accustomed to baptize, they did not receive baptism in the name of Christ. Although John did not baptize in the Spirit, nevertheless he preached Christ and the Spirit. Finally, when asked whether he might be the Christ he answered, I baptize you with water. Someone stronger than I is coming whose sandal I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire.19 Therefore, these who were not baptized in the name of Christ or with faith in the Holy Spirit could not receive the sacrament of baptism. Those baptized in the name of Jesus do not need to be baptized again, but their baptism needs to be renewed. There is one baptism. Where the full sacrament of baptism is not present,

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



157

neither the beginning (principium) nor any form of baptism is thought to be present. The full sacrament is to confess the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If you deny one, you undermine the whole. Insofar as you include in what you say either Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, and you do not deny the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, there is the full sacrament of faith. So also, if you say Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, and diminish the power of Father, of Son, or of Holy Spirit, the mystery is emptied out. Finally, those who had said, we have not heard that there is a Holy Spirit,20 were baptized afterward in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,21 and thus abounded in grace, because now at Paul’s preaching they had known the Holy Spirit. This should not seem contradictory because, although afterward the Spirit was not mentioned, they believed in the Spirit. What had not been mentioned was expressed by faith. When it says in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ,22 the mystery is fulfilled in the unity of the name. The Spirit is not to be separated from the baptism of Christ, because John baptized in penitence, Christ in the Spirit. Now we will consider whether in the same way that we read that the full sacrament of baptism is found in the name of Christ, so with the mention of the Holy Spirit alone nothing is lacking to the fullness of the mystery. Let us follow reason because who mentions one signifies the Trinity. If you say the Anointed (Christum), you also designate God the Father by whom the Son is anointed, and the One who is anointed, the Son, and the Spirit by whom he is anointed. It is written, this Jesus from Nazareth whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit.23 If you say, “Father,” you also point jointly to his Son and to the Spirit of his mouth, and you also comprehend this in your heart. If you say “Spirit” you also name God the Father, from whom the Spirit proceeds, and the Son, because the Spirit is also from the Son. Whence, so that authority may be joined to reason, Scripture indicates that we can also be baptized in the Spirit, when the Lord says, you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit.24 Also, the Apostle said, we have all been baptized in his body in one Spirit.25 One work because one glory, one baptism because one death for the world. Therefore, there is unity of operation, and unity of preaching that cannot be separated. To this point, the words of Blessed Ambrose are a clear explanation of how we should think about the proper form of baptizing. You see, therefore, how in the faith of the Trinity there is the full sacrament of baptism when only the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit is mentioned, and how without faith in the Trinity even with these three named it is still imperfect. An integral faith is sought

158

H ugh of St   V ictor

everywhere, so while the integrity of faith remains, speech can vary without detriment to salvation. Nevertheless, ecclesiastical custom has chosen in baptizing to keep most strictly the form that the very Author of salvation gave to be maintained from its first institution. If anyone should happen to ask whether, in the press of necessity, it can be sufficient for the full sacrament of baptism if someone has been baptized without utterance of the words either because the one who baptized could not speak or because of haste or the distraction of imminent danger, or because he was prevented by some other cause when he was baptizing so he did not remember to speak, if anyone should ask this, I do not wish to judge regarding these hidden things, especially because I did not hear the name of the Trinity here, where, although there was true faith, there was no confession of faith. These things said regarding what is the sacrament of baptism and regarding the sanctifying word will suffice for the present. 3. Why the Sacrament of Baptism Was Instituted Now it remains to show why the sacrament of baptism was instituted and why circumcision, which is thought to have been put in place of baptism formerly, was abolished or changed when baptism succeeded it. If formerly sins were dismissed through circumcision as they now are through baptism, why was it necessary that circumcision be changed when the sacrament of baptism succeeded it? Why was it affirmed that what was believed to profit less when it was received was no less harmful if neglected? As now the Gospel says, unless a person is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit he will not enter the Kingdom of God,26 so formerly the Law said, if the flesh of a male’s foreskin is not circumcised, his soul will perish from his people.27 Why, if not because it is said that the one who has not received baptism is to be excluded from the Kingdom of God, while the one who is not circumcised is reminded that he will perish, would someone want to understand that therefore baptism confers something more than circumcision does, because the reception of circumcision can only free from perdition, while baptism can lead the reborn to glory. Those ancient fathers who had received the justification of the sacrament of circumcision were indeed saved from perdition, but they were not led to the glory of the kingdom until he came who with his outpoured blood extinguished the Thracian spear of fire,28 and the gates of paradise were open again. As the first and foremost, he opened to all those believing in him the

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



159

door of the heavenly kingdom. Thus, this is how baptism confers more: it sends the reborn leaving here immediately into the Kingdom, something that is given by virtue of the outpoured blood sanctifying the water. If, therefore, someone should say that baptism perfects what circumcision cannot fulfill, perhaps it will seem that one can respond to him that what is now greater in baptism is not from baptism, but is fulfilled by the passion of Christ, which sanctifies baptism. Circumcision could have done the same thing, if to it the passion of Christ had been joined to cooperate in sanctifying. In baptism, in what concerns the virtue of baptism, the remission of sins is received only because, as was said, it is the cross of Christ that grants that, afterward, entry to the heavenly homeland lies open to those who are justified. For this kind of reason, we think another cause that is perhaps more subtle and clear should be proposed for the change regarding circumcision. In what was said earlier, in the place where we treated the sacraments, we said that all sacraments are a kind of sign of the spiritual grace that is given in them.29 It is necessary that, according to the succession of eras, ever more evident and expressive signs of spiritual graces be formed so that, with the effecting of salvation, the knowledge of the truth would increase. Therefore, under the natural law, first tithes, sacrifices, and oblations were given as sacraments, so that tithing signified remission of sin, sacrifice, the mortification of the flesh, and offering, the production of good work. However, this signification was obscure in the sacrament of tithing, where a man offers part of the things he has and retains a part, so that in this way he gives himself what is imperfect and defective and what is good he renders to God. The reason he wanted nine parts kept for himself was that nine is a sign of imperfection, falling short of a perfect ten. Because tithing was an obscure sign of cleansing, circumcision was given to demonstrate more clearly the virtue of justification, when man was told to remove a portion of his flesh, not a superfluous one, but a sign of what in a person is superfluous, so that by this he would recognize that grace cleanses through the sacrament of circumcision the fault that nature drags forth through that part of the body. However, because circumcision can amputate only those irregularities that are outside but cannot cleanse the stains of pollution that are internal, after circumcision there came the bath of water that cleanses perfectly so that one is sealed with perfect justice. Again, because cleansing of the earlier people who serve under fear was laborious, they were given the sacrament of circumcision in the flesh that suffered, while the new people who serve freely

160

H ugh of St   V ictor

and with love were given the sacrament of justification in the bath of water that has a gentle kind of purification. This is how we think a reason can be given why the sacrament of circumcision was changed and the sacrament of baptism was instituted. 4. When the Sacrament of Baptism Was Instituted Someone asks when the sacrament was instituted, after which no one was any longer permitted to neglect it but everyone was obliged to receive it. On this, there are many different opinions. Some say baptism was instituted when Christ showed Nicodemus, who came to him at night, the way of the new regeneration and said, unless someone is born of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the reign of God.30 Others say that the institution of baptism began when, after his resurrection, Christ, about to ascend into heaven, sent his disciples to preach, saying, Go, teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.31 Certain ones think that the institution of baptism began when John began to baptize with water, proclaiming that someone was going to baptize in the Spirit. Others think that in the passion of Christ, who said, it is finished,32 all the sacraments of the Old Testament were ended and those of the New began. It seems more suitable for us to say that baptism was brought into use first by John, then by Christ or by the disciples of Christ for a time only, so it would not be out harmony with custom, and finally it was given general institution when preachers were sent into the whole world to baptize. It seems that here three eras are to be distinguished. In the first, before baptism, only circumcision was in place and, without baptism, was received for justification. Now, in the last age, after circumcision, only baptism is in place and is celebrated for salvation without circumcision. Between these two eras was another when both circumcision and baptism ran concurrently, the one, circumcision, to be ended, and the other, baptism, to be established. It was necessary that the things that were to be finished were not dismissed suddenly or precipitously, but little by little with a certain reverence, to show that they were good in their time. Likewise, the things that were to be begun were not suddenly given authority, but introduced gradually and with a certain reverence, lest if suddenly introduced they be thought alien or foreign and odd. The former are set aside, not thrown out, and the latter are instituted not imposed, so that the authority of the divine plan may be maintained, and human complaint be warned not to dare

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



161

to criticize divine works. Therefore, although in the passion of Christ, through which the old things were finished, the place of the ancient foreshadowing (figurae) was ended and the institution of the new sacrament was begun, nevertheless, at first for a time the new things were introduced so people would become accustomed to them. Therefore, both existed during that time, before the passion or after it, when the new things were coming to be until afterward the old things were forbidden. In this middle period, when baptism was with circumcision from its inception up to the passion of Christ, circumcision was with baptism from after the passion of Christ until the time when circumcision started to be prohibited. Just as before the passion circumcision was received in its role as a remedy, and nevertheless baptism was not disdained without danger to salvation by those to whom it was preached, so after the passion baptism was in its proper status received for salvation, nevertheless even then circumcision was not disdained without danger to salvation by those to whom its end was not yet clear. However, after that it was said, if you are circumcised, Christ does you no good.33 By then, circumcision could no longer be received for salvation as it had been before, from the time it was said, a male the flesh of whose foreskin has not been circumcised will perish from his people.34 Circumcision was not to be disdained without endangering their salvation, especially by those on whom it had been enjoined. Again, just as in the beginning baptism by John was given as a sacrament only,35 so that those to be baptized who had known its use would be educated, so in the most recent time by way of dispensation circumcision was received by certain faithful as a sacrament only, lest those who had been accustomed to being circumcised would be scandalized. 5. When People Began to Be Obligated by the Command to Receive Baptism If therefore it is asked when people began to be obligated by the duty to receive baptism, the following proves to be consonant with truth and reason: everyone begins to be obligated by the duty of receiving baptism from the time after the institution he becomes aware of the precept or in the time before the institution he becomes aware of the counsel to baptize. Someone who was not a disdainer before nor a violator of the precept afterward was not culpable, except perhaps someone who may be said to have been ignorant before or after to whom the notice of the divine would have arrived had he not ob-

162

H ugh of St   V ictor

structed it. Therefore, when Christ said to Nicodemus who came to him at night, unless someone is born again from water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God,36 this was advice revealed to a friend. When later he said, Go, teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,37 he set forth a command to inform everybody. After the general institution, everyone was obligated when the command of word of institution reached him through the preaching of the apostles, the messengers of the word. Regarding those who meanwhile are located far away or hidden nearby and happen to be led from this life without having knowledge of the divine institution, it seems to me that we should think about them as we do about those who before that institution were either in the circumcision or in the law, because what the time in which they lived did to those, absence did for these. If anyone wants to be stubborn and contend that some of that kind of people still live in unknown regions and remote places of the earth, who happen not to have received the divine command to receive the sacrament of baptism, I affirm either that there is no one like that, or even if there is someone, if he did not resist by his own fault he could have heard and known and ought to have without delay, especially since Scripture clearly proclaims, their sound has gone to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the earth.38 If, therefore, their sound is in all the earth, in all the earth either they have heard and disdained it and so are condemned, or they have not heard because of their own fault and are ignorantly ignorant and not saved. These things have been said regarding the time of the institution of baptism and the duty to receive baptism. 6. The Difference between the Baptism of John and that of Christ; And Regarding the Form of the Baptism of John and that of Christ The difference between the baptism of John and that of Christ lies in this: in the baptism of John, the pouring of water gives only the sacrament, while in the baptism of Christ the reality (res) of the sacrament is also received. John wet down sinners with moisture and urged repentance on those confessing sins; Christ baptized and remitted sins. As John baptized, he predicted the one who was to come and baptize in the Spirit.39 As Christ baptizes, he pours in the Spirit for the remission of sins. There, people are baptized in the name of one who is to come; here, people are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



163

of the Holy Spirit.40 As far as external form goes, in both cases the sacrament was identical, but with regard to the effect they were not the same because in the former there was no remission of sin; here, however, the form of the sacrament is expressed and likewise the virtue of the sacrament is bestowed for the remission of sins. 7. Whether After the Command Regarding Baptism Has Been Given, Anyone Can Be Saved without Actually Receiving the Sacrament of Baptism Some people are accustomed to inquire either curiously or zealously, whether after the announcement and public declaration of the sacrament of baptism, anyone can be saved if they do not actually receive that sacrament of baptism. There seem to be clear reasons, and they have many authorities, if indeed those are said to have them who do not understand them. First of all, because it says, unless someone is reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.41 And again, elsewhere, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.42 There are many other places like this, from which it seems to follow, as it were, that someone who does not have the sacrament can in no way be saved, whatever besides this sacrament she has. If she has perfect faith, if she has hope, if she has charity, even if she has a contrite and humbled heart that God does not despise,43 true penitence regarding past things, a firm resolution regarding future ones—whatever she has, she cannot be saved if she does not have this. This all seems this way to them, because of what is written, unless someone is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he will not enter the Kingdom of God.44 Nevertheless, if anyone asks what happened to those who passed from this life by pouring out their blood for Christ but without the sacrament of water, they do not dare to say people like that cannot be saved. Although they cannot show this is written in what we recalled above, they do not dare to say that, because it is not written there, it is to be denied. The one who says, unless someone is born again from water and the Holy Spirit,45 does not add, “by pouring out blood instead of water,” but nevertheless it is true even if it is not written here. If someone is saved because she received water on account of the Lord, why is someone not all the more saved if she pours out her blood on account of the Lord? It is a greater thing to give blood than to receive water. It is obvious how frivolous is what certain ones say: those who pour out their blood are saved because they pour out water with their blood

164

H ugh of St   V ictor

and they receive baptism in that water they pour out. If those who are killed are said to be baptized because of the liquid of the water that flows from their wounds with the bloody matter of the blood flowing from their wounds, then those who were suffocated or drowned or killed in some other way in which blood does not flow out are not baptized in their blood, and in vain did they die for Christ because they did not pour out the liquid of the water that they have within their body. Who can say this? Therefore, someone who dies for Christ is baptized in blood because, though she does not pour blood from a wound, she gives her life that is more precious than blood. She could have poured out blood even if she did not give her life, and it would be less to pour out one’s blood than to give one’s life. Therefore, the one who lays down her life for Christ does well to pour her blood. She has baptism in the virtue of the sacrament,46 without which it is of no benefit to have received the sacrament, so that when one has it, it is not harmful not to have sacrament. Therefore, it is true (although it is not stated there) that whoever dies for Christ is baptized in Christ. This, they say, is true, although it is not said there, and therefore it is true because it is said elsewhere if it is not said there. He who said, unless someone is reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,47 himself said elsewhere: Whoever has confessed me before men I will confess before my Father.48 Therefore, what is not said there is nevertheless to be understood even though it is not said, because it is said elsewhere. See, therefore, what they say. They say that what is not said is to be understood where it is not said because it is said elsewhere. If therefore what is not said in this place is to be understood because it is said elsewhere, why does one not understand about faith the same way, because elsewhere it is said, whoever believes in me, he says, will not see death for eternity.49 He who said unless someone has been reborn from water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,50 also said, whoever believes in me will not see death in eternity.51 So, either deny faith or grant salvation. How does it seem to you? Where there is faith, where there is hope, where there is charity, and finally where there is the full and perfect virtue of the sacrament, there is no salvation because the sacrament alone (sacramentum tantum) is missing, therefore salvation is not there because it cannot be had? Whoever believes, he said, and is baptized will be saved.52 Why did he wish to say this? Why did he not say, whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned, just as he said, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved?53 Behold, there is no doubt. Where there is faith and baptism, there is salvation. And what follows? Whoever does

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



165

not believe will be condemned.54 Why, unless because to believe belongs to the will and because faith cannot be wanting to the one who wills to believe. Therefore, someone who does not believe is shown to have a perverse will, where there can be no necessity that can be brought forward as an excuse. The will to be baptized can exist even when there is no possibility for it. Therefore, it is right not to despise a good will that has the devotion of faith, although the press of necessity keeps one from receiving the sacrament of water that is external. Do you want to know more fully whether elsewhere reason proves these things with clearer authority, although those authorities that we recalled above55 seem so clear that it is not possible to doubt their truth? Then listen to yet another, if perhaps it can show you more clearly what you should not doubt.56 Blessed Augustine speaks thus in his book On One Baptism: Considering this over and over, I find that not only can suffering for the name of Christ fulfill what was lacking in regard to baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart can do so if it happens because of time constraints one cannot hasten to celebrate the mystery of baptism.57 You see that he clearly testifies that faith and conversion of heart can suffice for a good will for salvation where it happens by necessity that one cannot have the visible sacrament of water. However, do not think this is contradicted because later in the book of Revisions he criticizes the example of the thief, which he used to illustrate that opinion in which he had said the outpouring of blood or faith and conversion of heart can take the place of baptism. He says there, that in the fourth book of On baptism, “when I said suffering could take the place of baptism, I gave the not very convincing example of that thief, since it is uncertain whether he was baptized.”58 You must consider that in this place he only corrected the example he had cited to prove his opinion, but he did not renounce the opinion. However, if you think the opinion is to be rejected because the example was corrected, then his statement that the outpouring of blood can take the place of baptism is false because that example was given to prove it. He did not say, “when I said that faith could take the place of baptism,” but rather, he says, “when I said suffering could take the place of baptism,” although he stated both in the same sentence. If, therefore, the example was offered in relation to what he said about suffering being able to take the place of baptism, since that stands as true without question, it is clear that the example was corrected later, but the opinion is not rejected. Therefore, you must profess that in the press of necessity true faith and conversion of heart can take the place of baptism, or you must show how one can have true

166

H ugh of St   V ictor

faith and unfeigned charity59 and not be saved. Unless, perhaps, you wish to say that no one who is not going to have the visible sacrament of water can have true faith and true charity. I do not know by what reasoning or authority you may prove that. Meanwhile, we are not arguing whether anyone who is not going to receive the sacrament can have these things, but only that if there were anyone who has these things then, even without the visible sacrament of water, he could not perish. There are many other things that could be brought forward to prove this, but we do not think that what we proposed above in the treatise on the sacraments to prove it needs to be repeated again.60 8. On the Sacraments of the Neophytes “Neophyte” means novice.61 Someone who is recently converted to the faith or is unformed in the discipline of religious living is called a neophyte. Those newly converted to the faith are to be instructed by visible sacraments so that through what they see they may understand what they do not see. People like this should be admonished to consider that the faith to which they are new is not new, because from the beginning of the world at no time have there been lacking faithful and just people, members of Christ, just as from the beginning there have never been lacking sacraments of salvation that went before as a preparation for and sign of redemption, which was completed in the death of Christ. In the first age, Abel offered a lamb in sacrifice, a figure of the death of Christ. In the second age, Noah captained the ark during the flood, as Christ, who rules the Church amid waves of temptation, does not let it sink. In the third age, Abraham killed a ram in place of his offered son, as God the Father offered his Word to save the world. In that, however, the divinity remained inviolate, and only the humanity sustained the pain of death. Afterward, the people of Israel were led out from Egypt through the Red Sea by a pillar of fire and a cloud, as God’s faithful are freed from the darkness of sin, renewed by the sacrament of baptism, and consecrated by the blood of Christ. They follow in faith him in whom are the cloud of humanity and the fire of divinity. In the fourth age, in Jerusalem the temporal kingdom of God’s people is raised up, prefiguring the eternal one in which the prince of peace, the father of the future age62 will introduce his faithful to the vision of eternal peace.63 David was the starting point of this kingdom. He was tested through many temptations and glorified. He left his son as successor to that peace, to show that those who in this life have not been strong against temptations

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



167

and in conquering tribulations cannot reach the quiet of future peace. Therefore, those who are to be baptized on Holy Saturday of the Paschal Solemnity are brought to the Church to be catechized on the fourth day of the fourth week64 of the Lenten observance that supplies us with weapons of self-restraint. There, they will hear and be instructed how they will fight against spiritual wickedness. However, their baptism is put off until the Saturday of the Paschal Solemnity. The Church awaits this because those who are called to struggle in the present life are baptized in the hope of future rest. In the fifth age, because of their sins, the people are led captive into Babylon, and again, by God’s mercy, after seventy years the yoke of captivity is removed and they are called back to their land. Although the people of God, who are subject to vanity and confusion in this life that rolls on through periods of seven days, bear the yoke of mortality, after its end they are liberated from corruption. Thus, from the beginning at no time have faithful people lacked the sacraments, by which they are nurtured to perception of invisible things and aroused to knowledge.65 Finally, in the sixth age, Christ is born of the Virgin, just as on the sixth day the first human being was fashioned from the virgin soil. When he who, as it were, was about to bring all things to completion, reached the state of adult manhood, he was baptized by John the Baptist in the thirtieth year of his life, not because of necessity but because of God’s arrangement (dispensatione) for a washing that would sanctify those to be cleansed. Thereafter, calling the apostles as ministers of the Gospel, he began to preach the coming Kingdom of Heaven. Lastly, at the consummation of all things, he offered himself to the Father on the altar of the cross as a sacrifice for the redemption of the world. He underwent death so that in himself he might free from fear of death those who believe in him. He arose from the dead to give to those dying for him hope of life and resurrection. Afterward, about to ascend to heaven, he sent his disciples into the whole world to teach and baptize all nations, to call to life those who follow the one who goes ahead. These are the sacraments of the Christian faith; they were founded from the beginning, to be believed in the end, and will be profitable without end. These are the things with which we imbue those to be catechized and the faith that we require those who are to be reborn by the sacrament of newness to express with a saving profession.

168

H ugh of St   V ictor

9. Catechizing “Catechumen” means “instructed” or “listening.”66 To catechize is to instruct: when those to be baptized are first instructed and taught what the form of Christian faith is, in which they need to be saved, and to receive the sacrament of salvation, as it is written, go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.67 First teach, then baptize. Teach for instruction, baptize for cleansing. Teach for faith, baptize for the remission of sins. Therefore, teach what one should believe, baptize because whoever has been baptized will be saved.68 Therefore, this form of catechizing was instituted from the earliest times of the Christian faith. It was necessarily maintained at the time when the rule of faith was made known to adults and to those with understanding, before they approach the sacrament of baptism, so that, when they freely accepted the faith, they were judged worthy of spiritual rebirth; or, not wanting to believe, were rightly blocked as unworthy of the reception of the sacrament of God. Therefore, to obtain salvation, a person’s free choice should be consulted because the work of salvation must be voluntary. This is the way it happened from the beginning. Later, a multitude of nations entered the faith; now the same form is also kept for children who are born to the faithful. In the meantime Mother Church, by a caring dispensation, did not want either the former or the latter to lack the sacrament of salvation. She kept the same form lest by a delay they69 become strangers to salvation, if they suddenly depart this life without having received the sacrament of salvation. Therefore, it was fitting that the medicine of salvation was provided them so that they are baptized in the sacrament of faith, and by the faith of another reconciled to God, just as they were alienated from God by another’s sin. Therefore, for this a new sacrament was instituted for catechizing, exorcizing, initiating, and then baptizing children, in which the Church listens on behalf of children and responds to the questions and promises until they reach the years of understanding and are able to understand and keep the sacraments of faith, charity, and hope by themselves. 10. Exorcism “Exorcism” is translated from Greek into Latin as “adjuration.”70 Exorcists are those who invoke the name of the Lord over catechumens or the possessed, that is, those who have an unclean spirit. They bring

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



169

forth divine power, adjuring him to leave them. Rightly, therefore, exorcism follows after catechizing, so that the opposing power (virtus) may be repulsed from him who is already instructed in the faith.71 There are three things by which the baptized is, so to speak, conceived and nurtured and advanced to the completion of new life. These are catecheses, exorcisms, and prayers. The one who is to be baptized is first catechized, so that he moves to faith by his free decision. Then he is exorcized, so that the evil power of the devil is driven away from him. Then prayer is added, so that grace, which gives strength to free will, may go before and follow, and every illusion of the wicked spirit may be far away. The form of exorcism is completed in the following way. First, the one to be baptized is signed with the sign of the cross on the forehead, the chest, the eyes, the nose, the ears, and the mouth, so that the senses of the entire body are fortified with this sign by whose power all our sacraments are completed and all the illusions of the devil are rendered useless. Next, he is given blessed salt in his mouth that, seasoned with wisdom, he may be without the rot of evil and be no longer corrupted by the worms of vices.72 Then the wicked strong one is blown out so that spirit may be driven out by spirit.73 Then74 his ears and nose are touched with saliva so that, by the touch of heavenly wisdom, his ears may also be opened to hear the Word of God and his nose opened to discriminate the odors of life and death. This is the sacrament of opening, which the Lord signified in the Gospel when he touched the ears and mouth of the man who was unable to hear or speak, saying Ephpheta, that is, open up.75 11. The Things that Happen in Baptism After Exorcism After all these things are completed, the priest goes to the font. He consecrates the font in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, since the holiness of the sacrament is not from the one who ministers, but is known to be from the one who sanctifies, as it is written, this is he who baptizes.76 Thus, a good person does not administer it better nor does a bad person receive it worse, because the fruitfulness of the sacrament is perfected not by the merit of the ministers, but in the virtue (virtute) of God who sanctifies. The symbol of faith is also handed on to those hearing of new life. In it, the form of apostolic teaching resides. After this the child is brought to baptism and asked by the priest through the mouths of those who are holding him whether he renounces Satan and all his works and all his pomps, so that

170

H ugh of St   V ictor

one who was bound by the evil of another is saved by another’s faith and confession. After the renunciation has been made, he is anointed on the chest with holy oil as if to fortify him against the enemy, so that afterward he cannot be persuaded by something unclean or toxic. He is also anointed between the shoulder blades where the energy to carry a burden is located so that he receives the strength to carry the burden of the Lord.77 Then he is asked if he believes in God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one Catholic Church, remission of sins, and life eternal. After this response of faith, he is cleansed by a threefold immersion from his old stains and clothed with the new man, co-buried in the three-day death of Christ. As the Apostle says, we who have been baptized in Christ are baptized in his death. We are co-buried with Christ through baptism into death so that as Christ rose from the dead, so we may walk in newness of life.78 The threefold immersion is the threefold cleansing of thought, word, and deed. When the sacraments of baptism are completed, the one baptized arises from the font and is anointed on the top of head with holy chrism, so that by participating in the Spirit of Christ, he may deserve to be called a Christian from then on, having been made by the holy anointing a coheir of the Kingdom and of the glory.79 Then the Christian is handed a white vestment so that he who soiled the beauty of his first birth by the old cloths80 may, by the habit of rebirth, show forth the garment of glory. After the holy anointing, his head is covered by a sacred veil so he may realize that he possesses the diadem of the Kingdom and priestly dignity.81 Finally, he is given a lighted candle in his hand to teach him that gospel saying, so let your light shine before men that they may see your good and glorify your Father who is in heaven.82 If he has kept this lamp inextinguishable, he will enter among the wise virgins into the wedding with the heavenly spouse.83 12. Godparents The name “godparents”84 is given to those who offer children at baptism and, by promising on their behalf, become as it were surety for them for God. Thus, they are called godparents, because they offer those to be reborn to a new life and in some way become authors of that rebirth. It pleased the fathers85 that each one to be baptized be allowed a godparent, that is, only one either man or woman. Perhaps this was so because if spiritual affinity, which must be respected, were distributed here and there it could have been an obstacle to marriage. However,

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



171

certain churches do not observe this custom and allow many to hold the children. This, too, is ordained, that someone who is not baptized or confirmed should not receive a godchild (filiolum) in baptism or in chrism, that is, confirmation. Likewise, monastics cannot act as godfathers or godmothers, for this kind of familial interchange is forbidden them. Godparents are surety for those they hold at baptism so that when the latter reach legal age, they may admonish them to right faith and a good way of life. Before all else, let these hold on to the creed (simbolum) and the Lord’s Prayer, and introduce to these things those on behalf of whose faith they pledge themselves. 13. Rebaptism The Apostle said, one God, one faith, one baptism.86 What is one cannot be doubled, and so by a very reasonable determination the fathers ordained that someone who is known to have received baptism once cannot for any reason receive it again, either in the Church or outside the Church, that is, from a Catholic or from a heretic, from a believer or a nonbeliever, at whatever condition, age, or sex the person will have received it. Provided only that he received it according to the right form of Catholic baptism, it must be considered valid and cannot be repeated for any reason. Why should a good that has been received not be judged good even if it was not received from someone good? It did not belong to the one from whom it was received, or rather through whom it was received, who was not good, but belonged to him in whose name it was received, who is always good and cannot give something evil. For this reason, the ancient tradition of the fathers established that those who have been baptized by heretics in the name of the Trinity are not rebaptized when they return to the unity of the Church, but are reconciled to the Catholic Church by anointing with chrism or the imposition of hands.87 Thus, long ago the Western Church reformed Arians by laying on hands, and the Eastern Church through anointing with sacred chrism at the entry of the Catholic Church. Those who received the sacrament only exteriorly, receive it internally through the laying on of hands. However, it was acceptable that those who do not know whether they were baptized and have no witnesses to their baptism be baptized without hesitation, because it is not known if it has been done and so must not be called a rebaptism.88 It is also asked whether those who are baptized in a mimicking way, that is, jokingly, receive the true and full sacrament. One should

172

H ugh of St   V ictor

know it is one thing to do or accept something jokingly or playfully, but nevertheless want to give or accept it and fully to intend to do so, so that what is given or received jokingly is given and received. It is another thing to do something that in the doing has its form, but not to want to do it and not to intend that it be done. Therefore, where there is the intention of baptizing, even if it is not done with due reverence, the sacrament is indeed there because it is fully performed and that is what is intended, although not without fault of the agent, who does not do worthily what is done and intended. It is completely ridiculous to say that, where there is no intention of acting, the deed is said to be there just because of a certain appearance resembling the deed, that is not assumed for this but perhaps originates from something else. An example is that silly people think that when, in any place and with any intention, anyone offers over the bread and wine the words that were instituted to confect the Eucharist, they effect consecration and sanctification. It is as if the sacraments of God were instituted in such a way that they allow for no reason for acting, but proceed to their effect with a tumultuous, violent, and irrational persistence, without any intention of will on the part of those performing them. Suppose I had taken my son to the baths. I had come to the water not to baptize but to bathe, not to give a sacrament but to wash away stains or warm the flesh. I put my child in the water, and because I wanted him to get along well and prosper, I said what I had said in eating and drinking, in plowing and sowing, or in doing anything else, I said, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.89 You come and tell me that my son is baptized. I know he was bathed, but I do not know that he was baptized. However, if you think he was baptized because when I submerged him, I said, in the name of he Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,90 then that lump91 was baptized because when I submerged it, I said, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.92 Look and consider that the work of God’s ministers must be rational and do not judge rashly on the basis of the form alone where there is no intention of acting. 14. Why Baptism Is Celebrated with Water It also should be known that the sacrament of baptism was instituted for consecration only in the element of water, because only this has full and perfect cleansing power. All other liquids are purified by water. If anything has been touched with some other liquid, it is washed

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 6



173

with water to be cleansed. For this reason, the sacrament of cleansing occurs only in water, as it is written, unless someone has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.93 15. The Form of Baptism The form of baptism preceded long ago, in the flood, when eight souls were saved through wood as a figure of those to be saved.94 Likewise, in the Red Sea, when the water prefigured baptism and the red prefigured blood. Likewise, in the water of sprinkling with which the ashes of a red heifer were mixed, which figured Christ’s flesh, signifying weakness because of its feminine sex, blood by its redness.

174

H ugh of St   V ictor

NOTES 1

2 3 4

5

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This translation of De sacramentis 2.6 is based on PL 176.441D–460C, corrected by Berndt’s edition in the Corpus Victorinum, 374–96. The transcription in Migne is quite often corrupt. John 3:5. Mark 16:16. “virtus”: the Latin word derives from “vir” and so means manliness, strength, power; it meant virtue in the moral sense also. The latter is the common meaning of the English “virtue” today, but at one time it meant power as well, so that in the legal phrase “by virtue of the power invested in me,” “virtue” and “power” mean the same thing. A similar ambiguity exists in the Italian “virtù.” On the concept of “virtue,” see https://sites.google.com///nature/ in-and-since-the-renaissance. Hugh of St Victor also uses “virtus” as a technical word for the sanctifying power or “res” of the sacrament. It will be translated consistently as “virtue.” From here to the end of paragraph two, “verbum” is used often. It is always translated as “word,” usually not capitalized, but Hugh clearly wants us also to think of the Word spoken eternally by the Father. See Hugh of St Victor, De verbo Dei, in Six opuscules spirituels, ed. Roger Baron, SC 155 (Paris: Cerf. 1969), 160–81. Matt 28:19. Hugh usually cites this from an Old Latin variant, which has “ite” instead of “euntes” for “go.” On  this variant, see Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu vetus italica, ed. Paul Sabatier and Vincent de la Rue, 3 vols (Rheims: Reginald Florentain, 1743–49), 3:180–81. “Ite” occurs in Tertullian, Cyprian, Zeno of Verona (on his baptismal teaching, see Spinks, Early and Medieval, 57–59), and Ambrose. Ps 148:5. In this paragraph, “word” translates “vox,” which means utterance or word. Acts 4:12. Matt 6:9. Ps 53:3. Ps 75:2. Rom 10:10. Matt 28:19. “confiteri”: confess the faith. Matt 28:19. Acts 2:38–39. From here to “cannot be separated” is a quotation from Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 1.3.41– 45 (PL 16.713A–715B; tr. H. De Romestin, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 10 [New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890 and many other editions], online at www.newadvent.org/fathers. Accessed October 9, 2017). Matt 3:11 Old Latin. Acts 19:2. Acts 19:5. Acts 19:5. Acts 10:38. Acts 1:5; Matt 3:11. 1 Cor 12:13. John 3:5. Gen 17:14. “rimfeam ignem”: This expression probably comes from Prudentius, Cathemerinon 7.93 (Prudentius, vol. 1, ed. and tr. H. J. Thomson, Loeb 387 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949], 62–63): “dexteram perarmat rumpheali incendio,” where God is described with images derived from portraits of Jupiter with his thunderbolt as a spear. See Gerard O’Daly, Days Linked by Song: Prudentius’ Cathemerinon (New York: Oxford, 2012), 220–21.

N otes 29 30

31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

59 60 61

62 63 64



175

Sacr. 1.9.1 (PL 176.317B–319A; Berndt, 209–111; tr. Feiss, above). John 3:5. This is the opinion that Hugh mentioned in his letter to Bernard and that Bernard refutes in his reply, arguing that what Jesus offered as a counsel to a friend did not have the force of positive law for others. Matt 28:19. John 19:30. Gal 5:2. Gen 17:14. “solum sacramentum”: Hugh is thinking of the distinction between “sacramentum,” “res et sacramentum,” and “res.” “Solum sacramentum” refers to “sacramentum tantum,” the first of these three aspects of a sacrament that is the sign alone apart from any spiritual reality it might convey. Hugh explicitly invokes this distinction at the beginning of paragraph six. John 3:5. Matt 28:19. Ps 18:5. Mark 1:8. Matt 28:19. John 3:5. Mark 16:16. Ps 50:19. John 3:5. John 3:5. That is, the res of the sacrament. John 3:5. Matt 10:32. John 11:26. John 3:5. John 11:26. Mark 16:16. Mark 16:16. Mark 16:16. Earlier in this paragraph seven. From here to the end of paragraph seven is based on Bernard, Letter 77, 2.7–8 (SBO 7:189– 92; tr. Matarasso, 157–58). Augustine, De baptism contra Donatistas 4.22.29 (PL 43.175). Retract. 2.18 (Gustave Bardy, BA, Oeuvres de saint Augustin 12, Les révisions [Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1950], 482–83; Revisions, tr. Boniface Ramsey, WSA 1/2 [Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2010], 126). 1 Pet 1:22. Sacr. 1.9.7–8 (PL 176.317B–328B; Berndt, 209–22; tr. Feiss, above). Isidore, Etym. 7.14.6 (Thayer; penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Isidore/ home.html; tr.  Barney, et  al., 172). As  was explained in the introduction, much of what follows in Sacr. 2.6.8–15 is derived from Ivo of Chartres, Sermo 1 (PL 162.505–12). These extensive borrowings from Ivo’s sermon will not be indicated in the notes, but Hugh’s other sources will be. As noted above, at this point Hugh switches from a discussion of theological questions about baptism to a commentary on the elements of the rite of baptism. As will be clear, the description of baptism offered here, taken from Ivo, is very much like that in Alcuin’s Primo paganus. Isa 9:6. This is a play on “Jerusalem,” which was interpreted to mean “vision of peace”; Jerome, ­Heb. nom. (de Lagarde, CCSL 72, 50.9–10). Amalarius of Metz, On the Liturgy 1.8 (Knibbs, DOML 36, 76–85).

176 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77

78 79

80

81

82 83 84

85 86 87

88 89 90 91 92 93 94

H ugh of St   V ictor This sentence echoes the beginning of this paragraph. Isidore, Etym. 7.14.6 (Thayer; tr. Barney, et al., 172). Matt 28:19. Mark 16:16. Children, who might die suddenly. Isidore Etym. 6.19.55 (Thayer; tr. Barney, et al, 149). Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 1.42 (PL 161.1055). This image of salt as preventing decay reflects a society in which there was no refrigeration and perishable food was preserved by salt. “Sapientia,” wisdom, was derived from the participle of “sapere, sapio,” to taste or savor. This is another play on words: “spiritus” means breath or spirit, so one exhales the wicked spirit (the devil) and breathes in the Holy Spirit. For Sacr. 2.6.11 from here on, see Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 1.48–49 (PL 161.1056). Mark 7:14. John 1:33. “onus domini”: see Matt 11:30: “onus meum leve est” (“my burden is light”); 1  John 5:3. Hugh probably also has in mind Jesus’ admonition to take up one’s cross (in Matt 10:38, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23). Rom 6:3–4, slightly condensed. “Christian” meant “anointed” in Greek. As Hugh will explain in Sacr. 2.7.3 regarding confirmation, the priest here anoints on the top of the head with chrism to point forward to the bishop’s anointing with chrism on the forehead in the sacrament of confirmation. “vetustatis pannis”: literally, the “swaddling cloths of oldness.” Hugh likes to use the abstract nouns “newness” and “oldness” to describe the state of a person before and after baptism. For “novitas” of the baptized, see Rom 6:4 (baptism gives newness of life), 7:6 (newness of spirit after being freed from the law), 12:2 (newness of conduct). Rev 1:6: “fecit nostrum regnum sacerdotes Deo” (“he made us a kingdom, priests for his God”); 1 Pet 2:9 (“vos autem genus electum regale sacerdotium”; “you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood”). Matt 5:16. Matt 25:10. “patrini”: This word does not appear in dictionaries of classical Latin (e.g., Lewis and Short or the Oxford Latin Dictionary). It was in use by the seventh century (Ordo Romanus XI; Gregorian Sacramentary [PL 78.90]), and was used by Walafrid Strabo and Amalarius of Metz in the ninth century. For the rest of this paragraph, see Ivo of Chartres, Panormia, 1:78–82 (PL 161.1063–64). Eph 4:5. On the reconciliation of heretics through anointing or imposition of hands, see Paul Turner, Sources of Confirmation from the Fathers through the Reformers (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993), 85–92. For this sentence, see Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 1.92–93 (PL 161.1065). Matt 28:19. Matt 28:19. “offa”: a little ball made of flour (a dumpling?), and so a piece, lump, mass, swelling, ­untimely birth. Matt 28:19. John 3:5. A misprint in Berndt’s edition wrongly attributes this paragraph to Ivo’s Sermo 4, but gives the proper column and line numbers in the PL for Sermo 1.

CONFIRMATION

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 2.7: ON CONFIRMATION INTRODUCTION

New Testament Three New Testament texts indicate that a laying on of hands to impart the Holy Spirit followed baptism. Acts 8:4–20 describes how, after some Samaritans have received the Word of God, the deacon Philip baptizes them in the name of the Lord Jesus. Peter and John later go there to pray for them and lay hands on them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 19:1–7, after some of John the Baptist’s disciples are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, Paul lays hands on them and the Holy Spirit comes on them. Hebrews 6:1–6 distinguishes baptism from the laying on of hands. However, baptism also imparts the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 10:47). In these passages, the Holy Spirit is both person and gift. The gospels indicate that Jesus’ baptism by John and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him were closely connected but different events (Luke 3:21–23). Paul’s understanding of the Holy Spirit is complex. He does not clearly distinguish the steps by which a person is initiated into the Christian life and receives the Holy Spirit. He spoke of being sealed by the Spirit (Eph 1:13).1 The Second and Third Centuries As was indicated above, Tertullian who lived in the last half of the second century and the first half of the third, wrote the first treatise on baptism. He speaks of an anointing after baptismal immersion, followed by laying on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit. The Apostolic Tradition says that after the candidates are immersed in the water and declare their faith, they dry off and then the bishop lays his hand on them, invokes the Trinity, pours oil on their heads, and seals or signs their foreheads. Other second and third century authors 1

For this, see Bernhard Neunheuser, Baptism and Confirmation, tr. John Jay Hughes, Herder History of Dogma (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), 42–52.

180

H ugh of St   V ictor – C O N F I R M AT IO N

explain the effect of baptism as a rebirth, purification from sin, and illumination effected by the Holy Spirit. Like Tertullian, Origen writes of baptism as including both a water-bath and anointing with chrism. The Spirit received at baptism is the pledge of final resurrection. The Fourth and Fifth Centuries We know much more about the practice and theology of confirmation in the fourth and fifth centuries. In North Africa, the Donatists made the reality of baptism dependent on what they took to be the purity of the priest who confers baptism. Since they thought the Catholic Church was sullied by the sins of the clergy, or the clergy’s lax attitude toward sinners, they did not recognize Catholic baptism and (re-)baptized Catholics who converted to their version of Christianity. The Donatists elicited responses from Augustine, and before him, from another African bishop, Optatus of Mileve, who taught that the principal agent in baptism is not the minister or the recipient but the Trinity. In Milan, Ambrose wrote two treatises, On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments, according to which the water of baptism is empowered to purify and give spiritual grace, which does not happen without the Spirit or the cross and resurrection of Christ. He writes that, after the font, fulfillment or sealing is accomplished by the outpouring the Spirit with his seven gifts. “God the Father has sealed you, Christ the Lord has strengthened and confirmed you, and he gave the pledge of the Spirit in your heart.”2 The spiritual water-bath and the “seal of the Spirit” are different but they constitute a single illumination. Augustine who worked out the theology of infant baptism and the unrepeatability of baptism indicates that baptism and the imparting of the Spirit are closely connected. Baptism as he knew it in practice followed the sequence: water-bath, anointing with chrism, giving of white garment, and laying on of hands. He seems to have thought the laying on of hands was repeatable. Hence, for Ambrose and Augustine and their contemporaries, what a later period practiced as two clearly separate sacraments, baptism and confirmation, constituted then a single structure of sacred acts, one single act of initiation, which is 2

Ambrose, De mysteriis 7.42 (Faller, CSEL 73, 106: “acceptisti signaculum spirituale, spiritum sapientiae et intellectus, spiritum consilii atque virtutis, spiritum cognitionis atque pietatis, spiritum sancti timoris, et serva, quod acceptisti. Signavit te deus pater, confirmavit te Christus dominus, et dedit pignus, spiritum, in cordibus tuis [2 Cor 1:21–22], sicut apostolica lectione didicisti”; tr. Turner, Sources, 14, #7).

I ntroduction



181

called baptisma. According to the Mystagogical Catecheses attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, the water of baptism receives the power to sanctify from the invocation of the Holy Spirit. The anointing with chrism, that concludes the rite, sanctifies the soul with the Holy Spirit. He calls the whole process of water-bath and anointing, “baptism” and “seal” (sphragis).3 The Seventh Century and Carolingian Period The Gelasian Sacramentary and the Ordo Romanus XI provide information about the practice of adult baptism in the seventh century. Following a period of preparation during Lent, at the Easter Vigil, the font, which is the womb of rebirth, is blessed, and chrism is poured on the water. According to the Gelasianum, after immersion, the priest anoints the newly baptized with chrism on the forehead. Then bishop lays his hand on them, and signs them on the forehead with chrism. According to Ordo XI, the bishop goes back to his seat before confirming the newly baptized with chrism. The Spirit, present in the water because of the epiclesis, imparts new birth. Gregory the Great (d. 604), who had little hope for those who die before baptism, urged people not to put off baptizing their children. He decreed that when there is doubt about the validity of baptism, confirmation, or the consecration of the church, these rites are to be canonically performed. He says that bishops are proper ministers of confirmation, but in necessity priests can anoint the baptized on the forehead with chrism. In his book on Ecclesiastical Offices, Isidore of Seville (d. 636) devotes chapters to catechumens, baptism of adults and children, chrism, and “the imposition of hands or confirmation.”4 Alcuin (735–804) describes the anointing at baptism in the usual way. After the triple immersion, the priest uses his thumb to make the sign of the cross with chrism on the top of the neophyte’s head. If the bishop is there, he immediately confirms them with chrism. He clothes them with a white stole and prays over them, with his hand imposed over their heads, invoking the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit. Then, 3 4

This and the preceding paragraph are based on Neunheuser, Baptism and Confirmation, 107–60. The  preceding paragraph is based on Neunheuser, Baptism and Confirmation, 161–80. For Isidore, see De ecclesiasticis officiis, 2.21–27, tr. Thomas Knoebel, ACW 61 (New York: Paulist, 2008), 102–13 (PL 83.814B–826B). There is a critical edition, De ecclesiasticis officiis, ed. Christopher Lawson, CCSL 113 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), from which Knoebel made his translation.

182

H ugh of St   V ictor – C O N F I R M AT IO N

with his thumb he makes the cross with chrism on the forehead of each.5 Rhaban Maur (d. 856) explains the twofold anointing with chrism. The priest signs the baptized on the top of head with chrism, and the bishop signs them on the forehead with chrism. The first anointing signifies the descent of the Holy Spirit to consecrate the neophytes as God’s dwelling, the second confers the sevenfold grace of the Spirit with the fullness of holiness, knowledge, and power to preach the name of Christ with a free voice. These two anointings correspond to the twofold anointing of the Spirit that the Apostles received after the resurrection, once to forgive sins, and the other at Pentecost. As through baptism Christians are reborn in Christ, so they are then signed with the Holy Spirit who is the finger of God.6 Pope Gregory II (715–31) wrote Boniface in 762 that if someone has been confirmed by a bishop this must not be repeated.7 Canon 6 of the Council of Meaux (845) is almost identical with Hugh of St Victor’s comment about the need for bishops to fast before the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.8 Carolingian sources insist that only a bishop can sign the forehead with the chrism to bestow the Spirit on the baptized.9 The bishop makes chrism on Holy Thursday. In the Old Testament priests and kings were consecrated (anointed, made “christs”) with chrism. Now that Christ has been anointed true king and priest by his Father, this anointing consecrates the whole Church. Because Christians are a royal and priestly people, they receive the name of Christian.10 Hugh of St Victor This historical sketch of the development of the theology and practice of confirmation up to Hugh’s time makes clear how traditional his teaching was. He drew especially on Pseudo-Ivo’s Panormia and Amalarius’ On the Liturgy, but they conveyed to him a long tradition 5 6

7 8 9 10

Alcuin, On the Divine Offices, 19, translated from PL 101.1129 in Turner, Sources, 17–18, #16. Rhaban Maur, On the Institution of Clerics, 1.30: De impositione manus episcopalis et christmatis sacramento (De institutione clericorum, ed. Detlev Zimpel, Fontes Christiani 61/1, 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 1:202–12, where some of Rhaban Maur’s sources are indicated; PL 107.344–46; tr. Turner, Sources, 37–39, #58). This teaching entered the Codex Iuris Canonici via Gratian. See Turner, Sources, 50, #85. Turner, Sources, 60, #115. The text, too, entered the Codex Iuris Canonici via Gratian. Turner, Sources, 59–60, ##112–14. See Turner, Sources, 78–79, ##167–69.

I ntroduction



183

during which confirmation was gradually separated from baptism, largely because a bishop was required to administer it. Hugh begins with a paragraph on chrism, which was from early times associated with baptism and the giving of the Spirit. This enables him to connect confirmation with participation in Christ’s kingly and priestly roles. Later, he says the sending of the Spirit empowers the confirmed to proclaim the good news and, by implication, share in Christ’s prophetic office as well. The notion of participation is something Hugh discussed in his commentary on the Pseudo-Dionysius’ Celestial Hierarchy, and it plays an important role in his understanding not just of the being and goodness of things but in their function as signs and likenesses of God and God’s activities.11 Hugh treats anointing as a separate sacrament, for which he says the name “confirmation” is customarily used. In paragraph two, he lists the essentials of this sacrament as they had evolved to his time. The bishop, and he alone, signs the confirmand on the forehead with chrism and imposes hands on the candidate. These two gestures by the bishop were by Hugh’s time the key sacramental signs of confirmation. Hugh’s text seems to suggest that they were combined in a single gesture. The effect of the sacrament is to hand on the Spirit; here, unctio is traditio, an idea Hugh repeats at the end of paragraph three. In paragraph three, Hugh explains the origin of a double anointing with chrism: the priest anoints the top of the head with chrism; the bishop anoints the forehead. The confirmation that anointing brings is as important as baptism, and they are so connected that only death can separate them (paragraph four), because while baptism brings healing from sin, confirmation brings strength to stand up and act. Hugh does not seem to attribute any significance to the priest’s anointing of the top of the head other than to remind people how important it is, even perhaps necessary for salvation, to follow up baptism by a priest with confirmation by a bishop. Hugh recognizes that this double anointing with chrism was a later development and seems to connect it with the time when priests began to baptize in the absence of a bishop, from whom anointing was to be sought later. Thus, Hugh was aware not only of what current practice was, but also of the historical development that 11

See, for example, Super Ierarchiam Dionysii III–II (Poirel 447; PL 175.962A): “omne bonum a summo bono participatione multiplicatur et omne bonum ad summum bonum similitudine et conversione unitur” (“every good becomes multiple by participation in the highest good, and every good is united to the highest good by likeness and conversion”).

184

H ugh of St   V ictor – C O N F I R M AT IO N

lay behind it. In his insistence that those baptized seek confirmation, he seems to be motivated by pastoral concern. In paragraph five, Hugh mentions two practical elements in the reception of confirmation. Like baptism, it should never be repeated and it should be celebrated by those who are fasting. In the sixth paragraph, Hugh treats the question how long one should wait before washing off the chrism. Hugh’s discussion is a fine example of how he used his sources. In this case, his source was a chapter from Amalarius of Metz, On the Liturgy.12 Amalarius entitled his chapter, “For how long a time those who do not seek the imposition of the hand of bishops at the time of baptism but do so afterward ought to remain under the discipline of chrism.” Hugh retained most of the title, but he greatly reduced the text. In Berndt’s edition, Hugh’s six-sentence paragraph occupies twelve lines, whereas Amalarius’ discussion occupies 162 lines in Knibbs’ edition. In the first sentence, Hugh says, “certain ones ask” this question, whereas Amalarius says it is the “common people” (vulgares) who ask it. There is a hint of condescension in Amalarius’ vulgares that Hugh seems to have deliberately avoided. Although Hugh elsewhere can dismiss questions as frivolous, he takes this one seriously and thinks his educated readers should take it seriously also. Hugh’s second sentence is taken from Amalarius, but Hugh reverses the two “as long as” (tanto/ quanto) clauses. Then in the next four sentences, Hugh condenses all the rest of Amalarius’ text. Amalarius began, “non immerito” (“not unfittingly”), while Hugh begins “merito” (“fittingly”), a slight economy of words. What follows in each author is an explanation of how it is fitting that the newly confirmed leave the chrism on their foreheads for seven days. Amalarius explains that Christ went as a guest to the homes of seven women, each of whom prepared a meal on a separate day. Similarly, the Holy Spirit comes to human beings as a guest, and they should be good hosts. They should be repentant and exhibit the positive properties of balsam and oil that are the components of chrism. (Hugh mentioned these in his first paragraph.) Amalarius then inculcates unity, charity, and faithfulness, before speaking of seven virtues. Human beings should serve one of them on each of the seven days on which the Spirit dines with them. Amalarius takes his list of virtues from Bede’s Com12

On the Liturgy 1.40 (Knibbs, DOML 35, 348–61).

I ntroduction



185

mentary on the First Epistle of Peter. He ends with a discussion of love of God and love of neighbor. Like Amalarius, Hugh concludes by indicating how the grace of confirmation is to be lived out. In his very condensed version of Amalarius’ explanation, Hugh does not specify the gender of those who hosted the Christ, who came to them with seven companions, the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is fitting that each of these companions has its own day, so that the Spirit has as many dinners as Christ did. (Hugh may condense a bit too much here, unless he can assume that his readers know that Christ went to seven dinners.) By substituting the gifts of the Holy Spirit for Amalarius’ complicated list of virtues, Hugh is able to include a key element of the traditional understanding of what the Holy Spirit confers at confirmation.13 This enables him to end this paragraph with a concluding summary of its argument, which works also as a conclusion for the whole treatise.

13

Hugh comments on the gifts of the Holy Spirit several times; e.g., in the opsucula, De quinque septenis 1 (Baron, SC 155, 102–03; tr. Benson, VTT 4:361), and De septem donis Spiritus Sancti (Baron, SC 155, 120–33; tr. Benson, VTT 4:375–79).

186

H ugh of St   V ictor

TRANSLATION

1. Chrism and Its Uses We read in the Old Testament that the use of chrism was instituted already in ancient times. Then only kings and priests were anointed with it.1 The anointing of these persons prefigures that unique Anointed One who was anointed before all who participate in him,2 so that all who merit to be participants in him through anointing might share in the name. For “Christ” derives from “chrism,” and “Christian” from “Christ.” Hence, because all began to share the name, all were to receive anointing, because in Christ we are all a chosen race and a royal priesthood.3 Chrism is made of oil and balsam, because oil is a sign of the inpouring of grace, and balsam, of the fragrance of good repute.4 2. Only Bishops Celebrate the Imposition of Hands The imposition of hands is designated by the familiar name of “confirmation.” By anointing with chrism, the Christian is signed on the forehead by the imposition of hands. Only bishops, the vicars of the apostles, make this sign on a Christian and hand on the Spirit, the Paraclete, just as we read that in the primitive Church only the apostles had the power of giving the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands.5 3. Pope Sylvester Established that a Priest Anoints a Newly Baptized Person on the Top of the Head with Chrism We read in the deeds of the popes6 that Pope Sylvester established that a priest anoints the top of the head of a newly baptized person with chrism so that it would not happen that, because death intervened, a baptized person would depart this life without the imposition of hands, on account of the absence of a bishop or the difficulty of reaching one. That would be very dangerous, for just as in baptism one receives the remission of sins, so through the imposition of hands, the Spirit, the Paraclete, is given. There, grace is bestowed for the remission of sins; here, grace is given for strengthening (confirmationem). What good does it do to rise from a fall, if you are not made strong enough to stand? Therefore, one should fear lest those, who through negligence lack the presence of a bishop and fail to receive the imposition of hands, will be damned because of this, for they should have hurried when they could.7 For those who were prevented by the press of time, that anoint-

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 7



187

ing with sacred chrism was established, by which the priest immediately anoints the newly baptized on the top of the head, so that by this it may be shown how necessary this sacrament is for salvation and with what care all should beware of being taken from this life without it. It is clear, however, that in the earliest times all anointing with chrism was done by bishops alone. After it was established that a priest anointed the newly baptized on the top of the head, signing (consignatio) on the forehead was reserved to bishops only. Only a bishop can sign and anoint the forehead and hand on the Holy Spirit. 4. Whether the Imposition of Hands or Baptism Is the Greater Sacrament Regarding the sacrament of confirmation, that is, the imposition of hands, it is also asked whether it is a greater sacrament than baptism. As the sacred canons determine, both are certainly great sacraments and to be regarded with great reverence. Although one, that is, the imposition of hands, since only bishops can celebrate it, seems to be venerated with greater reverence, these two are so joined in the making of salvation that they cannot be separated unless death intervenes.8 5. The Imposition of Hands Must not Be Repeated, Just as Baptism Should not Be Repeated; It Is to Be Celebrated with Fasts It is determined that, as in baptism, so the sacrament of the imposition of hands is not to be repeated for any reason. If by chance that has happened, it is to be punished with a heavy penance. It is also established that the sacrament of the imposition of hands is not to be given or received except by people who are fasting, if those who receive it are of age. In this way, they will be pure when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Just as baptism, which is usually only celebrated at two times, namely Easter and Pentecost, is celebrated by people who are fasting, so it is fitting that the gift of the Spirit through the imposition of hands be celebrated by fasting prelates and people,9 except for those who are sick or in danger of death.10 6. How Long Those Who Receive the Imposition of Hands Should Be Under the Discipline of Chrism Some are accustomed to ask how long those who receive the imposition of hands apart from the time of baptism ought to keep the

188

H ugh of St   V ictor – C O N F I R M AT IO N

anointing of chrism on their heads, that is, not wash their heads. It is proper to answer them that anyone who receives it should celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit for as long a time as the Church generally celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, that is, seven days. This is fitting because there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit comes to the person who is its host with these seven companions. It is fitting that each one have its own day and a banquet be prepared for each one on its day. Wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear each have their day. Christ holds such banquets with those who host him, and the Holy Spirit does likewise.11

N otes



189

NOTES 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11

This translation is made from PL 176.459C–462C, with corrections and the sources provided by Berndt’s edition of De sacramentis, 387–99. Heb 1:9. 1 Pet 2:9. For Hugh’s discussion of chrism thus far, see Isidore, De ecclesiasticis officiis 2.26 (tr. Knoebel, ACW 61, 111–12). On the symbolism of chrism, see Amalarius of Metz, On  the Liturgy (Liber officialis or ­De ecclesiastico officio), ed. and trans. Erik Knibbs, 2 vols, DOML 35–36 (Cambridge, MA: ­Harvard University Press, 2014), 1:113–17. For this paragraph, see Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 1.116 (PL 161.1070C). Liber pontificalis, 34, ed. Louis Duchesne, 2 vols (Paris: E Thorin, 1886, 1892), 177, cited in De sacramentis (Berndt, 398n). See Amalarius of Metz, On the Liturgy 1.27 (Knibbs, DOML 35, 248–69). See Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 1.114 (PL 161.1069CD). See Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 1.119–20 (PL 161.1071A–1072B). For Hugh’s text, Migne (PL 176.462A) has “a jejunis pontificibus et a jejunis solum convenit celebrari” and that is what is translated here, but Berndt, 399, omits “et a jejunis” so that only the prelates fast. See Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 1.120 (PL 161.1071B). Amalarius, On the Liturgy 1.40 (Knibbs, DOML 35, 348–61).

THE EUCHARIST

THE EUCHARIST INTRODUCTION TO HUGH OF ST VICTOR’S TEACHING ON THE EUCHARIST

His Sources In his short preface to the De sacramentis, Hugh says that in this summa he has incorporated passages from his earlier works, sometimes making changes; he saw no reason to write anew of subjects he had already treated. This is true of his treatment of the Eucharist. In Sacr. 2.8.6–8, Hugh incorporates, with some changes, a discussion on the Eucharist from his commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius. In 2.8.14, Hugh incorporates passages from Remigius of Auxerre’s De celebratione missae. Elsewhere in De sacramentis, 2.3.12, the section on priests in the part entitled On Ecclesiastical Orders, Hugh draws on writings of Ivo of Chartres. In De sacramentis 2.9.9, which is a very brief commentary on parts of the Mass, Hugh draws again on Remigius of Auxerre.1 Outline One can divide the fourteen chapters of Sacr. 2.8 into seven units. I. The Eucharist, (1)

the source of all sanctification and once-and-for-all sacrifice,

(14)

is called the Mass.

II. The Last Supper: (2)

1

When was the Eucharist instituted?

Claus Ulrich Blessing, Christus de ore ad cor transit: die Eucharistielehre Hugos von St Viktor im Kontext seiner heilsgeschichtlichen Sakramententheologie und der dogmengeschichtlichen Entwicklung der Frühscholastik; mit einer Übersetzung seiner die Eucharistielehre betreffenden Texte, Deutsche Hochschuledition, 60 (Neuried: Ars Una, 1997), 25–35. I have drawn heavily on Blessing’s excellent study.

194

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

(3)

Was the body of Christ received at the Last Supper mortal or immortal?

(4)

Was the morsel of bread dipped in wine and handed to Judas the Eucharist?

III.

(5)

The Eucharist and the Passion: Christ the Paschal Lamb.

IV.

(6–8)

The Eucharist as figure, true reality, and spiritual grace.

V.

(9)

How is the change of bread and wine into Christ’s body to be understood?

VI.

(10–11) The significance of division into three parts of Christ’s body.

VII. (12–13) The Eucharist and the Incarnation. Christ’s presence and the appearances of bread and wine.

In this introduction, we will treat these seven units one by one, then attempt a synthesis. Hugh’s topics are somewhat disconnected and do not give a full theology of Eucharist. It will be possible to fill in some of the lacunae from other places in Hugh’s writings. I. The Eucharist, (1) source of all sanctification and a once-and-for-all ­sacrifice, (14) is called the Mass.

Hugh begins his treatment of the Eucharist with an affirmation of its unique and fundamental character. Along with baptism and confirmation it is what Hugh calls a principal sacrament. It is unique because from it all sanctification proceeds. From this sacrifice offered onceand-for-all (hostia2 semel… oblata) for the salvation of the world, all sacraments before and after it derive their saving power (virtutem). How, then, is this most important sacrament connected with the hostia of Christ, the saving passio Christi? In  his commentary on 2

For the meaning of hostia in classical Latin, Lewis and Short, Latin Dictionary, 867, give “animal sacrifice,” “victim,” and “sacrifice.” The word appears frequently in the Latin Bible, particularly in the Pentateuch and Hebrews, often in association with immolare and holocaustum. For hostia in medieval Latin, Blaise, Dictionnaire, 395, gives four meanings: (1) victim, offering of a body (e.g., a martyr); (2) spiritual offering (e.g., Heb 13:15: hostiam laudis, a sacrifice of praise); (3) the Eucharistic victim (e.g., Gregory, Hom. ev. 2.37.8 [PL 76.1279C]: Oblata a nobis hostia) and (4) the host, the physical bread consecrated at the Eucharist (e.g., the late seventh century Ordo Romanus 1; cf. Blaise, Lexicon, 445, and Niermeyer, Mediae latinitatis, 505, where several examples of this usage are given).

I ntroduction



195

The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Hugh refers to the Eucharist as hostia several times. In the first of these, he refers to the Eucharist as “a most divine sacrifice (hostia),” which makes those who share in it participators in the divine nature: The “Eucharist,” that is, “good grace,” namely that sacred sacrifice (hostia), is called “most divine” because it makes those who participate in it divine and sharers in the divinity.3

In a longer passage, where the word hostia appears four times, Hugh seems to be thinking primarily of Christ’s offering on the Cross, but it seems very likely that he had the Eucharist in mind as well. There are several indications of this Eucharistic reference: (1) in this longer quotation he uses terms (“good grace,” “most divine”) used in the previous quotation that explicitly mentions the Eucharist;4 (2) Hugh refers to the good and bad recipients also in his sententia De sacramento corporis; (3) “offered by us” suggests the offering of the Mass; (4) Hugh uses the plural hostias in a clearly Eucharistic passage elsewhere in De sacramentis.5 Here is the passage in the commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy: He calls “a most divine sacrifice” that divine illumination and grace and propitiation by which are purified and cleansed all those to be purified and saved not only from the corruption of evil, so that they become good, but also from the lack of good, so that they are better. This supreme offering and theletarchis, that is, the principal sacrifice (hostia) of purgation, namely that very divine grace which is offered to us and for us—offered to us for our purification and offered for our propitiation; offered to us so that we might have it, offered for us so that through it we may be pleasing; offered to us through infusion, offered for us through cleansing; offered to us when we begin to be what we were not, offered by us when we show and present what we are—this theletarchis, that is principle sacrifice (hostia) of purgation, and “most divine sacrament,” without which all holocausts (hostias) 3

4 5

Super Ierarchiam II–i (Poirel, CCCM 178, 442; PL 175.953C): “Ipsa autem ‘Eucharistia,’ id est ‘bona gratia,’ ipsa scilicet hostia sacra, ‘divinissima’ vocatur, quoniam divinos facit et participes divinitatis eos qui se participant.” Cf. 2 Pet 1:4: “efficiamini divinae consortes naturae” (“you are made sharers in the divine nature”). See Blessing, De ore, 84–85. Sacr. 2.3.12: (PL 176.492): “Accipiunt et calicem cum vino, et patenam cum hostiis de manu epsicopi, quatenus his instrumentis potestatem se accepisse agnoscant placabiles Deo hostias offerendi” (“They also receive the chalice with the wine, and the paten with the hosts from the hand of the bishop so that they may realize that with these instruments they have received the power of offering sacrifices pleasing to God”).

196

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

and sacrifices cannot have any effect or be beneficial, is that by which divine beauty, which perfects and makes perfect those who have been perfected “to it,” that is reformed in its likeness, that is, harmoniously, so they may not be discordant with it, “according to unchangeable formation,” namely “of the perfect to it,” that is, reformed according to its likeness, which once it is received they keep unchangeably so that they do not flow down from it. For divine beauty, which in itself is one and perfect, pours out itself and purifies and perfects those who are to be perfected in it through the offering (hostia) of purification, that is, the pouring out of its grace, which from its perfection pours itself out on account of those to be purified and to be perfected by their participation, according to the manner, measure, and capacity of each.6

Thus, in his commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius, Hugh has combined vocabulary referring to the Eucharistic offering with PseudoDionysius’ teaching on participation and illumination. Hugh uses hostia in the singular to refer to Christ’s offering on the cross and its sacramental re-presentation in the Eucharist, which Hugh calls oblatio summa, divinissimum sacrificium, teletargis, and principalis purgationis hostia. These conclusions are confirmed in two texts elsewhere in the De sacramentis where Hugh uses the term hostia. The first occurs in the De sacramentis 2.3.11, on the order of priests, part of which was translated above: They also receive the chalice with the wine and the paten with the hosts (hostias) from the hand of the bishop, so that they may realize that with 6

Super Ierarch. IV–iii, Poirel, CCCM 178, 499–500: “‘Divinissimum sacrificum’ vocat ipsam illuminationem divinam et gratiam et propitiationem; quo purgantur et emundantur purgandi omnes et salvandi non solum a corruptione mali, ut boni fiant, sed a defectu quoque boni purgantur, ut meliores existant. Ipsa ergo oblatio summa et theletarchis, id est principalis purgationis hostia, ipsa videlicet gratia divina quae nobis offertur et pro nobis offertur—offertur nobis ad purgationem, offertur pro nobis ad propitiationem; offertur nobis ut eam habeamus, offertur pro nobis ut per eam placeamus; offertur nobis per infusionem, offertur pro nobis per emundationem; offertur nobis dum incipimus esse quod non fuimus, offertur a nobis dum exhibemus et presentamus quod sumus—ipsa ergo theletarchis, id est principalis purgationis hostia, et ‘sacrificium divinissimum,’ sine quo omnes hostiae et sacrificia omnia nec effectum habere possunt nec prodesse, ipsum est quo divina pulchritudo perficit et perfectos facit eos qui perfecti facti sunt; ‘ad ipsam,’ id est, ad similitudinem ipsius formati, id est, concorditer ut ab ea videlicet non discrepent, ‘secundum immutabilem formationem,’ ipsorum scilicet ‘perfectorum ad ipsam,’ id est secundum similitudinem eius quam semel acceptam immutabiliter servant ut non defluant ab ipsa. Divina enim pulchritudo, quae in se una est et perfecta, perficiendos ad se per principalis purgationis hostiam, id est infusionem gratiae suae quam a sua plentitudine propter purgandos et perficiendos in participationem diffundit, purgat et perficit secundum uniuscuiusque modum et mensuram et capacitatem…”

I ntroduction



197

these instruments they have received the power of offering sacrifices (hostias) pleasing to God. To them it belongs to actualize the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord on the altar of God, pronounce prayers, and bless God’s gifts. Our Lord Jesus Christ performed this office when after the supper he changed bread and wine into his body and blood, and in dying instituted that his disciples would do the same thing in memory of his passion. He also manifested this when, excellently fulfilling this office, he himself as priest and sacrifice (hostia) offered himself on the altar of the cross for the sins of the human race and, entering the eternal holy place, brought peace between heaven and earth through his own blood.7

In another text from the last chapter of the treatise on the Eucharist in De sacramentis 2.8.14,8 which seems to be his own composition, Hugh declares that the holy sacrifice (hostia) can be called the Mass (missa), because it was transmitted (transmissa) to us by God so that God could be with us, and then is transmitted to the Father by us so that it can intercede for us. It was first given to us through the Incarnation and afterward to the Father by us through the passion.9 From these various texts where Hugh uses the term hostia, it becomes clear that Hugh identifies Christ offered on the cross with his Eucharistic body. All sanctification is from Christ’s sacrifice, and so from the Eucharist. This is the center point of all of salvation history, in which it is operative from beginning to end.10 7

8 9 10

PL 176.429CD; Berndt 354.16–24: “Accipiunt et calicem cum vino, et patenam cum hostiis de manu episcopi, quatenus his instrumentis potestatem se accepisse agnoscant, placabiles Deo hostias offerendi. Ad ipsos pertinent sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Domini in altario Dei conficere, orationes dicere, et benedicere dona Dei. Hoc officio usus est Dominus noster Jesus Christus, quando post coenam panem et vinum in corpus et sanguinem suum commutavit, ut in memoriam suae passionis idem facerent discipulos moriens instituit. Hoc quoque excellenter officium implens exhibuit quando ipse sacerdos et hostia seipsum in ara crucis propter peccata generis humani obtulit, et per proprium sanguinem sancta aeterna ingrediens coelestia et terena pacificavit.” This text and translation follow PL, which has moriens; rather than Berndt, 354.22, which has monens, but follow Berndt rather than the PL in reading ara instead of arca, and adding per before proprium sanguinem. In this passage, as Berndt’s apparatus indicates, Hugh is drawing on Ivo of Chartres, Decretum 6.20 (PL 161.449B). PL 176.472B. Super Ierarchiam, IV–iii (Poirel, 499; PL 175.993D): “ipsa videlicet gratia divina quae nobis offertur et pro nobis offertur.” Hugh’s teaching here anticipates that of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy: “It is liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, the work of our redemption is accomplished… The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the fount from which all her power flows… From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, grace is poured forth upon us as from a fountain, and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God to which all other activities of the

198

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

II. The Last Supper By Christ’s institution of a sacrament, something from the order of creation (simulacrum naturae) is raised into the order of redemption to become a sign of grace (simulacrum gratiae). Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper: (2) the lord jesus christ himself instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, when after the supper of the old pasch, transforming bread and wine into his body and blood by divine power, he gave it to the apostles to consume, and commanded that after this they do the same in his memory.11

As we have seen, institution by Christ is an essential element in Hugh’s definition of a sacrament. This passage also refers to a second essential element: representation by likeness. The passage also closely connects the institution by Christ and the mediation of the Church. Elsewhere, Hugh writes that God’s creating and saving works involve all the persons of the Trinity12 and that the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier and dispenser of the Sacraments, and that is the third element of Hugh’s definition of a sacrament: Likeness comes from creation; institution by arranging; and sanctification from blessing. The first is put in place by the Father; the second is added by the Savior; and the third is administered by the Dispenser.13

In contrast to the first two brief and dense chapters of his treatment of the Eucharist, Hugh’s third chapter (3) is quite lengthy and diffuse. The question is simple: at the Last Supper, did Jesus hand to his disciples his mortal or his immortal body? The question was rela-

11

12 13

Church are directed, as toward their end, are achieved with maximum effectiveness” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2 and 10 [tr. Austin Flannery, Vatican Council II. Volume 1: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents rev. ed. (Northport, NY: Costello, 1998), 1, 6]). As noted above, in Sacr. 2.9.9 (PL 176.475B–476D) Hugh cites a commentary on the Mass by Remigius of Auxerre, which goes through the spoken parts of the Mass and indicates when and by whom they were introduced. There, Hugh does not mention the Missa est. Sacr. 2.8.2 (PL 176.461D): “Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui ipse Dominus Jesus Christus instituit, quando post coenam veteris paschae panem et vinum in corpus et sanguinem suum divina potentia transmutans apostolis sumendum tribuit, et ut idem post hoc in memoriam sui agerent praecepit.” Sacr. 2.1.3 (PL 176.373BC). Sacr. 1.9.2 (PL 176.318C): “Ipsa similitude ex creatione est; ipsa institutio adiuncta per Salvatorem; tertia ministrata ex benedictione. Prima indita per Creatorem, secunda adiuncta per Salvatorem, tertia ministrata per dispensatorem.” Cf. Sacr. 2.1.2 (PL 176.371D): “Primum Filius venit ut homines liberarentur; postea Spiritus sanctus venit, ut homines beatificarentur.”

I ntroduction



199

tively new, having first been raised about 1100. Manegold of Lautenbach (c. 1030–c. 1103) held that at the Last Supper Christ offered his disciples his immortal body, that is, his body as it was after his Resurrection and Ascension.14 Others, such as Ivo of Chartres, taught that Christ gave his disciples his mortal body at the Last Supper and his immortal body to Christians after his resurrection.15 Alger of Liège argued that, since after resurrection Christ’s body bore the marks of his passion, it is no wonder if Christ offered his immortal and incorruptible body at the Last Supper. Like Hugh, Alger invoked the divine power as the agent effecting the presence of Christ’s risen body in the bread and wine of the Last Supper. Hugh does not think this is a very appropriate question; it is better to reverence the divine mysteries than to discuss them. To say that Christ handed over his immortal body carries the danger of obscuring Christ’s true humanity; just as to say it was his mortal body seems to call in to question the dignity of the sacrament. Christ offered his disciples the form of his body that he chose to offer them. Just as he chose to walk safely through the murderous crowd at Nazareth, so he could offer his disciples his immortal body at the Last Supper, even though he himself was then mortal. A further question (4) regarding the Last Supper is whether the morsel of bread dipped in wine that Jesus handed to Judas was the Eucharist. Augustine had said that Judas did receive the Body and Blood of Christ with the other apostles, but reception of Christ into oneself for a brief time did not guarantee reception into Christ.16 Hugh agrees with Augustine that Judas did receive the Body and Blood of Christ, before Jesus handed him the morsel of bread dipped in wine that indicated that Judas was the traitor. Here, Hugh may be arguing against Rupert of Deutz, who in his Commentary on the Gospel of John argued against Augustine and maintained that Judas did not receive the Body and Blood of Christ.17 14

15 16 17

Manegold of Lautenbach, Contra Wolfelmum Coloniensem 18 (PL  155.1661): “Licet ante resur­rectionem immortale tamen et incorruptibile potentia divina porrigitur, ut cum audis dominum ad coelos ascendisse, non ideo aestimes fideles suos tanto munere defraudari” (“Although before the resurrection the immortal and incorruptible was proffered, so that when you hear that the Lord ascended bodily to heaven, you will not therefore think that his faithful are deprived of so great a gift”). Anselm of Laon and Bruno of Cologne agreed with this position. See Blessing, De ore, 104. Ivo of Chartres, Ep. 287 ad Haimericum (PL 162.285C–286B). Augustine, Sermo 71.11 (PL 38.453). Rupert of Deutz, Commentaria in Iohannis Evangelium 11 (13:22–27), ed. Rhabanus Haacke, CCCM 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1969), 615–16; John Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz, Publications

200

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

So, as Blessing concludes, in chapters 2–4, Hugh teaches that, at the Last Supper, Christ established the Eucharist with divine might and empowered the Apostles to celebrate it. He offered his Body and Blood how he wanted, immortal, and to whom he wanted, including Judas.18 III. The Eucharist and the Passion: Christ the Paschal Lamb (5) In Blessing’s estimate, the highpoint of Hugh’s treatise on the Eucharist is chapter  (5), on the Paschal Lamb as Image of the Eucharist. The Paschal Lamb is an image of the Eucharist in two ways: the people ate it, and its blood was sprinkled on their doorposts. Hugh makes some typological identifications: Egypt is the world, the avenging angel (exterminator) is God, the Lamb is Christ, the blood of the Lamb is the Passion of Christ. The  house of the soul is the body, which is bathed with blood through acceptance (imitation) of suffering; the house of thoughts is the heart, which is bathed with blood through faith in the suffering of Christ. By these two we are protected inside and outside by the sign of the Cross, in which all of prior salvation history is completed. On his deathbed, Hugh received Communion, signed himself with a crucifix, and then kissed the wounds in Christ’s feet, like a child nursing at his mother’s breast.19 It was by his own free choice that Christ saved us from sin by the Cross. It is that free choice and the love that motivated it that saved us. He chose this way because it is the way we must go. God as man offered himself for humanity. He freely breathed out his spirit.20 Both his Passion and his Incarnation are sacraments of God’s humility.21 The Eucharist is both an offering (hostia)22 and a remembrance of the suffering of Christ (commemoratio passionis Christi). The Eucharist as hostia was discussed above in conjunction with the opening chapter

18 19 20 21

22

of the UCLA Center for Medival and Renaissance Studies 18 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984), 149–52, 166–67. Blessing, De ore, 110. Osbert of St Victor, Epistula de morbo et obitu Hugonis (PL 175.clxiiB). Sacr. 2.1.11 (PL 176.401B). Super Ierarchiam Dionisii, I-Prol. (Poirel, 410; PL 175.932A): “Propter hoc enim Deus in natura hominis conversari voluit, ut conversatio hominis in coelo esse (Phil 3:20) potuisset, et ob hoc ille humana sustinuit, ut divina iste cognoscere mereretur. Hoc est sacramentum humilitatis Dei, et sacramentum fidei, et sacramentum veritatis.” See the earlier comments on chapter (1).

I ntroduction



201

of Hugh’s treatise; the returning (reductio) of humanity to its Creator was perhaps the key element in Hugh’s understanding of offering. The Eucharist, because it is identified with the offering of Christ and the source of all salvation, involves the whole of the salvific work of Christ from the Incarnation to the Passion and Resurrection. In (14), Hugh explains that Christ came from the Father to us through the Incarnation and returns to the Father through his Passion. Hugh emphasizes the remembrance of the Passion, but the Mass is more than a remembrance and the remembrance embraces the whole work of Christ’s work of salvation.23 IV. The Eucharist as Figure, True Reality, and Spiritual Grace (6–8) The writings of the early Christian writers did not give a clear answer to the questions of how Christ is present in the Eucharist and how that presence comes about. Ambrose had written of the real presence of the Crucified Lord brought about by a change (metaballein),24 whereas Augustine referred to the Eucharist as a spiritual food and symbol (figura) of the suffering of Christ.25 These two emphases were not incompatible, but they led to several periods of controversy, one of which in the ninth century pitted Paschasius Radbertus against Ratramnus. Paschasius, in his Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, had accepted Ambrose’ identity of the sacramental and historical bodies of Christ, but he distinguished what truly changed (veritas) and what was seen externally (figura). Ratramnus insisted that the change from bread into the Body of Christ did not happen bodily, but spiritually.26 23

24

25 26

Blessing, De ore, 116: “Es wäre aber eine Reduktion der heilsgeschichtlichen Perspektive Hugos, wollte man sagen, die Messe sei nur Gedächtnis des Leidens Christi. Sie ist mehr als Gedächtnis und auch das Gedächtnis bezieht sich auf das ganze Wirken der Erlösers, besonders aber auf sein Leiden.” In Sacr. 2.3.2 (PL 176.429D), Hugh speaks of “in memoriam sui”; but in Sacr. 2.3.12 (PL 176.429D) and 2.8.14 (PL 176.472A), he narrows the focus to “in memoriam suae passionis” and “commemoratio passionis Christi” respectively. Ambrose, De Mysteriis 9.51–53 (Faller, CSEL 73, 110–13), argues that if the words and actions of the prophets could work miracles, and the Incarnation was an act that completely exceeded nature, the Eucharist could be the Body of Christ. Therefore (9.53, Faller 112.153–54): “Vera utique caro Christi, quae crucifixa est, que sepulta est, verae ergo carnis illius sacramentum est” (“The true flesh of Christ, which was crucified, which was buried, it is the sacrament of that true flesh”). For references, see Blessing, De ore, 118 n181. Ratramnus, De corpore et sanguine Domini, 16 (PL 121.134B): “Neque ista commutatio corporaliter, sed spiritualiter facta sit, necesse est iam ut figurate facta esse dicatur.”

202

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

The controversy that immediately influenced Hugh’s thinking in these chapters concerned Berengarius of Tours (c. 999–c. 1088),27 a teacher at Chartres and a pioneer in the application of dialectic to religious questions. He first taught at Tours and then became archdeacon at Angers, where he led an exemplary life. However, controversy arose over his views on the Eucharist. Around 1050, he wrote a letter to Lanfranc of Bec, questioning his adherence to the teaching of Paschasius Radbertus. He declared his own allegiance to Ratramnus and cited early Christian writings in support of his position. His letter reached Lanfranc in Rome. A council there condemned it. Several more councils condemned Berengarius’ theology of the Eucharist and King Henry I of France opposed him. However, Berengarius had the support of Count Geoffrey of Anjou. He was forced to make a declaration of faith in the Real Presence in Rome in 1059. He regretted that and published another treatise, which Lanfranc answered in a treatise that Berengarius then rebutted. Others entered the fray. Berengarius again went to Rome, where in 1079 he was forced to confess his errors. Back in France, he published an account of the proceedings in Rome and retracted his confession of errors. He had to recant again at a synod held at Bordeaux in 1080. At this point, he retired to an island near Tours and lived as a hermit in union with the Church. Berengarius raised a real issue and employed new tools in dealing with it. However, the controversy tended to narrow the focus to the very specific question of Christ’s presence, leaving aside the broader context of salvation, Incarnation, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the Mass as a whole. Starting from Augustine’s writings, he defined a sacrament as “divinae rei invisibilis signaculum visibile” and “invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma.”28 Emphasizing the symbolic character of the Eucharist, Berengarius insisted that the Eucharist is not without qualification, but only in a certain way, symbolically, the Body and Blood of Christ. The Body of Christ existed before the Eucharist, and so the Consecration could only result in a change in spiritual meaning. His critics often replied with extremely realistic rebuttals. Thus, Lanfranc reports that the Synod of Rome in 1059 required Berengarius to 27

28

For  earlier literature in German on this controversy, see Blessing, De  ore, 117 n178, and for other literature and sources, see Lanfranc of Canterbury, On the Body and Blood of the Lord, and Guitmund of Aversa, On the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, tr. Mark G. Vaillancourt, FOC, Medieval Continuation 10 (Washington, DC; Catholic ­University of America Press, 2009), xiii–xvi. Cited by Blessing, De ore, 119, from Josef Geiselmann, Die Eucharistielehre der Vorscholastik (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1926), 294 f.

I ntroduction

 203

reject the heresy to which he had hitherto adhered, “that tries to affirm that the bread and wine, which are placed on the altar, are after the consecration only as a sacrament and not the true body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, nor can they be handled and broken in a sensory way in the sacrament by the hands of priests or chewed by the teeth of the faithful.”29 The controversy with Berengarius led to the formulation of a distinction between substance and accidents, and then in the twelfth century to the term transsubstantiatio. New terminology referring to essentia and substance was introduced. Hugh himself contributed the term corporaliter. The adverbs sensualiter, naturaliter, and materialiter were also used occasionally to refer to the real presence. The use of the term corpus mysticum to refer to the sacramental Body of Christ was now suspect. It came to mean the Church, and the term corpus verum was used for the Eucharist. With this background in mind, we can now examine how Hugh of St Victor defined the symbolic character and real presence of the Eucharist. Hugh applied Augustine’s distinction between sacramentum and res sacramenti to the Eucharist and used as well a middle term that had been employed by Alger of Liège and the School of Anselm of Laon, res et sacramenti. He employed this terminology in the sententia De sacramentis corporis Christi: In sacramento corporis Christi tria sunt: sacramentum, veritas ipsius sacramenti, res sacramenti (In the sacrament of the altar there are three things: sacrament, truth of the sacrament, and reality of the sacrament).

In Super Ierarchiam Dionisii he uses different terminology: Sacramentum est species panis. Veritas est ipsum corpus Christi. Res veritatis, gratia et amor ipsius. (The sacrament is the appearance of the bread. The truth is the real Body of Christ. The reality of the truth is his grace and love.)

In writing of the veritas that is the very Body of Christ, Hugh is echoing the term used in the anti-Berengarian polemic: verum corpus, the real, true Body of Christ. This represents a shift from Augustine’s 29

Lanfranc, De corpore, 2 (PL 150.410D): “haeresim… quae astruere conatur panem et vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem solummodo sacramentum, et non verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, nec posse sensualiter in solo sacramento manibus sacerdotum tractari vel frangi aut fidelium dentibus atteri.” For an English translation of Lanfranc’s work, On the Body and Blood of the Lord, tr. Vaillancourt; this passage occurs on page 33, where Lanfranc is citing the profession of faith that Berengarius was required to make. For Lanfranc’s theology, see On the Body of Blood of the Lord, 18 (PL 150.430AD; tr. Vaillancourt, 66–67), and Vaillancourt’s introduction (6–11). Some of Hugh’s wording echoes Lanfranc’s.

204

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

use of the terms corpus mysticum to refer to the sacramental body, and verum corpus to refer to the Church. In the sententia, Hugh goes on to explain that dicitur res sacramenti respectu speciei panis, et sacramentum respectu gratiae et amoris ipsius Veritatis, id est veri corporis Christi (is said to be the reality in relation to the appearance of the bread, and to it as a sacrament with respect to the grace and love of that “truth,” that is, of the true Body of Christ).

Hugh has thus inserted a third term (veritas = res et sacramentum = real presence) between the two terms of the Augustinian duality, res et sacramentum. One result of this is that Hugh can now refer to the whole complex as a sacramentum: Nam cum unum sit sacramentum, tria ibi discrete proponuntur, species videlicet visibilis, et veritas corporis, et virtus gratiae spiritualis (For although there is one sacrament, three different things are presented there: namely, the visible appearance, the truth of the body, and the efficacy of the spiritual grace).30

In (8) Hugh refers to the species (appearance) as a similitudo ex creatione (“a likeness from creation”). A sacrament must appear to sense and lead reason to the spiritual reality at work. Hugh explains that Christ offered his body under the appearances of bread and wine, rather than of flesh, to obviate disgust at the idea of eating human flesh and to nurture faith. Hugh develops this explanation both in Sacr. 2.8.8 and in Misc. 1:34. A second reason Christ chose bread and wine is that they are familiar and basic forms of human nourishment and representative of all human food. Hugh does not make use of the idea that the bread is made from many grains, though he must have known the idea, nor does he develop here Jesus’ teaching in John 6: “I am the bread of life.”31 Here, Hugh’s emphasis is not on specific allegorical meanings, but on the order of Creation, which God has arranged to lead human beings through visible things to the invisible divinity of Christ. 30

31

Super Ierarchiam Dionisii, II–i (Poirel, 440; PL 175.952B). See Sacr. 2.8.7: “Tria esse in sacramento altaris: panis et vini speciem, corporis veritatem, gratiam spiritualem” (“There are three things in the sacrament of the altar: the appearance of bread and wine, the truth of the body, the spiritual grace”). See Hugh of St Victor, Vanitate (Giraud, CCCM 269, 191; PL 176.734A): “panis celi,” and In Threnos (McGuiness, 363; PL 175.289B): “Filii autem qui iam per gratiam in Christo adoptati sunt et Christum spiritualiter edere sciunt, non nisi tricium et vinum desiderant”.

I ntroduction



205

The background for Hugh’s thinking about the truth of the Body of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine is Berengarius’ theory of a “symbolic” presence, which Hugh wishes to refute. Berengarius had made use of Pseudo-Dionysius in defending his theories,32 so it is not surprising that in his Commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy Hugh’s undertook to refute Berengarius. Hugh’s criticism is uncharacteristically sharp and pointed. He refers to Pseudo-Dionysius’ writings as scriptura sacra, and accuses Berengarius and his followers of presumption, of falsely interpreting Pseudo-Dionysius’ text, of blindly offering error instead of truth.33 In response, citing Romans 4:25, Hugh says that the Body of Christ can be both similitudo (or exemplum, imago, or figura) and veritas. Those he criticizes have fallen into error because their understanding or insight (intelligentia) is inappropriate or faulty and so has kept them from a sana interpretatio. Hence, Hugh begins his refutation by employing reason rather than appeals to authority or Church teaching. The Eucharist is indeed a symbol, but it is also Truth as well. In including his argument against Berengarius from his Commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy in Sacr. 2.8, Hugh divided it into three chapters that unfold in three stages: reason shows that the Eucharist can be and is both sign and truth (6); faith declares that the Eucharistic sacrament has three aspects: species, veritas, and virtus (7); by Christ’s institution, the Eucharist is the real presence of the Savior (8). Inevitably, these chapters brought Hugh to the further question (9) that he did not discuss in his Pseudo-Dionysius’ commentary: V. How Is the Change of Bread and Wine into Christ’s Body to be Understood? (9) Hugh’s aim is to try understand what he believes, which is that “through the words of sanctification the true substance of bread and the true substance of wine are changed into the true body and blood of Christ; while only the appearance of bread and wine remains, substance 32

33

According to Blessing, De ore, 129, Berengarius made use of a passage in Eriugena’s Liber de caelesti hierarchia (PL 122.1039AB), which discusses how we are led to knowledge of spiritual things by means of physical ones and concludes: “Iesu participationis ipsam divinissimae E ­ ucharistiae assumptionem, et quaecunque alia coelestibus quidem essentiis ­supermundanae, nobis vero symbolice tradita sunt.” Berengarius could find further support in Eriugena’s Expositio super Ierarchiam caelestem S. Dionysii (PL 122.140C). Super Ierarchiam, II–i (Poirel, 438–39; PL 175.951B–952D).

206

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

changes into substance.”34 Hugh elaborates on this throughout the rest of the chapter (9). The “words of sanctification” are undoubtedly the words of institution. As Augustine wrote, and Hugh quoted in his treatise on baptism, “The word came to the element, and it became a sacrament.”35 Hugh used the word substance fairly often, but those usages do not suggest a precise meaning. The term had long been used with reference to the Eucharist. Berengarius connected substance and appearances in such a way that he did not think that a substance could change into another without the appearances changing. Neither he nor his opponents were able to use the Aristotelian distinction of substance and accidents as a tool to explain the mystery. Hugh devotes the rest of (9) to clarifying mistaken notions about the change effected in the bread and wine. The essence of the bread is not increased, but changed, nor does the Body of Christ coexist with the substance of the bread. The appearances of bread and wine do not have to inhere (inesse) in the substance of the Body of Christ. VI. When the Body of Christ Seems to be Divided, This Is Only According to Appearance; It Remains One in Itself, Whole in Every Part and Place (10–11) Hugh next considers two interrelated questions: what effect does the division of the Host into three parts have? how is the Body of Christ in so many different places? A text ascribed to Augustine had taught that only the sacramentum was divided, while the Body of Christ remained undivided in heaven and in the heart of the recipient. This was adequate as far as it went, but Berengarius forced further exploration. Hugh, drawing on the work of earlier opponents of Berengarius, taught that the heavenly and earthly body of Christ is identical with his Eucharistic body and the whole Christ is received in every piece of the Host. The solution to the question lies in the Omnipotence of the Creator by which Christ’s Body can be completely here and completely there.36 It is not a wonder that He who is wonderful works wonders. 34

35

36

Sacr. 2.8.9 (PL 176.468B): “Per verba sanctificationis vera panis et vera vini substantia, in verum corpus et sanguinem Christi convertitur, sola specie panis et vini remanente, substantia in substantiam transeunte.” Augustine, Jo. ev. tr. 80.3 (PL 35.1840); Sacr. 2.6.2 (PL 176.443B). This would rule out the idea broached by Amalarius of Metz, but later described as not traditional, that unconsecrated e­ lements could be consecrated by contact with consecrated ones. On this, see Blessing, ­De ore, 133–34 n269. Sacr. 3.8.11 (PL 176.469BC): “Ipse integer manet in se, nec dividitur, nec partitur… Si in diversis locis potest esse unus, quare etiam non in singulis partibus potest esse totus.”

I ntroduction

 207

What seems like a wonder to us is not a wonder in God’s eyes. God created both the Body and the place together, but if God wills, God can separate them. If by his free choosing God created everything from nothing, the understanding of fallen man is not in a position to say what God cannot do. VII. Eucharist and Incarnation: Christ’s Presence in the Appearances of Bread and Wine (12–13) What happens if a mouse consumes the Eucharist As was shown earlier in conjunction with (1), in De sacramentis 2.8.14, Hugh taught that the Eucharist is founded on the Incarnation. This idea has a very long history. According to Augustine, at the Last Supper when Jesus said, “This is my Body,” in a sacramental but real way he held himself. After the resurrection, he ascended and absented himself in his risen body. His body is received spiritually in the Eucharist. When Berengarius of Tour interpreted Augustine in a way that seemed to attenuate Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, his opponents emphasized his real, substantial presence, and began to speak of his bodily or corporeal presence. Hugh seems to have been one of the first to speak of Christ as present in the Eucharist corporaliter. Christ’s Incarnation began the time of grace, but grace (stemming from his Incarnation) was also actively present in the preceding times of natural and written law. The same grace of the Spirit that kept the human nature assumed by Christ free from sin also liberates the Christian from sin so that he may become united in the same nature to Christ his head.37 As Christ was present bodily on earth from the time of his Incarnation to his Ascension, so Christ is present for a time bodily in the recipient of the Eucharist, but in both cases that temporary bodily presence is for the sake of inviting human beings to Christ’s spiritual presence. In De sacramentis 2.8.12–13, Hugh considers what happens to Christ’s corporeal presence in the Eucharist after someone has received communion. Hugh is not especially interested in the question, but such are the thoughts of human beings, so he considers it. The question had been part of the theology of the Eucharist since the ninth century, usually 37

Sacr. 2.1.5 (PL 176.382BC): “Per eamdem quippe gratiam natura humana mundata est, ut Verbo Dei libera a peccato uniretur, per quam Christianus a peccato liberatur ut eidem naturae in Christo capite suo societur.”

208

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

in the form, “what happens if a mouse eats the Eucharist?” He tells his readers not worry about what happens to Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, but rather be worried about themselves. Hugh’s basic answer is that if something unworthy should happen to the body of Christ, it touches only the outward appearance (species), not the inner truth (veritas). The Eucharist is food for the soul, not for the body. Christ passes from the mouth to the soul, so do not think about the Eucharist in terms of bodily food. As at the Incarnation Christ came to be present with human beings in a bodily way to arouse them to seek and find his spiritual presence, so now he comes to people in his sacrament for a time to urge them to seek him spiritually and to help them find him.38 These are the fourteen chapters in Hugh’s treatise on the Eucharist in Sacr. 2.8. These chapters include no specific treatment of the minister, the recipient, and the effects of the Eucharist. However, these lacunae can be filled in from other parts of the De sacramentis. The Minister of the Eucharist It is clear from the Sacr. 2.8 that, according to Hugh, Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper and commissioned the Apostles to effect it. The sacrament is effected through the verba sanctificationis. Drawing particularly on Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres’ Panormia, Hugh elaborates the role of the priest.39 Bishops and priests (the latter are successors of the 70 disciples of Luke 10:1) are ministers of the sacraments, which include teaching as well as baptism and Eucharist. Eucharist and absolution require a special empowerment by which the minister can serve in Christ’s place. At his ordination, a priest is given a paten and chalice as a symbol of the power conferred on him. On the Cross, Christ was priest and sacrificial offering. The priest is tied to Christ through the celebration of the Eucharist as passio Christi. Hugh emphasizes the responsibility of the priest to be worthy of his office. 38

39

Blessing, De ore, 94–101, on whom this section is based, discusses the antecedents of these two chapters of Hugh’s treatise, particularly in writings from the school of Anselm of Laon, and the use and extension of Hugh’s ideas by the anonymous Speculum de mysteriis ecclesiae. Hugh’s writes “Sic ergo in sacramento suo modo temporaliter venit ad te, et est eo corporaliter tecum, ut tu per corporalem praesentiam ad spiritualem quaerendam exciteris, et inveniendam adiuveris.” The De mysteriis has “Sic ad te venit corporaliter, ut tecum maneat spiritualiter.” Taking Hugh’s “in sacramento suo modo” to mean “in the sacrament (sacramento) in its proper mode (suo modo),” Blessing notes that the Speculum leaves out the qualifying phrase “suo modo.” I am inclined to parse the phrase differently: “in his sacrament (sacramento suo) now (modo)”. On “corporaliter,” see de Lubac, Corpus mysticum, note E, 326–28. Sacr. 2.3.12 (PL 176.428A–430A).

I ntroduction

 209

As a valid baptism requires that the minister have a proper intention, so in the Eucharist the sanctifying words must be pronounced with the right intention and in a proper place and time. The celebration of the Sacrament is a rational act.40 This led Hugh’s contemporaries to a related question: can a schismatic, heretical, or otherwise unworthy priest consecrate the Eucharist? Some answered “No,” in part because of the near identity of the Eucharistic and Ecclesial Bodies of Christ. In line with a distinction made by Alger of Liège, Hugh distinguished the veritas of the sacrament and its utilitas. The Eucharist consecrated by a schismatic priest had the former but for him not the latter, though it could benefit others. The Eucharist aims at the unity of the Church, and it can do no good for a priest who celebrates the Eucharist but is estranged from the unity of the Church.41 On the other hand, Hugh and most of his contemporaries thought that an unworthy priest (e.g., a simoniac) could consecrate the Eucharist. However, Hugh who shared his Victorine successors’ zeal for priestly holiness insisted that priests should themselves be holy and examples to those to whom they ministered.42 The Recipient of the Eucharist In his Commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy, Hugh wrote that the most divine Eucharist “makes those who participate divine and participants of the divinity.”43 Hugh repeats this statement in De sacramentis, but adds the adverb “worthily” (digne).44 There is a clue to what this 40

41

42 43

44

Sacr. 2.6.13 (PL 176.460A): “Vide ergo et considera, quod rationale esse oportet opus ministerorum Dei, nec propter solam forman praeiudicare ubi intentio agendi nulla est.” This may be an allusion to the “Quam oblationem” of the Roman Mass, which just before the words of conscration asked God to deign to make the “oblationem ‘rationabilem’. ” As Blessing, De ore, 152–53, explains, Hugh is trying here to reconcile two different authorities. This leads to some complicated maneuvering, but this seems to be the gist of his argument. Hugh’s opinion anticipates that of Thomas Aquinas, Sum. theo. 3.82.7 (Caramello 3:512; tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 2:2509). Those who denied that schismatics could consecrate the Eucharist pointed out that the priest says “offerimus” (“we offer”), but if he is schismatic, he is not part of that “we.” This may refer to the commemoration of the living in the Roman Canon (“pro quibus offerimus”) or to the “Unde et memores” just after the consecration, which declares “offerimus preclarae maiestati tuae… hostiam puram… panem sanctum vitae aeternae.” Sacr. 2.11.13 (PL 176.506B); 2.3.12 (PL 176.430A). Super Ierarchiam, II–i (Poirel, 442; PL 175.953C): “ipsa scilicet hostia sacra, ‘divinissima’ vocatur, quoniam divinos facit et participes divinitatis eos qui se participant.” The Latin is noteworthy for the repetition of “divine” and “participate.” Note the reflexive verb “se participant.” Sacr. 2.8.8 (PL 176.468A): “ipsa scilicet hostia… divinos facit, et participes divinitatis eos, qui se digne participant.”

210

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

“worthily” means in the fifth chapter of Hugh’s treatise of the Eucharist: “Whoever eats, has the sacramentum, whoever believes and loves has the res sacramenti. The one who believes and loves, even if he cannot take and eat, is better off than the one who takes and eats, but does not believe or love, or if he believes, does not love.”45 Hugh elaborates on this is several places. For example, in the sententia De sacramento corporis he writes: “Both the good and the bad receive the true Body of Christ, the bad to damnation, the good for salvation. Only the good receive the res sacramenti, its love and grace, for salvation.”46 The Effects of the Eucharist The effects of the Eucharist are twofold: ecclesial and individual. Hugh seldom discusses them directly. However, drawing on what Hugh says elsewhere, Blessing is able to suggest what Hugh thought the Eucharist effected.47 Hugh defined the Church as “the body of Christ,”48 which indicates a close connection between the Eucharist and the Church. It was mentioned earlier that Augustine designated the Eucharistic Body of Christ as the corpus mysticism, and Jesus’ personal body as the corpus verum. In the wake of the controversy over Berengarius’ theology, the term corpus verum was applied to Christ’s personal body as present in the Eucharist. This tended to loosen the connection between the Eucharist and the Church. Thereafter, the idea of the Church as the Body of Christ was neglected until the twentieth century. Hugh lived during the time of transition toward the new emphasis on the Real Presence, but his theology is permeated by a sense that Christians form the one Body of Christ. The Eucharist vivifies that Body. In a chapter on the unity of the Church, Hugh wrote that after the times of the natural law and the Written Law, the Holy Spirit was sent as a remedy for the two evils of ignorance and concupiscence that befell humankind through Adam’s sin: 45

46

47 48

Sacr. 2.8.5 (PL 176.465C): “Qui sumit, sacramentum habet, qui credit et diligit, rem sacramenti habet. Melius ergo est illi, qui credit et diligit, etiamsi sumere et manducare non possit, quam illi, qui sumit et manducat et non credit nec diligit, vel si credit, non diligit.” De sacramento corporis Christi (Wilmart, 243): “verum corpus Christi, boni et mali accipiunt, sed mali ad damnationem, boni autem ad salutem. Rem vero sacramenti, amor et gratia ipsius, boni tantum accipiunt ad salutem.” See also Sacr. 2.11.11 (PL 176.498BC) and Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL 176.568CD). Hugh objects to communion by intinction because it reminds one of the Judas, who unworthily received Christ’s Body and Blood before Jesus offered him the bread dipped in wine (Sacr. 2.8.4; PL 176.464D). Blessing, De ore, 160–87. Sacr. 2.2.2 (PL 176.416B).

I ntroduction



211

The Spirit is given in fire so that humankind would have light and flame: light for knowledge, flame for love. Just as the spirit of man, by the mediation of the head, descends to vivify the members, so the Holy Spirit comes through Christ to Christians. Christ is the head; the Christian is the member. One head, many members. There is one body from the head and members, one Spirit in one body. Fullness resides in the head; participation in the members. If the body is one, and there is not one spirit that is in the body, it cannot be vivified, as it is written: Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ is not a member of Christ. There is one spirit in one body. Nothing in the body is dead; nothing outside the body is alive. We are made members through faith; we are vivified through love. Through faith we receive union; through charity we are vivified. Sacramentally, we are united through baptism and we are vivified through the Body and Blood of Christ. Through baptism we are made members of the Body of Christ, through the Body of Christ we are made participants in its life.49

Because this is so, Hugh can say, as was shown above, that the virtus or res of the Body of Christ is not present if the Eucharist is celebrated by a schismatic priest or received by an unworthy communicant, because in neither case does the Spirit effect the unity of the Church. In Hugh’s thinking, baptism is the sacrament of faith, which signifies and effects forgiveness of sin and makes the baptized members of the body of Christ. The effect of the Eucharist is vivifying love.50 Faith and love are the subjective side of these sacraments, membership and vivification are the objective side. These sacraments are constitutive of the Church. Hugh reserves the term incorporatio for the Eucharist, 49

50

Sacr. 2.2.1 (PL 176.415D–416A): “Propterea Spiritus in igne datus est ut lumen haberet, et flammam; lumen ad cognitionem, flammam ad dilectionem. Porro sicut spiritus hominis mediante capite ad membra vivificanda descendit sic Spiritus sanctus per Christum venit ad Christianos. Caput enim est Christus, membrum Christianus. Caput unum, membra multa, et constat unum corpus ex capite et membris et in uno corpore Spiritus unus. Cujus plenitudo quidem in capite est, participatio in membris. Si ergo corpus unum est, et spiritus unus, qui in corpore ipso non est, a Spiritu vivificari non potest sicut scriptum est: Qui non habet Spiritum Christi hic non est ejus (Rom 8:9). Qui enim non habet Spiritum Christi non est membrum Christi. In corpore uno spiritus unus. Nihil in corpore mortuum, nihil extra corpus vivum. Per fidem membra efficimur; per dilectionem vivificamur. Per fidem accipimus unionem; per charitatem accipimus vivificationem. In sacramento autem per baptismum unimur, per corpus Christi et sanguinem vivificamur. Per baptimum efficimur membra corporis, per corpus autem Christi efficimur participes vivificationis.” Blessing, De ore, 168, notes that A. Landgraf observed that Hugh departs from his predecessors when he distinguishes faith, which effects unio, from love, which effects vivificatio. If the Holy Spirit effects faith, then Hugh thought it is possible to have the Spirit without having love. Hugh also distinguished unio (established by baptism) and unitas (which the Eucharist deepens).

212

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

which deepens the life of love and unity. Hugh seems to be thinking of Augustine’s idea that, unlike ordinary food that is incorporated by the one who eats it, the Eucharist incorporates the one who eats it into the Body of Christ.51 In the Trinity, Father and Son are joined in unitas; in Christ, the divine and human nature are joined in unio.52 Faith establishes unio, and charity is the unitas of the Church.53 The mixing of water and wine during the Mass had long been seen as a symbol of the unity of people with Christ. Following Ivo of Chartres, Hugh interprets this ritual differently, as a reference to the Blood and water flowing from the side of Christ,54 which symbolized the sacraments, especially Eucharist and baptism.55 Another symbol of the connection of the Eucharist and the Church was the fraction of the host into three parts, one of which was put into the chalice.56 As we have seen, Hugh devotes an entire chapter of his treatise on the Eucharist to the fractio. He interprets the first particle as symbolizing the Head. The second part is the members who have already followed him to heaven. The third part symbolizes those members who still live amid suffering, that is, the Church on earth. In advancing this interpretation, Hugh reflects his era’s growing interest in eschatology and in the spiritual significance of suffering. His interpretation is still very ecclesial insofar as it embraces the whole communion of saints in their relationship to Christ. Although Hugh mentions purgatory elsewhere, he does not include it in his interpretation of the three parts of the host. Others would soon take that step.57 Hugh also discussed the effects of the Eucharist in the individual. From Pseudo-Dionysius, he learned to think of participatio divinitatis in an individual and mystical way. Blessing distinguishes three princi51

52 53 54 55 56 57

Augustine, Conf. 7.10.16 (O’Donnell, 82; PL 32.742; tr. Chadwick, 124): “Non me in te mutaberis, sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutaberis in me,” to which Hugh refers in Sacr. 2.8.5 (PL 176.465B). Sacr. 2.1.12 (PL 176.412BC). Sacr. 2.13.11 (PL 176.544A). Sacr. 2.3.9 (PL 176.425D); Ivo of Chartres, Sermo 2 (PL 162.515CD). Sacr. 1.6.36 (PL 176.284D); cf. Archa Noe 1.5 (Sicard, CCCM 176, 25; PL 176.630C), Libellus 9 (Sicard, CCCM 176, 154; PL 176.6990B). Sacr. 2.8.10 (PL 176.468D–469A). The fraction rite is still part of the Roman Mass, but in breaking the host into three parts, the priest puts a small piece of the host in the chalice. Sacr. 2.16.5 (PL 176.590C); Speculum de mysteriis ecclesiae 7 (PL 177.373B); Robert of Melun, Quaest. de ep. Pauli, In I Cor. (Martin, 211, cited in Latin by Blessing, from the original edition of De Lubac, Corpus Mysticum, 352, and translated in the English edition, 288): “tres partes Ecclesiae, quarum una triumphat, altera militat, tertia in poenis purgatorii est”; (“[The body of Christ is divided into three parts because of] the three parts of the Church, of which one is triumphant, one is militant, and the third is in the pains of purgatory”). De Lubac discusses the evolution of interpretation of the three parts of the fraction rite in Corpus Mysticum, 266–301.

I ntroduction



213

pal themes in which the Eucharist and the Christian’s spiritual life are connected in Hugh’s thought: the strengthening of virtue, participation in God, and union of the soul with God in love. In his Commentary on Lamentations, Hugh distinguishes four ways in which one can eat Christ: when we receive his body and blood physically in the Eucharist and so nurture our souls, when we love in faith, when we follow Christ, and when through hearing God we cross over to a new way of life.58 According to Hugh, the reception of the Eucharist is meant to lead to the res or virtus of the sacrament. Res seems to have an objective emphasis and connotes the social effect of the unity of the Church, while virtus has a more subjective emphasis and connotes the effect in the individual recipient, which moves him on the way to eternal life. Virtus of course has an ethical meaning, which Hugh summarizes as the health and wholeness of the rational soul.59 The reference to health recalls what Hugh said about the sacraments as medicine and a passage in De sacramentis, where he describes the sinner as sick, wounded by evil inclinations (vitia), for whom God is the physician, gifts of the Holy Spirit are antidotes, and virtues are healings.60 The  Eucharist and other sacraments promote integritas virtutum, from which follow works of mercy and love.61 Thus, Hugh writes that three things have been necessary at every stage of salvation history: faith, the sacraments of faith, and good works.62 The second link in Hugh’s thought between the Eucharist and Christian interiority is participation in the divine nature. God has made human beings so that no good besides Him, the highest good, can satisfy the human heart. This Augustinian idea Hugh combines with Pseudo58

59 60

61

62

In Threnos (McGuiness, 364; PL 175.289C): “Quatuor autem modis Christum comedimus. Christum comedimus quando corporaliter sacramentum corporis et sanguinis eius sumendo spiritualiter animas nostras saginamus. Christum edimus quando Christum credendo diligimus. Christum edimus quando Christum imitamur. Christum edimus quando verbum Dei audiendo in nove vite conversationem transimus.” Sacr. 2.13.2 (PL 176.526D): “Virtus enim quasi quaedam sanitas est et integritas animae rationalis.” Sacr. 2.13.2 (PL 176.527A): “Homo igitur in peccatis iacens aegrotus est, vitia sunt vulnera, Deus medicus, dona Spiritus sancti antidota, virtutes sanitates, beatitudines gaudia. Per dona enim Spiritus sancti vitia sanantur. Sanitas vitiorum integritas est virtutum”; Quinque ­septenis 1 (Baron 102; tr. Benson, VTT 4:361). Archa Noe 4.8 (Sicard, 106; PL 176.674D): “Hic perfectus est, qui diligit quod credit, ut habeat fidem operantem ex dilectione, quae mundum vincit (Gal 5:6; 1 John 2:17)” (“Someone is perfect, if he loves what he believes, so that he has faith working from charity, which conquers the world”). Sacr. 1.9.8 (PL 176.328A): “Tria sane sunt quae ab initio sive ante adventum Christi, sive post ad salutem obtinendam necessaria fuerunt, id est, fides, sacramenta fidei, et opera bona.”

214

H ugh of St   V ictor – T H E E U C HA R I S T

Dionysius’ teaching about participation in the godhead or in Jesus, the highest Light and the highest Beauty, a participation that the Eucharist fosters;63 in the worthy reception of his flesh, participation in his divinity is given as well.64 Those who receive the hostia worthily, receive the fruit of the passio Salvatoris.65 The Holy Spirit whose gifts the Eucharist bestows is the bond between the Father and Son; into that relation the recipient of the Eucharist is invited. One receives a foretaste, or betrothal gift, a preliminary share in the love that is the Trinity.66 The third way Hugh describes the connection between the Eucharist and the Christian inner life is inhabitatio. God dwells in souls according to their capacity. When the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in someone, the Father and Son come as well.67 Christ came in the flesh through the Incarnation, now he comes in the flesh sacramentally in the Eucharist, and proceeds from the recipient’s mouth to his heart. With Eucharistic overtones, Hugh writes that we are blessed with the example and teaching of good people, who bring us wisdom and discipline; we have these delights in the house of God outside, but also those special banquets by which Mother Grace feeds interiorly.68 “God is love and whoever abides in love abides in God and God in him. Listen! Do not think any longer that it is a small matter if you have charity. Listen! God is charity. Is it a small matter to have God dwelling in one? To possess love is something great, for God is love… Whoever has love is no longer alien from God, because he is in God and God dwells in him.”69

63 64 65 66 67 68 69

Super Ierarchiam, II–i (Poirel, 438, 440–41; PL 175.951BC, 952D–953A). Super Ierarchiam, II–i (Poirel, 442; PL 175.953D): “in carne eius digne sumpta ipsius etiam divinitatis susceptio, et participatio, et consortium condonantur.” Sacr. 2.11.11 (PL 176.498BC). On this, see the Arrha, 78 (Sicard, Oeuvres 1, 280–83; tr. Feiss, VTT 2:227–28). See above, p. 111. Sacr. 2.1.13 (PL 176.413D–415A). Vanitate (Giraud, CCCM 269, 166–67). De laude caritatis (PL 176.974B–975BC, with quotation from 975BC; tr. Harkins, VTT 2:165): “Deus caritas est, et qui manet in charitate in Deo manet, et Deus in eo (1 John 4:16). Audi, homo, et ne amplius parum reputes si charitatem habes. Audi quod Deus charitas est. Nunquid parum est Deum in se manentem habere? Tantum est charitatem possidere, Deus enim charitas est… quicumque illam habet, non jam alienus est a Deo, se ipse in Deo, et Deus in eo manet.”

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 2.8: THE SACRAMENT OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST TRANSLATION

1. Its Excellence The sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is one of these in which salvation principally exists, and among them all it is unique because from it is all sanctification.1 This sacrifice (hostia) offered once for the salvation of the world gives power to all sacraments that precede or follow it, so that from it they sanctify all who are to be freed through it. 2. When Was the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood Instituted? The Lord Jesus Christ himself instituted the sacrament of his Body and Blood when, after the supper of the Old Passover, he changed bread and wine into his Body and Blood by divine power, gave it to his apostles to receive, and commanded that after this they do the same in memory of him.2 3. Whether Christ Handed Over His Mortal or His Immortal Body to His Disciples at the Supper? Some are wont to ask which body of his the Lord Christ handed over to his disciples, that is, the passible or the impassible,3 the mortal or the immortal, and other things that pertain to this question. For myself, I think in this matter (as I have stated regarding others) that the divine secrets are to be venerated rather than discussed. I think this is sufficient for the simplicity of faith, if we say that he gave what kind he wanted, and he knew what kind he gave. He gave what he wanted because he was omnipotent and capable of everything that he wanted. He knew what he gave because he was Wisdom and could not be unaware of what it was. Hence, one frees oneself from the question, and stands on safer ground (in semetipso subsistit), if one does not say that

216

H ugh of St   V ictor

he gave his mortal body and so does not seem to speak against the dignity of the sacrament, nor says that he gave his immortal body so that one is not thought to believe contrary to the truth of the mortal body that was in Christ before the Resurrection. Perhaps for this reason it is better that we presume to specify neither, although we believe one of them to have been the case. Therefore, let it not be said that it was a case of this or that one, although one believes that it was one of them. However, if one has to choose one of them, then, without prejudice to the truth, then I incline more strongly to the opinion that says he handed over his impassible and immortal body, namely, insofar as it pertains to the sanctification of the sacrament. However, if anyone thinks one should object that before the resurrection Jesus Christ bore a mortal body, we also profess that the Lord Jesus was indubitably mortal according to the humanity assumed. If we did not believe it was mortal, we would deny that he died. Therefore, the human nature in Christ was mortal, but by choice, not by necessity. Because his human nature, pure of every sin through grace, was joined to the Word of God into the unity of Person, it was made free from all necessity and debt of death, so that, because it had no sin, it owed nothing to death.4 By his own choice, he took up mortality because he wished to take up death. If he had not taken up death, he obviously could not have died. Thus he freely bore mortality, until he tasted death and so put off mortality. Because he was mortal by choice and not by necessity, before he had completely taken it off through death, when the meaning and order of time demanded it, he sometimes partially took off that property of mortality when he chose to and not by necessity, and again when he chose received it back. So, he proved in this that, insofar as he sustained it [death], it was not out of necessity, for the one who thus had the power not to have it, insofar as he chose, was able not to undergo it at all. One reads in the gospel that when the Lord Jesus Christ preached the word of life and invited to life those who were mortal and going to die, zealous enemies who were not able to conquer him by reason wanted in their fury to kill him. Therefore, as if on one who had nothing more than what is mortal, they laid their hands on him and led him to a ridge of the mountain so that they could throw him off.5 For his part, to show that he indeed was mortal, he allowed himself to be taken, but to show that he bore mortality and passibility willingly and not out of necessity, he did not undergo being thrown off. When he was held to

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 8



217

be led off, he patiently bore it, but when he was to be thrown off, he left, passing powerfully through their midst. To the extent he willed, he was held; and to the extent he willed, he was not held. To the extent he wanted, and when he wanted, he accepted the nature of mortals, but to the extent and when he was unwilling to accept it, he removed it from him by his power. It says, passing through their midst, he went away. Do you think that, when they held him, Christ withdrew from the hands of his enemies by fighting, so that passing freely through their midst he went away? Is it strength of body alone that should be praised in him, and not the power of the deity? That is not fitting. He showed himself in the form he wished, accepting for himself as much as he wanted, since he bore it freely. If, therefore, Christ, according to the divinely arranged plan, took off the nature of mortality before he was going to conquer it once and for all, and he sometimes partially set it aside for a time, and again, when the occasion required it, took it up, what wonder is it, if it is said that sometimes for the cause and reason pertinent to a particular time, he set aside completely that in which nevertheless he was still to suffer when the occasion demanded it? If it could happen that he took himself in his hands and distributed himself to his disciples to be eaten without any corruption to himself, but nevertheless the one who gives is the one who is given, the one who carried and the one who was carried were the same, what wonder is it then if it is said that he was mortal insofar as he gave and was immortal insofar as he was given, and nevertheless he who as mortal gave and he who as immortal was given were not two but the same one? How was he not given as immortal who is received invisibly and eaten without corruption? It is as regards the proper form of his body that I say he was received invisibly, not as regards the appearance of the sacrament. He is received invisibly because, in what was received, what he was was not seen. Christ was received, but only the appearance of bread and wine was seen. Therefore, I say that he was received invisibly, and what he was was not seen. If in that he gave, what he was was seen, and if in what was given what he was was not seen, and even if in that in which he gave he was taken and crucified, and in that which was given he was broken and not divided, eaten and not corrupted, why are you surprised that in that he gave he is said to be mortal and in that which was given he is proclaimed immortal and impassible? These things are said in this way so that no one makes a hasty judgment about what lies hidden.

218

H ugh of St   V ictor

4. Whether Judas Received the Body of Christ in the Dipped Morsel of Bread? They also ask whether one should believe that it was the body of Christ that he handed in the dipped morsel to the one who betrayed him. It says, when he had dipped it, Jesus gave the bread to Judas, son of Simon, the Iscariot.6 However, as Blessed Augustine says, “it was not, as some careless readers think, that Judas received the Body of Christ. It is to be understood that he had already distributed the sacrament of his body and blood, where Judas himself was present, as St Luke most clearly relates.7 And then it came to this point, where according to the narration of John he most clearly indicated his betrayer through the morsel that he dipped and offered. Perhaps by dipping the bread he signified a fiction, for not all things that are dipped are washed, but some are dipped to be dyed. However, if this dipping signifies something good, the subsequent condemnation of the one ungrateful for that good was not undeserved.”8 These are the words of Blessed Augustine regarding the query whether Judas received the body of Christ in the morsel of bread. However, because the Lord gave his betrayer a dipped morsel to point him out, custom has it that the faithful do not receive the body of Christ by intinction.9 5. That the Paschal Lamb Was a Figure of the Body of Christ Just as in the past circumcision took the place of baptism in regard to the effect of remission of sin,10 and the Red Sea11 presented a likeness and figure of the same, so the Passover Lamb, whose flesh was eaten by the people12 and by whose blood the doorposts of their houses were marked,13 was a preceding figure of the Body of Christ. However, after the truth (veritas) came, the sign was taken from its central place, because no longer was the truth that it signified still to come but now was perceived as present. The figure remained as long as the reality was not yet. What was afterward to be fulfilled in truth was first shown in likeness. Egypt stands for the world, the destroyer for God,14 the lamb is Christ, the blood of the lamb is the passion of Christ, the house of the souls is bodies, and the house of thoughts is hearts. We dye the latter with blood through faith in the passion; we dye the former through imitation of the passion, placing the sign of the cross within and without against hostile forces. Finally, we eat the flesh of the lamb, when by

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 8



219

receiving his true body in the sacrament we are incorporated in Christ through faith and love. In other cases, what is eaten is incorporated, but when the flesh of Christ is eaten, not what is eaten but the one who eats is incorporated into him whom he eats. Therefore, Christ wished to be eaten by us in order to incorporate us into himself. This is the sacrament of the body of Christ and the reality of the sacrament of Christ’s body. Whoever eats and is incorporated has the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. Whoever eats and is not incorporated has the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament.15 Similarly, someone who is incorporated, even if he does not happen to eat, has the reality of the sacrament, though he does not have the sacrament. Whoever receives has the sacrament, whoever believes and loves has the reality of the sacrament. Hence, it is better for someone who believes and loves, even if he cannot receive and eat, than for him who receives and eats, but does not believe or love or, if he believes, does not love. 6. That the Sacrament of the Altar Is Both Figure as Regards the Appearance of the Bread and Wine, and Reality in Regard to the Truth of Christ’s Body There are some who think to draw support for their error from certain passages of the Scriptures, saying that it is not the truth of the body and blood of Christ that is in the sacrament of the altar, but only its image, appearance, and figure.16 They say this because several times Scripture says that what is received in the Eucharist of the altar is an image or appearance of what is received in participation in Jesus Christ. People will not fall into this trap of error, if they receive the sacraments of God with right and humble faith and treat the Scriptures with suitable intelligence. Now, however, because in the sacraments of God they give their thinking preference over the faith, they disdain to keep a healthy form of interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. And so it happens that the Word of truth makes them even blinder, while understanding wrongly serves error instead of truth. This is not a failing of Scripture, but the blindness of those who read and do not understand; it is not confusion in the sacraments of God, but the depravity of presumptuous people. Here, they stray dangerously from so many clear statements and indubitable assertions, preferring certain ambiguous ones, and in these choosing falsehood rather than truth, not because this is what is more spoken there, but because this is more believed by them.

220

H ugh of St   V ictor

What then? Is the Sacrament of the Altar not truth because it is figure? Likewise, is the death of Christ not truth because it is a figure, and is the resurrection of Christ not truth because it is a figure? The Apostle clearly declares that the death and resurrection of Christ are figure, and image, and likeness, and sacrament, and example, when he says, Christ has died for our sins and risen for our justification,17 so that dead to sins we might live to justice. And the Apostle Peter says, Christ has died for us, leaving you an example so that you may follow in his footsteps.18 Therefore, the death of Christ was an example so that we might die to sin, and his resurrection was an example so that we might live to justice. Was it therefore not truth? Christ did not truly die, and he did not truly rise if his resurrection was not true. Unthinkable! It is written of him, truly he bore our infirmities, and he bore our sorrows.19 Therefore, the death of Christ was true and was an example. His resurrection was true and was an example. Why, then, can the sacrament of the altar not be a likeness and a truth, in one respect a likeness and in another a truth? 7. There Are Three Things in the Sacrament of the Altar: The Appearance of Bread and Wine, the Truth of Christ’s Body, and Spiritual Grace Although there is one sacrament, three distinct things are presented there: the visible appearance, the truth of the body, and the power (virtus) of spiritual grace. The visible appearance that is visibly seen is one thing; the truth of the body and blood, which is believed invisibly under the visible appearance, is another; the spiritual grace, which is received with the body and blood invisibly and spiritually, is still another. What we see is the appearance of the bread and wine; what we believe under the appearance is the true body of Christ, which hung on the cross, and the true blood of Jesus Christ, which flowed from his side. We believe not just that the body and blood are signified through the bread and wine, but that the true body and the true blood are consecrated under the appearance of bread and wine, and that the appearance is the visible sacrament of the true body and blood, and that the body and blood are a sacrament of spiritual grace. Although the appearance is seen there, whose substance is not believed to be there, so the reality, whose appearance is not seen, is believed to be truly and substantially there.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 8



221

The appearance of the bread and wine is seen, the substance of the bread and wine is not believed; the substance of the body and blood of Christ is believed, but their appearance is not seen. Therefore, what is seen according to appearance is sacrament and image of what is believed according to the truth of the body, and what is believed according to the truth of the body is a sacrament of what is received according to spiritual grace. The Sacrament of the altar and divine Eucharist in the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is an image according to the appearance of bread in what is seen and is a reality according to the truth of its substance, in what is believed there and is received (percipitur).20 And again, what we now receive visibly according to the appearance of the sacrament and corporeally according to the truth of the body and blood of Christ, Christ on the altar, is a sacrament and an image because we must receive into our hearts the very same thing invisibly and spiritually according to the inpouring of grace and participation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the most divine Eucharist that is handled on the altar according to the appearance of bread and wine, and visibly and corporeally as regards the truth of the body and blood of Christ is a sacrament and sign and image of the invisible and spiritual participation in Jesus, which is perfected interiorly in the heart through faith and love. 8. Why Did Christ Establish the Sacrament of His Body and Blood in the Appearance of Bread and Wine? The Wisdom of God, which makes herself known by visible things, wished to show that she21 is the food and refreshment of souls, and so she presented the flesh assumed as food to invite through food of the flesh to taste of the divinity. However, lest human weakness be horrified at contact with the flesh in assuming it,22 he veiled it with the appearance of a familiar and basic food. He set it forth to be received in such a way that sense is nourished in one, and faith is built up in the other. Sense is nourished in the one, when it perceives something familiar and customary. Faith is built up in the other, when in what one sees one recognizes in it what it is that one does not see. The appearance of bread and wine is set forth to teach that, in the receiving (assumptione) of the body and blood of Christ, full and perfect nourishment is found from the divinity of Christ. Food and drink are complete nourishment. Bread and wine are the principal substance of food and drink. The appearance presented is that of the basic substance of nourishment, so

222

H ugh of St   V ictor

that in it is received, and through it is signified the truth of the body and blood of Christ. He himself testifies to this when he says, my flesh really is food and my blood really is drink.23 That the reception of the body and blood alone without spiritual effect does not confer salvation, the Savior himself makes clear when he says, the flesh profits for nothing; it is the spirit which gives life.24 Therefore, the appearance of the bread and wine signifies the power and fullness of spiritual refreshment that resides in the body and blood of Christ. However, in the reception (perceptione) of grace, it is perfected by the inpouring of internal and eternal refreshment. So, there are there three things in one. In the first one is the sign of the second, and in the second the cause of the third, but in the third are the power of the second and the truth of the first. These three are in one and the same sacrament. It is clear, therefore, that the reception (assumptione) of the most divine Eucharist is a sacrament and image of participation in Jesus, because his sacrament that we receive (percipimus) visibly is a sign that we must be united to him spiritually. The Eucharist itself is a good grace. It is itself called the sacred, most divine sacrifice,25 because it makes those who worthily share in it divine and participants in the godhead. Because it is sign and truth in which the flesh of Christ is truly received under the appearance of bread, in the worthy reception of his flesh there is given also (condonatur) reception of, and participation and fellowship in his divinity. Therefore, it is most divine and most holy, making holy all things that make holy or are holy. 9. How One Should Understand the Change of the Bread and Wine into The Body of Christ Through the words of sanctification, the true substance of the bread and the true substance of the wine are turned into the true body and blood of Christ; only the appearance of bread and wine remains (remanente), while substance passes over into substance. One is to believe that the change is not by way of union, but by way of passing over, because nothing happens to the essence by way of increase so that through what approaches that to which it approaches becomes larger. It happens by a transition so that what approaches is made one with that which it approaches. Nor do we say that the body of Christ is consecrated in the bread in such a way that from the bread the body of Christ receives its being, nor that, as it were, a new body is suddenly

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 8



223

made from the changed essence, but rather that the essence is changed into the true body. Nor do we say that because it has ceased to be what it was, the substance of the bread and wine has been reduced to nothing, but rather that it is changed because it has begun to be something else that it was not before, and what it has begun to be it did not receive because it was bread. It received its being when it ceased to be what it was. We have spelled this out very expressly for those who by their reason have made a prejudicial judgment regarding the faith and, approaching with their own opinion, try to assert either that this is only what is seen or such as is believed, that is, because only the appearance of bread and wine is seen, only the substance of bread and wine is there, or because it is believed that the substance is the body and blood of Christ, the appearance and quality of the bread and wine that are seen adhere tangibly in it, as if the visible shape (species) could not appear if its substance were not present, or the substance whose form did not appear could not remain hidden. 10. What Do Those Three Portions that Are Made of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament Signify? Those three portions, which are made of the body of Christ on the altar, have a mystical significance. The body of Christ is the universal Church, namely the head with the members, and there are found in this body, as it were, three parts of which the whole body consists. The head is the head and likewise part of the body. Therefore, the head itself is one part of the body. Another part of the body is in those members who already have followed the head and are one with the head wherever the head is. As it is written, Wherever the body is, there the eagles will gather.26 These are those who have already left this life, whose bodies rest in their graves, while their souls are with Christ. These are another part of the body. These two parts are, as it were, together, namely, the head and this other part of the body. For this reason, the two parts are kept separately outside the chalice, as though outside the passion. The head himself, now immortal and impassible, rose from death no more to die. Likewise, the saints who have gone out from this life and are now in glory and rejoice with their head, awaiting the resurrection of their flesh and its immortality, now feel neither pain nor suffering. And these two parts are outside the chalice and outside suffering, because these earlier things have passed away.27

224

H ugh of St   V ictor

The third part is put in the chalice, signifying those who still live in suffering, until they too go out from this life and pass to their head, where they will no longer die or suffer.28 11. That When the Body of Christ Is Seen to Be Divided, It Is Only Divided According to Appearance, but in Itself It Remains Whole, so that It Is Whole in Each of the Parts, and One and the Same in Different Places When you see the parts in the sacrament on the altar, do not think that the body of Christ is, as it were, divided or separated from itself, or, so to speak, dismembered. It remains intact in itself, and is not divided or distributed. It was, however, necessary that what pertained to the mystical significance be shown to you in appearance. Outwardly, he shows you the appearance in which your thinking is instructed, while interiorly he maintains the integrity of his body whose unity is not divided. One part is seen and it seems to be a part, but it is completely there. Another part is seen and seen to be, as it were, another part, but it is identical and complete. And if the third part is likewise seen, it is identical and whole. It is complete here and complete there, not less in the part than in the whole, not greater in the whole than in the part. However many parts you make, he is whole in each. Do not be astonished; this is a work of God. If he can be one in different places, why can he not also be whole in each part? Each is marvelous, but not false because it is marvelous. It is true that it is wondrous, but not so wondrous, because it is a work of God. It is not wondrous if the Wondrous does wondrous things. How is it, you say, that one body can be in different places at the same time? It is here; it is there. It is totally in both, and in many places besides. Do not be astonished. The one who made place, made the body, and the place in the body and the body in the place. The one who made it that one body be in one place, made it as he wanted. If he had wanted, he could have done it otherwise. When he wants, he makes it otherwise; it is always as he wants it. Because he made it such that one body would be in one place, you see what has been done, and you do not know anything else except what you see has been done. Therefore, you marvel when you see or hear something different from what you have usually seen and heard. He, however, does not marvel when he makes something different from what he has usually done, because when he makes it, he knows it, and he knows then that

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 8



225

he could have made it otherwise if he had wanted to. So, when you begin to marvel and perhaps you think, how can this be, think of the One who does it, and whatever it is, it will cease to be wondrous. Or, if by chance it has not ceased to be wondrous, it will at least not be incredible. If you take into account the all-mighty Maker, whatever it is will not be impossible. 12. The Things in the Body of Christ that Seem Unworthy Occur Only with Reference to Appearance If sometime it should happen, as in fact it does happen, that you see some things occur in this sacrament that seem to be less than worthy, do not be horrified. This happens only to the appearance. It29 shows you the appearance; it keeps the truth for itself. It shows to your senses the likeness of bodily food so that your perception may be instructed through everything in it. It keeps the truth of inviolable and immortal nature in regard to the body, so it is not corrupted in what pertains to it. But if in some way it departed from likeness, and displayed itself there, it would not be a true sacrament. If it presented itself there, it would take away the opportunity for faith and would not longer be believed. It would be seen, which ought not happen. Therefore, in regard to us it maintains in everything the likeness of corruptible food, but it nevertheless does not lose, in regard to itself, the truth of the inviolable body. It seems to be corrupted, but it remains incorruptible. It seems to be affected or blotched, but it remains inviolate. It permits these things to happen to it, lest our senses perceive something strange, but it does not incur these things in itself, lest its incorruptible nature lose its integrity. Such is the dignity and purity of Christ’s body, that it cannot be affected by any corruption or blotched by any stain. Therefore, if sometime you see these things happen, do not be afraid for it, but be concerned about yourself. He cannot be hurt; you can be harmed because you can believe wrongly. 13. What Happens to the Body of Christ and His Corporeal Presence After the Reception of the Sacrament? But perhaps your thinking again says to you, what about the body of Christ after it has been received and eaten? Such are the thoughts of people, and scarcely do they want to be at peace especially in these things that should not be inquired into. Therefore, your heart says to you: What happens to the body of Christ after it is received and eaten?

226

H ugh of St   V ictor

Listen then! Are you asking about the bodily presence of Christ? Look for it in heaven! There, Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father. He wished to be with you for a time, when and as long as it was necessary. For a time, he showed you his bodily presence in order to alert you to his spiritual presence. Therefore, he came to you corporeally and for a time he showed you his bodily presence so that through this you would find his spiritual presence that would not be taken away. Thus, through the flesh assumed he formerly came into the world, and according to his bodily presence he lived with men for a time to arouse them to seek and find his spiritual presence. After that undertaking had been completed, he withdrew in regard to his bodily presence and remained in regard to his spiritual presence. To show that he had not withdrawn in his spiritual presence, when he arranged to depart in his bodily presence, he said, behold I am with you all days until the consummation of the world.30 Therefore, he comes to you in his sacrament now temporally, and he is in it with you bodily in such a way that through his bodily presence you may be moved to seek and helped to find his spiritual presence. When you hold his sacrament in your hands, he is with you bodily. When you receive it in your mouth, he is with you bodily. When you eat and taste it, he is with you bodily. In summary, he is with you bodily by sight, touch, and taste. As long as your senses are affected bodily, his bodily presence is not taken away. After bodily sensation ceases to be perceived, his bodily presence is no longer to be sought, but his spiritual presence is to be retained. The arrangement is finished, the sacrament completed, the power remains; Christ passes from the mouth to the heart. It is better for you that he go31 into your mind, rather than into your stomach. This is food of the soul, not of the body. Do not seek in it what is usual in bodily food. He comes to you to be eaten, not to be consumed. He comes to be tasted, not to be incorporated. Augustine heard a voice from heaven, because this could not be said to him or answered by those of earth: “I am the food of grownups. Grow up and you will eat me, not that you may change me into you, like the food of your flesh, but that you will be changed into me.”32 Therefore, differentiate wisely what in God’s sacrament is shown to sensation, and what is adapted to the spirit, even if, as usually happens, after having finished receiving you sense something again. In this, too, the appearance serves what is proper to sensation so that the truth of the likeness may be preserved in every respect. For, if in some respect in what should be shown to the senses the likeness was deficient,

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 8



227

doubtless the sacrament would not be there, but the reality itself would be presented and manifested by an evident miracle, which is not fitting as long as faith has a place. So, if after these things you seek the bodily presence of Christ, seek it in heaven! Seek there, where he was before he began to be with you bodily through the sacrament and from where he did not depart when he came to you. 14. That the Celebration of the Consecration of the Body of Christ is Called the Mass and When and by Whom the Mass Was First Instituted and Why It Is Called the “Mass” The celebration of the Mass is enacted in commemoration of the passion of Christ.33 He himself commanded the apostles, handing to them his body and blood and saying, Do this in commemoration of me.34 It is said that, at Antioch, Peter the Apostle was the first of all to have celebrated this Mass. In that Mass, at the beginning of the faith, only three orations were said, beginning from the place where its says, “Therefore, [Father accept] this offering”;35 the rest were added afterward at different times by the Holy Fathers.36 It is called “Mass” (missa), as in “transmitted” or “transmission,” because the faithful people transmit prayers, pledges (vota), and offerings to God through the ministry of the priest, who takes the place of the Mediator between God and man. The sacrificial offering (hostia) can also be called “Mass” specifically because it is first transmitted from the Father to us to be with us, and afterward from us to the Father to intercede with the Father for us; first, from the Father to us through the Incarnation, and afterward, to the Father from us through the Passion; and now, in the Sacrament first from the Father to us through sanctification, by which he begins to be with us, and afterward, to the Father through offering (oblationem), by which it intercedes for us. Alternatively, as some think, it may be called “Mass” from the sending out (emittendo), because at the time when the priest begins to consecrate the body of the Lord, the catechumens are sent outside.37 After the reading of the gospel, the deacon calls out: “If any catechumen is present, let him go outside.” Catechumens should not be present at the sacred mysteries, which are entrusted only to baptized Christians,38 just as it is written about some who bear the pattern (typum) of catechumens and not yet of the reborn, Jesus did not entrust himself to them.39

228

H ugh of St   V ictor

NOTES 1

2 3

4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18 19 20 21

This translation is based on the Latin text in Claus Ulrich Blessing, Christus de ore ad cor transit. Die Eucharistielehre Hugos von St Viktor im Kontext seiner heilsgeschichtlichen Sakramententheologie und der dogmengeschichtlichen Entwicklung der Frühscholastik. Deutsche Hochschuledition  60 (Neuried: Ars Una, 1997), 219–53, which corrected the version of that in PL 176.461C–472C. See also Rainer Berndt, ed., De sacramentis Christianae fidei, CV (Münster: Aschendorff, 2008), 400–12; On  the Christian Faith, tr.  Roy  J. Deferrari, ­Mediaeval Academy of America Publication 58 (Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1951), 304–15; Über die Heiltümer des christlichen Glaubens, tr. Peter Knauer, ed. Rainer Berndt, CV (Münster: Aschendorff, 2010), 442–55. Luke 22:14–20; 1 Cor 11:23–26. “passible” and “passibility” are rare English words meaning “able to suffer.” Their Latin roots have a somewhat wider meaning, “able to be altered or impacted,” including “able to suffer.” It seemed best to use these Latinate English words for their Latin cognates. The  subject of “pure” and “joined” and “made free” is feminine and so must be “natura humana,” which I  take to be the subject also of “owed” and “had,” though the subject of these two verbs might be the Word of God, which must be the subject of the next sentence. Luke 4:28–29. John 13:26–30. Luke 22:19–23. Augustine, Jo. ev. tr. 62.3, Willems, CCSL 36, 484; cf. Luke 22:14. On intinction (receiving consecrated bread dipped in consecrated wine and presented on a spoon) in the Eastern Churches, see in Pratiques de l’eucharistie dans les Églises d’Orient et d’Occident (Antiquité et Moyen Âge), I:  The  Institution, Collection des Études Augusti­ niennes, Série Moyen Âge et Temps modernes 45 (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2009), Catherine Jolivet-Lévy, “Images de l’Euchastie dans les monuments Byzantins,” 166– 72, and André Binggeli, “Les stylites et l’Eucharistie,” 432 n33. Intinction is now a permitted, but seldom used, practice in Catholic Churches of the Roman Rite. Cf. Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 1.12.3 (PL 176.349A–351B; tr. Deferrari, 188–90). Exod 14:22. Exod 12:7–8. This reference to the sprinking of blood on the doorposts (et sanguine postes domorum signabantur) is omitted in Blessing’s edition. exterminator: one who expels or one who destroys. Hugh seems to be thinking of the avenging angel (Exod 12:23,  27). The  term is used in Judith 8:25 and 1  Cor  10:10, both with reference to Num 21:5–6. Berndt’s edition and Knauer’s translation have “devil” (diabolus) instead of God (deus). On this notion of the Eucharist as incorporating the recipient into the Body of Christ, see Godfrey of St Victor, Sermon for Easter, Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 1002, near the end. The idea comes from St Augustine, Sermo 227 (PL 38.1099–1101; tr. Hill, WSA 3/6, 254–56), Sermo 272 (PL 38.1246–48; tr. Hill, WSA 3/7, 297–98), and Conf. 7.10.16, cited at note 32 below. This paragraph and the next two (Sacr. 2.8.6–8) are identical with Hugh’s Super Ierarchiam Dionisii, II–i, Poirel, CCCM 178, 438–42 lines 746–853. Rom 4:25; cf. 5:8–9; 1 Cor 15:3. 1 Pet 2:21. Isa 53:4; Matt 8:17. percipere: to receive or to perceive. Hugh seems to take advantage of this twofold meaning in this chapter. For “sumere” that Hugh uses for “receive,” see below. Sapientia (wisdom) is feminine in Latin and so I have left it that way in English.

N otes 22

23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33

34 35 36 37 38 39



229

This is the first of several occurrences of ad-sumere/assumptio in this chapter. I have translated them literally because of the connection Hugh makes. The flesh assumed by the communicant is the flesh of the homo assumptus, Hugh’s preferred way of describing the humanity of Christ united to the Second Person of the Trinity at the Incarnation. John 6:56. John 6:64. Hugh reverses the two clauses. hostia: in classical Latin, a sacrifice. By Hugh’s time, the word was also used to refer to the bread of the Eucharist, the host. The same word is used in Sacr. 2.8.1; see the introduction to Sacr. 2.8 above. Matt 24:28; Luke 17:24, 37. priora transierunt: cf. 2 Cor 5:17: vetera transierunt. This is a place where Hugh could have mentioned the souls of the dead still undergoing purgation. Like Blessing, I take sacramentum to be the subject of the sentences that follow. Matt 28:20. Correcting, as Blessing does, the PL’s ea to eat. Conf. 7.10.16: “Cibus sum grandium: cresce et manducabis me. Nec tu me in te mutabis sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutaberis in me” (O’Donnell, 1:82; PL 32.742; tr. Chadwick, 124). Hugh’s source for this chapter is the Explanation of the Mass by Remigius of Auxerre (PL 101.1246–71). Remigius (c. 841–908) was a Benedictine monk, who taught at St Germain in Auxerre, at Reims (c. 893) and at Paris from 900 on. He wrote glosses on a number of classical and Christian writings. Luke 22:19. “Hanc igitur oblationem.” Pseudo-Alcuin, De divinis officiis, 40 (PL 101.1246–47). Pseudo-Alcuin, De divinis officiis, 40 (PL 101.1246). Isidore, Etym. 6.19.4 (Thayer; tr. Barney, et al., 146). John 2:24. One misses here the idea of being sent forth to live and proclaim the gospel.

HUGH OF ST VICTOR: TWO SENTENTIAE ON THE EUCHARIST INTRODUCTION

1. Miscellanea 1.34: On the Sacrament of the Body of Christ This brief sententia1 is very closely related to a passage in Hugh of St Victor’s commentary on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of PseudoDionysius. There, we read: The Wisdom of God, which shows itself through visible things, wishes to show that he is the food and refreshment of souls. For that reason, he set forth the flesh assumed as nourishment, so that through the food of the flesh, he might invite to the taste of the Godhead. But, lest human weakness be horrified again at the contact with the flesh in its reception (in assumptione), he veiled it under the appearance of an ordinary and principal food, and thus set it forth to be received in such a way that sense might be nurtured in one, and faith edified in the other.2

Hugh seems to be making a play on words when he uses the phrase contactum carnis in assumptione. The body of Christ is “the flesh assumed” by the Word, and in the Eucharist one receives (assumit) the flesh assumed. The reference to faith at the end of the passage also seems to be deliberately ambiguous: receiving the Eucharist brings grace and strength to the believer’s faith, but also, because the presence of Christ’s body is veiled, it exercises that faith to believe in what, if it were visible in itself, would no longer be a matter of faith. This passage is also very close to the wording of the opening of De sacramentis 2.8.8, which also depends on Hugh’s commentary on 1 2

Misc. 1.34: De sacramento corporis Christi (PL 177.492C). Here translated from Blessing, De ore, 244–45. Hugh of St Victor, Super Ierarchiam Dionisii II–i (Poirel, CCCM 178, 441; PL 175.953A): “Voluit enim Sapientia Dei, quae se per visibilia manifestat, ostendere quoniam ipsa animorum cibus et refectio est. Et proptera carnem assumptam in edulium proposuit, ut per cibum carnis ad gustum invitaret divinitatis. Sed, ne rursum humana infirmitas contactum carnis in assumptione horreret, consueti et principalis edulii specie illam velavit, et sic sumendam proposuit ut sensus in uno foveretur, et fides in altero edificaretur.”

T WO S E N T E N T IA E O N T H E E U C HA R I S T



231

the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius. Hugh must have thought that this was a good summary of several key ideas and so used it several times. 2. Sententia. On the Sacrament of the Body of Christ This brief sententia3 treats two topics that Hugh of St Victor discusses at greater length in the De sacramentis. The first, regarding the three aspects in the Eucharist—sacramentum, veritas sacramenti, and res sacramenti—Hugh treats in his commentary of the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius, where he uses the terms species visibilis, veritas corporis, and virtus gratiae spiritualis.4 This terminology appears in De sacramentis 2.8.7. In De sacramentis 2.8.5, Hugh discusses in different terms the difference in effect of the sacrament depending on whether it is received worthily or not.

3 4

André Wilmart, “Opuscules choisis de Hugues de Saint-Victor,” RBen 45 (1933): 243. See Sicard, Iter Victorinum, BV 24, 287. Here translated from Blessing, De ore, 244. Hugh of St Victor, Super Ierarchiam II–i (Poirel, CCCM 178, 440–42).

232

H ugh of St   V ictor

TRANSLATIONS

1. Misc. 1.34 To show that his divinity is the refreshment of our souls, Our Lord Jesus Christ places before us as food his body, and again, lest human infirmity be horrified to receive it, he veiled it with the appearance of ordinary food.1 2. Sententia, on the Body of the Lord These are the three things in the sacrament of the body of Christ: the sacrament, the truth of the sacrament, and the reality (res) of the sacrament.2 The sacrament is the appearance of bread; the truth is the very body of Christ; the reality of the truth is its grace and love. Note that the truth of Christ’s body, that is, the true body of Christ, is itself said to be the reality of the sacrament with respect to the appearance of the bread, and a sacrament with respect to the grace and love of Truth himself, that is, of the true body of Christ. In other sacraments, there are two elements; for example, in baptism there is the sacrament, that is, the washing with water, and the reality of the sacrament, that is, the remission of sin. Good and bad alike receive the sacrament and its truth, that is, the true body of Christ, but the bad receive it to damnation and the good to salvation. Only the good receive to their salvation the reality of the sacrament, that is, the true body of Christ, a reality that is his love and grace. The sacrament of faith is a [matter of] faith for those who receive it without understanding it.

N otes



233

NOTES 1

2

This text is translated from Blessing, De ore, 244–45, who took it from PL 177.492C. See Blessing, De ore, 29; Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession, 158–59, 213. The text is found in several early manuscript collections of Hugh’s sententiae. See Sicard, Iter Victorinum, BV 24, 341–42. This brief text (sententia) was edited by A. Wilmart, “Opuscules choisis de Hugues de SaintVictor,” RBen 45 (1933): 243; see Sicard, Iter Victorinum, BV 24, 462–63. It is found in two twelfth-century manuscripts between Hugh’s De septem vitiis and the De quinque septenis. See Blessing, 29–30 (discussion) and 244 (text and German translation).

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE INTRODUCTION TO HUGH OF ST VICTOR ON THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE

Hugh’s understanding of marriage is profoundly influenced by the writings of St Augustine. Hence, the first topic in this introduction is St Augustine’s thought about marriage. Hugh read Augustine’s writings in a very different milieu from that of the Bishop of Hippo. Augustine lived when the Roman Empire was in decline; Hugh lived in a time of renaissance and renewal. Augustine’s experience and thought made it difficult for him to imagine a marriage as a companionship of equals. Hugh was influenced by Augustine in his thinking about the spiritual society formed by marriage, but he was much more optimistic about the possibility of friendship and communion between spouses, whose free consent to their union was what constituted a marriage. After considering Augustine’s thinking about marriage, this introduction will sketch the milieu in which Hugh wrote. Hugh’s thinking on marriage will then be synthesized under the following headings: definition, institution and minister, sacrament, functions, sexuality, marital affection, and holiness. Augustine on Marriage Philip Reynolds, whose study of Augustine is the basis of this section, divides Augustine’s treatment of marriage under three headings: spiritual union, remedy, and sacrament.1 The summary that follows is very condensed, but tries to respect the developments that occurred in Augustine’s thinking on marriage.2

1 2

Philip Lyndon Reynolds, Marriage in the Western Church: The Christianization of Marriage during the Patristic and Early Medieval Periods (Boston: Brill, 2001), 241–311. David Hunter, “Marriage,” in Augustine through the Ages, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 535.

238

H U G H O N ST V IC T O R – M A R R IAG E

Marriage as a Spiritual Union Augustine, followed by Hugh of St  Victor, taught that marriage could be a spiritual union without sexual intercourse.3 In Augustine’s early works, this view was connected with a theory that, before the Fall, Adam would not have procreated or at least he would not have procreated sexually, a view shared by some other early Christian writers. However, Augustine gradually moved away from this view as he became more concerned with the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:28, which he saw as an allegory of the proper ordering of the soul, in which the higher (virile), rational aspect ruled the lower, appetitive part. In De bono coniugali (On the Excellence of Marriage) (401) Augustine leans toward the idea that Adam and Eve were fleshly beings who would have produced children by sexual intercourse. In De Genesi ad litteram 3, Augustine still allows the possibility that Adam and Eve would have reproduced without sexual intercourse, but in De Genesi ad litteram 9, he changes his mind as he ponders in what way God created Eve to be a helpmate to Adam.4 Eve was not created a woman to help man cultivate the land or to provide intellectual companionship, since a man would have been better suited for these roles. Nor was Eve created to establish an orderly hierarchy, since a hierarchy would have been possible if a man were created after Adam and subordinated to him. Therefore, Eve was created female to provide man with a means of sexual reproduction. After sin, what was once a duty or function (officium) became a remedy. When humankind had spread throughout the world and the Church grew by spiritual rather than physical rebirth, sexual reproduction was no longer a necessity in marriage.5 Although in De bono coniugali Augustine adopts the view that God made marriage for procreation, he subordinates this aspect of marriage to friendship. The society or fellowship (societas) of man and woman is the primordial form of human companionship. They walk 3 4 5

For this section, see Reynolds, Marriage, 241–58. De Gen. ad lit. was written over a span of years (401/15) according to the tables in Augustine through the Ages, xliii–il. All the dates for Augustine’s writings are taken from this source. De Gen. ad litt. 9.7.12, ed. Joseph Zycha, CSEL 28 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1894), 275; The Literal Meaning of Genesis, tr. Edmund Hill, in On Genesis, WSA 1/13 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2006), 382. Augustine may have come to this opinion as he tried to steer a middle way between Jovinian’s criticism that dedicated celibacy was tainted with Manicheanism and Jerome’s extreme reaction to Jovinian; see Retractiones 2.22.1 (Révisions, ed. Gustave Bardy [Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1950], 488–89; The Revisions, tr. Boniface Ramsey, WSA 1/2 [Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2010], 129–30). On this, see Reynolds, Marriage, 241–51, who provides other references to primary and secondary literature.

I ntroduction



239

side by side. Children are not the fruit of this spiritual union, but of sexual intercourse (concubitus).6 This union of friendship can remain or even deepen when sexual desire and the possibility of children are no longer present.7 Mary and Joseph enjoyed such a spiritual union without sexual intercourse.8 Marriage as Remedy Although by the time he wrote De bono coniugali, Augustine was convinced that sexual procreation was part of the original creation, he continued to view sexual desire and activity from the perspective of the Fall.9 He thought that Christian marriage brought three benefits (bona): fidelity (fides), progeny, and sacrament. Because of these, marriage is good despite the evil that inevitably accompanies sexual activity. After the Fall, sexual activity is tainted by libido and ardor, which are expressions of concupiscentia (desire, usually with connotation of disordered desire). Because sexual intercourse is thus tainted, it is the way by which original sin is passed on. In orgasm, the rational soul is overwhelmed by voluptas (pleasure).10 In a letter, probably written between 420 and 425, Augustine distinguishes between concupiscentia nuptiarum and concupiscentia carnis. The former is the bond of fellowship; the latter is a disordered movement (motum inordinatum).11 If latter concupiscence is involved, it is forgivable (secundum veniam according to the Vulgate translation of 1 Cor 7:6; secundum indulgentiam according to the Old Latin). In the Christian era, there are two reasons to choose marriage and the sexual relationship that it ordinarily includes: to procreate, and to 6 7

8

9 10

11

De bono coniugali. 1, Zycha, CSEL 41, 187–88; tr. Ray Kearney, Saint Augustine: Marriage and Virginity, WSA 1/9 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 33. Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.11.12 (C. Urba and J. Zycha, CSEL 42 [Vienna: Tempsky, 1902], 224; On Marriage and Desire, tr. Roland Teske, in Answer to the Pelagians, 2, WSA 1/24 [Hyde Park NY: New City Press, 1990], 462–63). Augustine wrote this work in 419–21. Augustine defended this position in his late (421/22) Contra Julianum 5.12 (PL 44.810–11; Answer to Julian, tr. Teske, WSA 1/24, 462–63). On Augustine’s understanding of marriage as a spiritual union, which can exist without sexual intercourse, see Reynolds, Marriage, 251–68, who notes that, despite his theory, Augustine had difficulty imagining what such a spiritual union between a man and a woman would be like. For this section, see Reynolds, Marriage, 259–79. Augustine, De civ. Dei 14.23–24 (Dombart and Alphonsus Kalb, CCSL 48, 444–48; tr. R. W. Dyson, The  City of God against the Pagans, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought [New York: Cambridge, 1998], 623–27). Augustine, Ep. 6*.5, ed.  Johannes Divjak, Oeuvres de saint Augustin  46B (Paris: Études ­Augustiniennes, 1987), 130–32, cited by Reynolds, Marriage, 263.

240

H U G H O N ST V IC T O R – M A R R IAG E

have a remedy for concupiscence. Now that the world is populated and the Church grows by spiritual offspring, the remedy for concupiscence is the more important of these two. Celibacy is now superior to marriage. The first benefit of marriage, fidelity, excludes sexual relations by either party with anyone besides their spouse, and it requires that each render the conjugal duty (debitum) to the other. The benefit of progeny consists in procreation and the upbringing of children. If a couple has sexual relations only for offspring and no concupiscence is involved, there is no guilt at all. Nevertheless, Augustine does not expect or demand that concupiscence or sexual desire (libido) ever be absent from marriage. However, in one of his more optimistic moments, Augustine declares: What food is for the health of a person, sexual union is for the health of the race. Neither is without pleasure of the senses, and when this is kept in bounds and put to its natural use under the restraint of moderation, there cannot be passion (libido).12

Marriage as Sacrament As Ephesians 5:32 says, marriage is a sacrament of the union of Christ and the Church.13 This is the third benefit or good of marriage. The primary referent for this comparison is the indissolubility of the covenant between Christ and the Church. Eve was formed from a rib taken from Adam’s side, so the Church was formed from the water (baptism) and blood (Eucharist) flowing from Christ’s side.14 According to some early Christian interpreters, Adam, awaking from ecstasy,15 declared, “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they will be two in one flesh.”16 Mar12

13 14

15 16

De bono coniugali 16.18 (CSEL 41, 210; tr. Kearney, 47). Augustine qualified this statement in Retractiones 2.22.2 (CCSL  57,  10; Les  Révisions, ed.  Gustave Bardy, Oeuvres de saint ­Augustin  12 [Paris: Desclée de  Brouwer, 1950], 490–91; Revisions, tr.  Boniface Ramsey, ­WSA 1/2 [Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2010], 130–31). Reynolds, Marriage, 280–311. Hugh of St Victor takes up this idea in Sacr. 1.6.36 (PL 176.284D). In this introduction, all references to the Latin text of the De sacramentis will be to the edition in Patrologia latina 176. Although later in this volume, I translate Sacr. 2.11 from Berndt’s edition, it seems best to give references here to the long-established PL edition. Both editions will be superseded by the critical edition planned by Dominique Poirel. All translations are mine unless it is otherwise indicated. Augustine, De gen. ad litt. 6.5 (Zycha, CSEL 28, 175; Literal Meaning of Genesis, tr. Edmund Hill, WSA 1/13, 304–05); 9.1 (Zycha, CSEL 28, 268; tr. Hill, WSA 1/13, 376). Gen 2:21–24.

I ntroduction



241

riage was thus a type of the relationship of Christ to the Church, but Christ’s relationship to the Church was also an exemplar or pattern for marriage.17 Augustine and the Latin tradition after him focused on indissolubility as the point of comparison between husband and wife on the one hand and Christ and the Church on the other. The comparison could be extended to the union of the individual Christian and the Church, which is effected through baptism, or to the bond between Christ and humanity established at the Incarnation. The bond (vinculum) established by Christian marriage remains even if the partners separate and marry someone else or if they do not have intercourse or children. Marriage in Hugh’s World Hugh was teaching and writing in Paris between about 1115 and 1141, the year of his death. The “long twelfth century” from 1050 to 1215 was a time of economic and demographic expansion, growth of bureaucracy, systematization, and the application of enhanced intellectual tools to the understanding of Christian faith. The teachings of the Scriptures, early Christian writers, and Church law on marriage were being scrutinized, harmonized, and synthesized into a body of thought that strongly influenced Christian thinking ever since.18 During this time, episcopal authority over marriage increased. It was an aetas ovidiana when love was celebrated by poets and pondered by theologians.19 To this effort of systematization Hugh was a major contributor. His life overlapped with the lives of Gratian and Peter Lombard, who produced systematic presentations of canon law and theology respectively. Hugh’s On the Sacraments of Christian Faith was a more personal systematization of Christian theology than the Lombard’s Sentences, and so became dated faster than the Sentences did, though Hugh’s work was widely copied and studied.20 17 18

19 20

Augustine, De gen. ad litt. 1.1 (Zycha, CSEL 28, 1–2; tr. Hill, WSA 1/13, 168); 9.19 (Zycha, CSEL 28, 294; tr. Hill, WSA 1/13, 396–97). The questions that Hugh of St Victor, Gratian, Abeland and Peter Lombard (and commenting on him, Thomas Aquinas) consider regarding marriage are remarkably similar. Blanche R. Boyer and Richard McKeon chart the parallels between Abelard, Ivo of Chartres, Gratian, and Peter Lombard in their edition of Abelard’s Sic et non (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976–77), 641–43. Abelard treats of marriage in Sic et non, questions 122–35. See On Love, ed. Hugh Feiss, VTT 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012; Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2012). Patrice Sicard, Iter victorinum. La tradition manuscrite des oeuvres de Hugues et de Richard de Saint-Victor, BV 24 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 152–65.

242

H U G H O N ST V IC T O R – M A R R IAG E

Twelfth-century scholars of theology and canon law pondered a number of questions about marriage: what was required for a marriage to occur; the consent of the couples; sexual consummation; the consent of parents or overlords. Hugh, in agreement with Peter Lombard, concluded that it was the free consent of the couple to wed that made a marriage, and the Fourth Lateran Council endorsed this view. Gratian and others argued that both consent and consummation were necessary to establish a permanent marital bond. Another question was, how should the Church negotiate the entanglements resulting from clandestine marriages or marriages within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity? Definition of Marriage Hugh defines marriage as a lawful society between a man and a woman, in which by equal and free consent both are bound by a bond (vinculum) that obliges (debitum) them to enter into no other such society with someone else and not to deny themselves to each other as long as the other lives.21 This mutual gift of self is a spiritual relationship. Intimately connected to it is another consent to the function (officium) of carnal intercourse. This second mutual gift in sexual union is included in the marriage consent, unless explicitly excluded. The function of marriage aims at the propagation of the human race and is a remedy (remedium) for sexual desire.22 It will be helpful to examine the parts of this definition one by one. Lawful. Marriage is subject to the laws of God and also to the laws of the Church. In some cases, compliance with those laws is required for the very existence of a marriage. A lawful (legitimate) cause is one publicly known by the Church. Society (societas) means society, association, fellowship, community, alliance, or confederation. Perhaps Hugh chose this word rather than other words with similar meanings because it connotes a lawfully recognized entity. In his usage, it usually has a stronger affective component than these English equivalents suggest. Between a man and a woman. In De virginitate IV, Hugh gives two arguments why this is so: (1) Genesis says this was what God established; (2) marriage is a sacrament of the union between God and the 21 22

Virginitate BM, par. 6 (Jollès, 190); Sacr. 2.11.4 (PL 176.483C). Virginitate BM, par. 6–7 (Jollès, 190–92).

I ntroduction



243

soul and Christ and the Church, which involve difference and inequality among the parties. By equal consent. Mutual consent to the spiritual bond described in the definition is what makes a marriage, not carnal consummation.23 Other concomitants of marriages such as parental agreement, witnesses, dowry, and blessing by a priest are not required, even though they may be desirable.24 Bond (vinculum). The pledges that a man and woman make to each other in consenting to a marriage are performative utterances that result in an irrevocable, exclusive, and spiritual bond between them.25 Debt (debitum). By this bond, the parties owe each other exclusive and lasting love that endures no matter what the future brings, whether it be sickness or health, wealth or poverty, and children or childlessness. Even infidelity or desertion by one or both parties does not destroy it. Function (officium). It is difficult to translate officium in regard to marriage. Officium means a voluntarily rendered or required service, including a religious one (e.g., the liturgy of the hours is an officium divinum). If the officium is required, it is a duty or obligation. Marriage is a spiritual bond but, unless it is expressly excluded, a marriage brings the obligatory function of marital intercourse, which assures the propagation of the race.26 For married Christians, this officium serves also as remedium for sexual desire, though marriage does not remove all excess or sinfulness from sexual pleasure. Institution and Minister Marriage was instituted by God at the time of creation, and sanctified by Christ at the Wedding of Cana.27 A clerical witness is not neces23 24 25 26

27

Henri A. J. Allard, Die eheliche Lebens- und Liebesgemeinschaft nach Hugo von St Viktor, Analecta Dehoniana 7 (Rome: Analecta Dehoniana, 1963), 40–45. Allard, 59–64. Virginitate BM, par. 20 (Jollès, 194). Surprisingly, Hugh seldom refers to the role of children in marriage. He is focused on the theology of marriage, rather than on the theology of the family. Teresea Olsen Pierre (“Marriage, Body, and the Sacrament in the Age of Hugh of St Victor,” in Christian Marriage: A Historical Study, ed. Glenn W. Olsen [New York: Crossroad, 2001], 236) mentions that in De vanitate (Giraud, 147–48; PL 176.708CD) Hugh paraphrases a passage of Gregory the Great (Dialogues 4.13, de Vogüé, SC 265, 56) about the difficulties that the birth and nurture of children bring: “If those who are getting married would only remember this they would understand that in marriage there will be more tears than laughter.” Sacr. 2.11.2 (PL 176.481A).

244

H U G H O N ST V IC T O R – M A R R IAG E

sary for marriage; the ministers of the bond of marriage are the spouses themselves. Hence, Hugh asserts the validity of clandestine marriages, despite the problems that may arise from them. Marriage as Sacrament As we have seen, for the Eucharist, Hugh and others of his time worked out a three-layered understanding: the bread and wine are sacraments only, signifying the Body and Blood of Christ; the Body and Blood of Christ is the reality signified by the bread and wine and they, in their turn, are the sacrament of the unity of the Church in faith and love. Hugh is not entirely clear how marriage fits into this schema, but it seems that the sign (sacramentum tantum) of the sacrament is the words of consent, the signifying reality (res et sacramentum) is the bond that creates for the spouses a spiritual debt and a carnal debt owed to each other, and that the reality (res or virtus) at which the sacrament aims is the mutual love and fidelity. However, marriage and the function of marriage taken in their totality are sacraments of something beyond themselves: marriage is the sacrament of the union of God with the soul, and the function of marriage is the sacrament of the Incarnation or the union of Christ with the Church.28 The bond established by marital consent was part of creation from the first. However, sin has made fidelity more difficult and has tainted sexual desire with disorientation and excess. The Functions of Marriage According to Teresa Olsen Pierre, in Hugh’s theology the sacraments confer three principal benefits on the recipients: instruction in the truth, exercise of virtue, and the conferral of grace. Sacraments are symbols that lead the mind from the symbol to what it stands for. In the 28

Sacr. 1.8.14 (PL 176.314D); 2.11.3 (PL 176.481B); 2.11.8 (PL 176.495D–496A); Virginitate BM, IV, par. 41, 44 (Jollès, 246, 250). Allard, 74–78, studies the sacrament of the union of Christ and his Church and concludes that Hugh shrinks the significance of the relationship between Christ and the Church to the marriage bond, rather than emphasizing the love that exists between Christ and his Church. However, for Hugh the marital bond is indeed unbreakable, but it is a bond of love. According to St Thomas Aquinas, Sum. theo. Supplementum 42.1, ad 4 and 5 (Caramello, 3.132; tr. English Dominicans, 3:2715), the sacramentum tantum is the external acts pertaining to the sacrament; the res et sacramentum is the obligation that arises from these acts; and the res ultima contenta is the effect of this sacrament on the participants, and the res non contenta is the union of Christ and the Church (as specified by Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.26). On this, see Olsen Pierre, “Marriage,” 226–27.

I ntroduction



245

performance of sacrament, this instruction is intuitive and mystical; it remains for theologians to analyze it discursively. She suggests that the exercises of the liturgy and the common life gave order to the life of canons and monks. The exercise of disciplined sexual intercourse was intended by God to give order to the lives of married lay people.29 With the advent of sin, this exercise became also a remedy. Finally, and here the majority of theologians in Hugh’s time disagreed with him, Hugh taught that marriage conferred saving grace.30 Sexuality Hugh understood the basic biological processes of conception and birth. He recognized that sexual desire, or the desire for sexual pleasure, was a strong human inclination that often led to sinful action, such as forcing sexual commerce on an unwilling person. Hugh did not make a clear distinction between sinful sexual desire and lustful pleasure (on the one hand), and wholesome sexual desire and pleasure (on the other). He thought that Christian marriage was granted out of compassion for human weakness as a remedy to sexual desire insofar as it provided a setting where sexual intercourse was not mortally sinful, but only lightly so, and kept concupiscence from running rampant.31 He did not expect that even marital intercourse between Christians would be devoid of sinful pleasure.32 His pessimism about the possibility of wholesome sexual intercourse meshed poorly with his insistence that sexual intercourse (the officium of marriage) was a sacrament of the union between Christ and the Church, although he does not indicate that he felt any tension between the two convictions. In De virginitate, where he elaborates an argument on why marriage must be between a man and a woman, Hugh says that what prompts a pledge of love to another in marriage is somewhat different for women than for men. Women are weaker than men and less intelligent, so they are drawn toward establishing a marital bond with a man by the need they feel for protection. A man on the other hand is moved by loving29 30

31 32

Sacr. 1.8.12 (PL 176.314BC); 1.8.14 (PL 176.314CD). Olsen Pierre, “Marriage,” 222–27. Olsen Pierre developed her interpretation by combining the teaching of Sacr. 1.9.2 (PL 176.317D) with that of Sacr. 1.9.3 (PL 176.319A–322A). In Sacr. 1.9.2 (PL 176.317D), Hugh’s definition of a sacrament includes the presence of invisible and spiritual grace. On this threefold structure of the sacraments, see the discussion above of Hugh’s theology of the Eucharist. De virginitate BM, par. 18 (Jollès, 210); Sacr. 1.8.13 (PL 176.316BC); 2.11.3 (PL 176.482D–483A). Sacr. 2.11.10 (PL 176.497C).

246

H U G H O N ST V IC T O R – M A R R IAG E

kindness toward a woman in her neediness. These inclinations lead them to establish a mutual exchange that is equally binding, beneficial, and spiritual. God created sexual difference because propagation of the race was useful. Sex is not the reason for this difference, nature is, but the difference in nature is expressed in sex, and the natures of man and woman are not found apart from sexual difference.33 This raises two questions for the interpretation of Hugh’s thought. First, Hugh thinks that there must be some sort of hierarchy between men and women if their union is to be an accurate sacrament of the hierarchical union between God and the soul or Christ and the Church. This seems to contradict what Hugh said about the creation of Eve: she was taken not from Adam’s head, since that would signify she was mistress over him, nor from his feet, for that would signify she was his servant, but from his midsection, since that indicates she is his equal.34 Another question is, what Hugh means by a difference in “nature” between man and woman. He knows that both men and women are human beings made in the image and likeness of God. They both participate in the twofold human nature of body and soul. Hence, when he speaks of a difference in “nature” in men and women, shown by the different ways in which they are inclined toward marriage, he must mean that, apart from sexual differentiation, there are innate psychological differences between men and women that are not accounted for by cultural conditioning. These differences in “nature” are expressed in physical sexual difference, but they are not caused by sexual difference, but rather are its basis. Thus, human beings are male and female, and human nature is expressed in each somewhat differently, quite apart from sexuality.35 33 34

35

De virginitate BM, IV, par. 44 (Jollès, 252); Sacr. 1.8.11 (PL 176.316AB). Hugh expresses this tension in Sacr. 2.11.4, where speaking of the creation of Adam and Eve, after asserting the equality of man and woman, he writes “yet in a certain way woman was made inferior so that she might always look to the man as her beginning and cleave to him indivisibly, never separating herself from the association that had to be established reciprocally” (PL 176.485AB: “socia data est, non ancilla, domina… ut ad aequalitatem societatis facta probaretur… tamen quodammodo inferior ipso quod facta est de ipso, ut ad ipsum semper quasi ad principium suum respiceret et ei individuae adhaerendo, ab ea se constare debebat”). Hugh also speaks of the distinction between male and female in Sacr. 1.8.13 (PL 176.315AB) where he says “human nature is divided by a twofold quality, so that it is appears strong in man, and weaker in woman and in need of support from another” (“Propterea natura humana duplici qualitate distincta est, ut in viro quidem robustior, in femina vero infirmior et aliena ope egens appareret”). See Allard, 29–39. Allard contends that Hugh’s emphasis on the

I ntroduction

 247

Marital Affection Marital affection was an important term in twelfth-century theology and canon law.36 Hugh does not use this term very often, but he makes spiritual affection central to his understanding of marriage. This affection is more important than the spouses’ ties of blood to their families of origin. He gives a moving description of marital affection: each is for the other what each is for his or her self, in all sincerity of love, in the responsibility of solicitude, in every tender feeling, in every zealous compassion, in every strength of consolation and faithful devotion. Thus, each regards the other as one with his or her self, in all good things and in all bad ones, as a companion and sharer in consolation. Thus they also show themselves inseparable in tribulation and suffering. Finally, regarding what pertains outwardly to the needs of the body, they both undertake to foster the other’s flesh as though it were their own. Regarding what pertains internally to love of the heart, they both take care to keep the other, as if their own soul (animum), in peace and tranquility and without upset, insofar as they can.37 So it comes about for those who are in the peace and communion of a holy society that, while both live not for themselves but for the other, both live more happily and blessedly.38

Marital love is superior to love that binds the spouses to their families of origin, as the end is to the beginning, and blessed being is to mere being, as grace is to nature.39 There is another place in De virginitate where Hugh speaks of what prompts a married couple to come together in carnal intercourse to conceive a child. Here, he talks about a voluntary love of the spouses for each other, untainted by lust, but specifically oriented toward intercourse: In parents, who generate carnally and through carnal intercourse fashion flesh that will be born, nature provides from both of them substance for creating a child, and from the flesh of both proceeds the

36 37

38 39

difference between soul and body and on the superiority of soul leads him to define marriage in too spiritual a way and to see sexual commerce extrinsic to the essence of marriage and inevitably tainted by sin. Olsen Pierre, “Marriage,” 230–35. See Sacr. 1.6.35 (PL 176.284C: “Facta est [mulier] autem de latere viri ut ostederetur quod in consortium creabatur dilectionis… Quia igitur viro nec domina nec ancilla parabatur sed socia… de latere fuerat producenda ut juxta se ponendam cognosceret”). De virginitate BM 10 (Jollès, 194–95). De virginitate BM 15 (Jollès, 204–06).

248

H U G H O N ST V IC T O R – M A R R IAG E

flesh that is to be formed in the flesh of only one. However, this tribute that by the institution of the Creator nature pays as a debt to bring to term the production of a human being is not required of it by any necessity of force, so that it is to be given solely because of affection (sola dilectione), and as I would express it, by a voluntary love (spontanea caritate). There is nothing besides love that can exact this debt from nature. However, when it has been prompted by voluntary love, then both freely and joyfully hasten to each other to complete this work.40

The question is whether Hugh is speaking here about sexual, erotic desire?41 If so, he would be viewing it differently than he usually does. The Holiness of Marriage The truth of the sacrament of Christian marriage lies in the sanctity of the sign and in spiritual grace.42 This holiness is found only in the City of God.43 One might conclude, therefore, that the holiness of marriage is already and not yet, a holy reality now that awaits its eschatological fulfillment then.44 Conclusion Thus, the fundamentals of Hugh’s theology of marriage are clear. What makes a marriage is the free consent of a man and a woman to live a common and exclusive life together. In this shared life, husband and wife are pledged to care for each other’s physical needs, to promote the peace of the other and, by living not for self but for the other, to achieve greater joy. Marriage is to be distinguished from the function of marriage, which is procreation. Marriage as consent to a shared life and love is usually but not always accompanied by a consent to sexual relations; sexual relations can be excluded by the mutual consent of the spouses. The spiritual effect of marriage (its res or virtus) is the mutual love of the spouses. This love is in turn a sacrament of the union of God and the soul. As was indicated above, the function of marriage is a sacrament of the union of Christ and the Church. Hugh teaches that marriage pre40 41 42

43 44

De virginitate BM 33 (Jollès, 234). Allard answers the question negatively, but he does not give a clear alternative interpretation. Sacr. 2.11.13 (PL 176.505D, 506B: “Itaque dicimus veritatem sacramentorum Dei duplicem esse: scilicet in sancitificatione sacramenti, aliam in effectu spirituali… Sic ergo dicimus et de conjugali sacramento”). See Allard, 79–81. Sacr. 2.11.8 (PL 176.496AB). Olson Pierre, “Marriage,” 223.

I ntroduction

 249

existed sin. Before sin, sexual intercourse was a function (officium) that married people performed for the propagation of the human race. After sin, sexual intercourse was also a remedy for sexual desire that was now unruly and prone to lust (concupiscentia). One major criticism that modern theologians have about Hugh’s theology of marriage is that, influenced by St Augustine, Hugh so emphasized concupiscence that he did not develop a clear understanding of sexual intercourse as a legitimate and grace-filled expression of the love of husband and wife.45 Hugh regarded marriage as unique among the sacraments, since it pre-existed the Fall. However, after the advent of sin, marriage takes its place among sacraments of the Church that have been divinely instituted as salvific remedies for sin. One of the issues that Hugh sought to clarify was the relationship between betrothal or engagement to marry and marriage itself. The idea of betrothal provided him with a metaphor with which to explore in De arrha animae the union of God and the soul, of which marital love is a sacrament. To his soul, which seeks a love that will satisfy his deepest longings, but can find no such love in the world, Hugh points out that she (his soul) has such a lover, who is not yet visible, but has given to her betrothal gifts (arrhae): gifts of nature that she shares with other people, gifts of grace that she shares with believers, and gifts that are unique to her. God’s love for one person is not diminished by being extended to all of creation. God can love all and love each uniquely, and by being extended to many his love enhances the happiness of each. What God gives to one is a gift to each and to all. Thus, the soul is betrothed to God in a way that fulfills her deepest need. Life on earth is the betrothal; the marriage will be celebrated eternally in the life to come.46

45

46

W. E. Gössmann, “Die Bedeutung der Liebe in der Ehereauffassung Hugos von St Viktor und Wolfram von Eschenbach,” Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 5 (1959): 205–13; Allard, 55–58; Corrado Gneo, “La dottrina del matrimonio nel De B. Mariae Virginitate di Ugo di S. Vittore,” Divinitas 17 (1973): 394. Poirel, “Love of God,” 105–09; Poirel, “Sacraments,” in Companion to the Abbey of Saint Victor in Paris, 291–97; Arrha (Sicard, Oeuvres 1:211–300; tr. Feiss, VTT 2:183–232). See above, p. 214 (n. 66).

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, ON THE VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY INTRODUCTION

Recipient and Date The Bishop “G.” for whom Hugh wrote the first three parts of this treatise seems to have been the Geoffrey who was bishop of Chalonssur-Marne from 1131–41. Scholars have not been able to date the De virginitate more precisely, but one can conclude that it is earlier than the parts of his De sacramentis into which Hugh incorporated ideas and passages of the De virginitate. He wrote De virginitate to refute someone who claimed that Mary could not be simultaneously spouse and virgin. This is a different topic than the paradox of Mary as virgin and mother, a traditional theme by the time Hugh wrote. In either case, though, the apologist’s task is to defend the virginity of Mary, before, during, and after Christ’s birth.1 Outline Hugh’s argument is complex and it will help the reader if it is summarized here rather carefully.2 Hugh indicates the three steps of his treatment of Mary’s virginity and marriage at the beginning and end of the main body of the work (par. 2, 36). These three sections are indicated in the text by Roman numerals, which, like the paragraph numbers added here by the translator, are not found in the manuscripts. The fourth section, which treats a related but independent question raised by the definition of marriage that Hugh developed in the first section of his argument, has its own beginning and end (par. 37, 45). The first section is by far the longest, because in it Hugh is working toward a definition of marriage that will show that Mary’s espousal to 1 2

L’oeuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor, 2, ed. Bernadette Jollès, Sous la Règle de saint Augustin (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 9, 171–72. The contents of the treatise are carefully analyzed in Gneo, “Dottrina,” 379–94.

252

H ugh of St   V ictor

Joseph resulted in a true marriage even though her commitment to Joseph excluded sexual intimacy. Prologue: the occasion for writing (par. 1). I.

A proper definition of marriage shows that Mary could be wife and virgin (par. 2–30). A.

Outline and Thesis (par. 2 and 5).

B.

Polemic against someone who contended that Mary could not be both spouse and virgin (par. 3).

C.

The opponent’s argument: Consent makes a marriage. That consent includes consent to carnal union. Mary married Joseph. Therefore, even if Mary never had carnal relations with Joseph, when she married him she ceased to be a virgin (par. 4).

D.

Definition of marriage (par. 6).

E.

The assent to carnal union is not an essential part of marriage, although it is included in the consent unless explicitly excluded. It is a function of the marriage bond, not the bond itself (par. 7–8).

F.

Objection: What, then, is the debt that the marriage partners owe each other? Response: It is the debt of exclusive, spiritual, and lasting love (par. 9–10).

G.

Objection: Genesis teaches that woman was given to man is order to propagate the race (par. 11). Response: Distinguish the bond by which a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife in an exclusive union, from the function of that union by which they become two in one flesh (par. 12–14). The beginning of a man’s being is in his parents; his blessed being is in his love for his wife (par. 15). This latter love is a sacrament of the loving union of God and the soul. Union in the flesh is a sacrament of the union of Christ and the Church (par. 16–17).

H. Objection: Virginity violates the command to increase and multiply. Response: The command to increase and multiply meant different things at the beginning of the human race, during the increase of believing descendants of Abraham, and now, when the growth of believers is through spirit rather than physical generation and carnal intercourse in marriage serves as a remedy (par. 17–19).

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



253

I.

Thus, one can understand the New Testament teaching: that Mary pledged virginity and was also willing to marry and bear a son, made possible because the Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her (par. 20–23).

J.

Objection: Sterility is a curse. Mary chose this curse rather than the blessing of fecundity (par. 24). Response: The Bible does not curse all sterility. In any case, Mary left an offspring in whom all humanity was blessed. The blessing of offspring was given to animals as well (par. 25–26). Mary chose a greater blessing (par. 27).

K.

Objection: Then, why did God bless fertility and curse sterility? Response: There were stages during which the need for fertility evolved (par. 28; see par. 10–11).

L.

There are two possible reasons why, after making a vow of virginity, Mary consented to be espoused to Joseph: (1) in order, with his consent, to hide her vow; (2) out of obedience to her parents, trusting in God, as Abraham did, that God would make it possible for her to keep her vow (par. 29–30).

II.

Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit when she conceived a child without a male, without sexual desire, and without a male seed whether provided by a man or the Holy Spirit (par. 31–34).

III.

Because she maintained her virginity in conceiving, it was right that she maintain it in childbirth, and also that she not feel the pains of childbirth (par. 35–36).

IV.

A related question: why marriage between two people of the same sex is ruled out by Hugh’s definition of marriage (par. 37–46). Objection: Excluding carnal intercourse from the definition of marriage allows people of the same sex to establish such a union. Response: God said that a man shall cling to his wife.3 Because the function of the marriage is a sacrament of the union of God and the soul, just as the function of marriage is a sacrament of the union of Christ and his Church, marriage must include difference and inequality. A man is moved toward love for his wife by loving-kindness, whereas the love a wife has for her husband is prompted by a need for protection (par. 37–43). This difference between the love of man for woman and the love of woman for man is not based in sex, but in their different natures, although these natures are not found apart from the difference in sex (par. 44–45).

3

The word that Hugh has used for wife is mulier, which outside of the context of marriage signifies simply “woman.”

254

H ugh of St   V ictor

Observations The prologue and outline (par. 1) are succinct and matter of fact. In sharp contrast, his initial polemic is impassioned, ad hominem, and wordy. This may be a literary strategy, but it also seems to be an indication of how much this issue meant to Hugh, both because of his hostility to irreverent theologians and because of the devotion to Mary that Hugh shared with other Christians of his time.4 In this treatise and De sacramentis 2.11, Hugh asserts a difference in nature between men and women, although they share human nature as equals. He also asserts that men are superior to women in precedence, strength, and intelligence. In the absence of this superiority, the appositeness of comparison of the bonds of husband and wife to those between God and the soul and Christ and the Church is weakened. The household code in Ephesians 6:21–33 contains the same tension: husband and wife are to be subject to each other, but the husband is the head of the wife and she should be subordinate to him, though he is to love her as Christ does the Church, that is, in self-giving service.

4

On  Mary’s motherhood and virginity in medieval Christian thought and devotion, see Brian K. Reynolds, Gateway to Heaven: Marian Doctrine and Devotion: Images and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods. Volume 1: Doctrine and Devotion (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2012), 9–106. Hugh lived in what Luigi Gambero, Mary in the Middle Ages (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 103–91, termed “A Golden Period for Marian Doctrine,” and Miri Rubin, Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 121–90, characterized as “The Emergence of Mary’s Hegemony, 1000–1200.”

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



255

TRANSLATION

Prologue To the holy bishop, G., from Hugh, the servant of your Beatitude. You have recounted to me a question that had been passed to you by someone in which his irreverence had in fact displeased you because he did not speak as modestly as he should have about this sacred matter. Therefore, as it has pleased you, with pen in hand I have sent to you for you to read what it seemed should be said on this topic.1 On the Virginity of Blessed Mary [I] 1. Regarding the incorrupt virginity of the Mother of the Lord, faith devoutly and piety faithfully confess that its perfection was in no way lessened by conjugal consent, just as conception did not violate her chastity nor childbirth take away its integrity. She was always a virgin, and when she was espoused to a man she did not abandon or alter her pledge of continence, and when she conceived she did so without sexual desire and not by a man, and when she brought forth a son she gave birth without pain.2 2. What are you, who are a quarrelsome inquirer and not a respectful listener, saying now? Are you filled with wonder or are you incredulous? If you are filled with wonder at what is wonderful, you are not to be regarded as wonderful, but if you do not believe what it is necessary to believe, one should help you. Furthermore, if you try to affirm what is false, you must be refuted. I admit that I cannot bear with a calm mind your brash presumption, because you are trying to sully rashly, with such impudent and trifling talk, what is pure and untouched. O foolish man, with your darkness you have struck at the mother of Light. What do you hope these arguments that you are breathing out will accomplish? You have woven them together with lengthy and drawn-out rumination, as though you were going to bring forth some new and great discovery. As is usual with you, you have begun to go around seeking itchy ears,3 showing yourself foolish to the learned, more than learned to the unwise. What, then? You wish to be a teacher, but which—a bearer of novelties or a defender of the truth?4 To be sure, you had found something to teach. Why did you under-

256

H ugh of St   V ictor

take to defame chastity and attack the truth? Perhaps, as I suspect, you did not undertake anything against the truth, but with your usual and constant flightiness, seeking the glow of popular acclaim, you have thought to prove how sharp is your acumen. Then afterward you might appear learned, if first you presented the matter to others wrapped up in a meandering of questioning, so that afterward you might appear learned by solving it. But now the thing has turned on you. You have proven yourself rash in raising the question, but in the solution you are not found learned. Let us see what is this great and weighty question that you think only you can solve. Indeed, even if it were weighty, it would be much truer to say it is solvable by many others besides you, who have been all the more stupid to presume it was solvable by you alone. Let us, then, see what it is. 3. First, you ask whether marriage can occur without consent to carnal intercourse. That is, can those who do not consent to rendering the debt of the flesh contract marriage with each other? Perhaps a saying you have heard has influenced you: “Carnal intercourse does not make a marriage, but consent does.”5 It would have rightly influenced you if it said what you did not hear but thought was to be understood had been added: consent to carnal intercourse. You ask then, whether without consent to carnal intercourse there can be a marriage. After that, to those who respond that there cannot be a true marriage without this kind of consent, you join, as I hear, your own opinion, perhaps because if you answered this question otherwise that would impose on you the need to be silent. Then, with this granted and established, namely that without the pledge of such a consent a marriage could not be established, you proceed to ask if there was a true marriage between Mary, the Mother of the Lord, and Joseph, for Scripture sometimes unquestionably called him the husband of Mary and named Mary the wife or spouse of Joseph. Granted this, because it is absurd to deny it, since it is both proven by the clear authority of Sacred Scripture and confirmed by the attestation of the Catholic religion, you conclude and say, if it was a true marriage, there was present consent to carnal union, and so Mary gave consent to carnal union with a man. If this is true, or rather, because if this were not true one could not speak of a true marriage, why is Mary said to have remained always a virgin, since it is not denied that she was once a true spouse? Either she did not consent and was not a true spouse, or she did consent and did not remain a true virgin. She deserted her pledge of virginity by the very fact that by her consent she freely submitted to the debt of carnal intercourse in the

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



257

sacrament of marriage. Moreover, because she abandoned her pledge of virginity in her consent to carnal intercourse, she had already ceased to be a virgin in her mind, even if she remained a virgin in her flesh.6 4. What, then, is this virgin of virgins, singular in integrity, unique in chastity, excelling in dignity? What are these commendations and insistent praises, or rather what are those daily acts of veneration by which we proclaim that the virginity of Mary is singularly praiseworthy and exceedingly glorious beyond all others?7 Not only is she not to be put before all other virgins, but also she is to be put after many of them, who have proven to be virgins in the flesh and have kept their pledge of virginity inviolate until the end with a chaste and devout mind. Compare the virginity of Agnes and Mary, and which of them have proven to be more sublime in merit and is held more exalted in praises? Agnes proved herself so unconquered in keeping her virginity that even the death she underwent did not deflect her from her pledge. Mary showed herself so changeable that affection for one man, a poor one at that, inclined her to consent to him. Agnes loved virginity so much that whatever precious thing they promised her she disdained in comparison to it. She judged whatever hard thing was inflicted in her defense of virginity was not to be feared. Mary so easily despised her virginity that she abandoned it without being promised any reward and renounced it without any punishment being inflicted. What is left to say if not that she had a lesser degree of merit and praise for virginity, who freely fell away from her pledge to keep her virginity, even if she remained a virgin in the flesh, whereas she had a superior degree who kept her pledge of virginity with the integrity of her flesh inviolate until the end. 5. This is what you glory in having discovered with great and laborious research. Since you have both a corrupt mind and a corrupt flesh, you are not afraid to falsely accuse the mind of the pure woman whose flesh you cannot accuse. It would have been much better if first you had spoken the truth, provided you were not ignorant of it, or, if you could not do that, if you had not uttered your depraved thought with which, once you uttered it, you violated the hearing of simple people. What will you do if clear truth frees from the dangers of errors those whom you have debased with a false opinion, but not in such a way that it purifies you from the guilt of the reckless? 6. Let us now see whether the mother of the Lord can be a true spouse and a true virgin. Let us discuss, as you demand, what marriage is and consider whether in the light of the proposed definition, there

258

H ugh of St   V ictor

can be at the same time in the virgin mother both conjugal consent and a pledge of virginity. What is marriage if not the lawful8 society between a man and a woman, a society in which by equal consent each must give his or her self to the other? This debt9 is explained in two ways: namely, that one keep oneself for the other and that one not deny oneself to the other. One keeps oneself by not moving to another society after giving such a consent. One does not refuse by not disengaging oneself from what is for each other in the common society.10 The free consent lawfully made between a man and a woman, by which each pledges his or her self as owing a debt to the other, is what makes marriage. Marriage is the very society covenanted with this consent, which does not release either from the debt as long as the other is living. 7. There is still another consent, namely, of carnal intercourse, required and rendered by each to the other. It constitutes a similar agreement between the man and the woman. It is not the cause of the marriage, but its accompaniment, a duty not a bond. However, the consent, when accepted by both with an equal vow, must be held with a similar obligation. The debt in this consent is also, as I recalled in regard to the earlier one, twofold, namely that both keep themselves for the other, and that they not deny themselves to the other, that is, that each not grant to someone else power over his or her body for this work, nor deny it to the other. 8. Regarding that debt (debitum) by which a man must (debeat) keep himself for his wife and a woman must keep herself for her husband, the Apostle says: A woman is bound to her husband under the law as long as he lives. But if her husband has died, she is freed from her husband by the law.11 That is why a woman is called an adulteress if, while her husband is still alive, she lies with another man. Regarding this other debt that each must not refuse the other, neither the husband to his wife nor the wife to her husband, he says the same thing: The wife does not have power over her body, but her husband does; similarly, the husband does not have power over his body, but his wife does.12 However, the necessity of this debt does not subject the spouses to each other if, when their marriage was consecrated, consent to this work had not preceded. When this duty ceases, one should not believe that the truth or virtue of the marriage is abolished; rather, a marriage is all the more true and holy when it is covenanted solely by the bond of charity and not by the concupiscence of the flesh and the ardor of sexual desire. What, then? Would marriage be holy only in the concupiscence of the flesh and not in love (caritate)? Surely not! Rather, it is more truly and

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



259

rightly called holy and true where chastity has nothing to blush about and charity has reason to glory.13 9. But you say to me: If the debt of carnal relations is excluded from the conjugal consent, how are the spouses made debtors to each other? What is the reason that they should keep themselves for each other, or in what should they not refuse if this reason is taken away? When this debt is eliminated, there does not seem to be a reason why the husband should be joined to his wife, or the wife to her husband, or why they are said to be bound equally to each other by a bond such as marriage is known to have. Perhaps it seems like this to you who are and consider only flesh. You have not been able to find anything else in marriage, so you confirm that it is sanctified only on account of the flesh and is holy only in it. Is it not much greater if two become one in mind than if they become one in the flesh? If each makes the other a sharer in his or her flesh and this can be holy, is it not also holy if each makes the other a sharer in his or her soul? One would hope so! There will be two in one flesh; this great sacrament is in Christ and the Church.14 They will be two in one heart. This is a greater sacrament in God and the soul.15 10. Behold by what pledge of espousal they voluntarily bind themselves from that point, and forever each is for the other what each is for his or her self, in all sincerity of love, in the responsibility of solicitude, in every tender feeling, in every zealous compassion, in every strength of consolation and faithful devotion. Thus, each regards the other as one with his or her self, in all good things and in all bad ones, as a companion and sharer in consolation. Thus, they also show themselves inseparable in tribulation and suffering. Finally, regarding what pertains outwardly to the needs of the body, they both undertake to foster the other’s flesh as though it were their own. Regarding what pertains internally to love of the heart, they both take care to keep the other, as if their own soul (animum), in peace and tranquility and without upset, insofar as they can.16 So it comes about for those who are in the peace and communion of a holy society that while both live not for themselves but for the other, both live more happily and blessedly.17 These are the goods of marriage and the happiness of those who love a chaste society. Those who do not see these goods, seek in marriage nothing but the evilly sweet pleasure of the flesh. Behold, you see if one leaves aside sexual intercourse, what quality and quantity of goods remain in marriage. Or rather, when one leaves out sexual intercourse, what quantity and quality of evils, that is, what sort of servitude and what amount of sorrows are excluded from marriage.

260

H ugh of St   V ictor

11. You will tell me again that the first and principal purpose of marriage was the propagation of children, which was not going to happen without carnal union. This is clear because in the beginning, when God had shaped the man (hominem) from the mud of the earth, it is related that he afterward made the woman as a help for him, a help in nothing else except that for the propagation of future offspring the woman would become for the man a cooperator in the sowing, the one who conceives the seed, the place where it is formed, and the one who births it. Therefore, woman is joined to man for no other reason than that through him and with her when by carnal union a man pours into her his seed at the origin of posterity, she may provide the substance of the flesh for those to be born of the flesh. The same is proven by the fact that after God had connected woman with man and wished to declare the reason for this union, and first by the grace of his blessing making both fecund in some way for the power of generation, said, grow, multiply and fill the earth,18 at the same time giving them a command, so that they would know for what purpose they had been joined, and grace so that they would be able to fulfill what they had been commanded. Thus, for the role that is enjoined on the two joined and united together by the command of their Creator, plainly and indubitably the cause of their union is demonstrated, because it would have been absurd that, when he prescribed a form of living and a service to perform, he would not then especially command the carrying out of that for which he had wished to unite them. Hence it is that Adam, recognizing for what use the woman had been made, said, This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh… For this a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they will be two in one flesh.19 Consider that carnal intercourse in the matrimony of the first parents is so clearly enjoined on them and prophesied as something going to happen after them that whoever says that there can be a true marriage without it is without any doubt in opposition to God’s commands and to human beings whose thinking is in line with God’s. 12. Perhaps it seems to you that in this way you can oppose the assertion we made above. This is all that you have brought forward: one reads that God made woman as a help to the first man, and one recalls that when the woman was united to the man, God commanded both to increase, multiply, and fill the earth. Afterward, the man prophesies future carnal intercourse between man and woman. Therefore, there is no way there can be a true marriage where there has been no consent to carnal union. Thus it seems to you. Therefore, it is fitting between us

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



261

that you answer me whether two are joined in one flesh because they have been made from one flesh, or they have been made from one flesh because they were joined in one flesh. It is said, for this reason a man leaves father and mother and clings to his spouse and they will be two in one flesh.20 What does “for this reason” mean? Either they are in one flesh for this reason, namely because they are from (de) one flesh, or they are from one flesh for this reason, namely because they are in one flesh. But he does not say they will be two in one flesh for this reason: namely, this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my fresh. Rather he says, this is bone from (ex) my bones and flesh of (de) my flesh. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they will be two in one flesh.21 13. He says three things: A man will leave his father and mother; he will cling to his wife; and they will be two in one flesh. “For this reason”: what is this “for this reason”? For this reason a man will leave his father and mother. For this reason, he will cling to his wife. For this reason, they will be two in one flesh. For this reason, for what reason? Therefore, for this reason: they are in one flesh because from (ex) one flesh; not for this reason: they are from one flesh because in one flesh. For this reason, they will be two in one flesh. This one is bone of (ex) my bones and flesh from my flesh. For this reason a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they will be two in one flesh. Let us consider each of these statements, lest perhaps you say against yourself what you think is to be said on your behalf. A man will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife and they will be two in one flesh. Perhaps the two statements, he will cling to his wife and they will be two in one flesh, wish to say the same thing, so that to cling to his wife is the very same thing as to be two in one flesh. It is as if to say, a man will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife, and this clinging is to be understood as nothing other than carnal intercourse. Let us see if this can stand up. A man, it says, will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife. He will leave the former and cling to the latter. Therefore, he departs from the former and draws near to the latter. What he withdraws from the former he bestows on the latter. What is this: A man will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife? What will it be that he leaves? Will he leave living together or love, and if it needs to be said, will he leave by ceasing to be carnally united to them? If a man ceases living with his father and mother and clings to his wife, can he not have his wife in his father’s house? Or can he not love his wife if he does not

262

H ugh of St   V ictor

hate his father and mother? The third element mentioned should not be repeated and may not be mentioned in a fitting way. Thus, a man clings to his wife in these ways: in cohabitation and carnal intercourse. However, a man can cohabit simultaneously with his father and mother and with his wife; he can love his father and mother at the same time he loves his wife. Therefore, neither in regard to cohabitation, nor in regard to love, will a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife. How much more was it not nor could it have been in regard to carnal intercourse that a man will leave his mother and cling to his wife!22 14. Therefore, in what regard will a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, if not according to the singular association in which a couple must give themselves to the other? In this, a man does not set aside his affection for his father and mother in order to choose affection for his wife alone, but he subordinates his affection for his mother and father in order to give precedence over it to his affection for his wife, so that he has for her a love that is not his only love, but is a unique love. The statement he will cling to his wife refers not to sexual intercourse but to affection of the heart and the bond of mutual love (vinculo socialis dilectionis). So, you should understand that the phrase, he will cling to his wife, refers to the sacrament of marriage, which is in the spirit. Then you will understand the following phrase, and they will be two in one flesh, to refer to the function (officium) of marriage, which is in the flesh, and not the covenantal pledge (pactum federis). Therefore, a man will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife and they will be two in one flesh. This is marriage: he will cling to his wife. This is the function of marriage: they will be two in one flesh. 15. Why, then, will a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife? It is a great thing that he prefers the end to the beginning. His father and mother are the beginning from which he came; his wife is the end where his love comes to rest. There, it was only creation that gave rise to love; here, love alone makes a choice with reference to creation.23 A man loves his father and mother because from them he once received life. However, he loves his wife more because he has chosen to live with her forever, a thoroughly divine sacrament and a profound mystery, a beautiful and wonderful example of human creation. We have our beginning (principium) from which we received our being; we have our end without which we cannot be blessed. From the former, through creation of nature we come to be; in the latter, we receive blessed being through the choice (electionem) of grace. From

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



263

him, everything that is has being, but not all receive blessedness in him. To be from him is a lesser thing and less to be loved, while to be blessed by him is a much greater thing and more to be loved. However, both are great and worthy of love: both to be from him and to be happy in him. God is different for those who only have received from him that they are, than he is for those who have received from him not only their being but also that they may blessed in him and receive him as a reward. The former, that they have received that they are from him; the latter, that they may be blessed in what they are, because it is he himself from whom they have received it. That we are is less to be loved, and that we are blessed is more to be loved, because in the former is only the fact that we are, while in the latter is not only that we are but also that he is the one from whom we have received our being.24 16. A man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife25 so that, putting behind the old as new things occur, he comes from the beginning through love and rests at the end through love. Now you see the kind and greatness of the sacrament that conjugal love offers, so that in it the rational soul may choose without end the consort of his end and cling to that indivisible bond of love with the reciprocity of a unique love. This was the principal cause of marriage, for which God instituted that man, having left his father and mother, would choose to be joined (sociari) forever to his one wife only and by a unique love. For the benefit of increasing the future generation to this social grouping, for the sake of this rational sacrament, he afterward added the office of generating children. This was not that marriage should consist in that, but so that by it marriage might grow in merit through obedience in this service and show itself more fruitful through fecundity of offspring. Thus, it is rightly said that a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they will be two in one flesh, so that insofar as he clings to his wife, it is a sacrament of the invisible society that is realized between God and the soul, but insofar as the two are one flesh, it is a sacrament of the visible participation that is realized between Christ and the Church. This is a great sacrament: they will be two in one flesh, in Christ and the Church. However, this is a greater sacrament: they will be two in one heart, in God and the soul. 17. Perhaps this is not enough to show you that it is not the union of flesh but of heart that sanctifies marriage, and thus convince you that the service of the function does not excel the holiness of the sacrament. You may insist that the carnal consent is conjugal holiness and not grant that apart from the pledge of carnal union the bond is ratified,

264

H ugh of St   V ictor

because clearly it is said, they will be two in one flesh,26 and it is not clearly stated that “they will be two in one spirit.” First it clearly said, “in one flesh”; afterward it said, “in one spirit,” because what is carnal is first, then what is spiritual.27 A carnal father said, “in one flesh”; a spiritual teacher later said, “in one spirit.”28 18. Speaking through a prophet, God says, I will not accept a propitiatory offering from your hand. And you said, “Why?” Because the Lord has witnessed between you and the wife of your youth, whom you have despised. She was your consort and the wife of your covenant. Did not One make her and she is the remainder of his spirit? And what does the One seek, if not the offspring of God? Look out for your spirit, and do not despise the wife of your youth. Since you have held her in hate, send her away, says the Lord God of Israel.29 There, it said, now this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,30 and here it says, this is your consort and the wife of your covenant.31 There, she is called part of his flesh; here, she is called a portion of his spirit. There, it is said, grow and be multiplied and fill the earth.32 And here is said, what does the One seek, if not the offspring of God?33 Therefore, here he seeks the offspring of God in spirit, whereas there he sought the offspring of the flesh who were to be multiplied in the flesh. There, it said, they will be two in one flesh.34 Here it said, since you have held her in hate, dismiss her,35 so that same conjoining of the flesh, which there is foretold to be going to occur between man and woman, here is shown to be of no use without the covenant of love that is in the spirit. The statement, since you have held her in hate, dismiss her, is not a separation by one issuing a command, but of one teaching that without the covenant of love the carnal society is empty and lacking in virtue, even if it remains. Therefore, the virtue of the conjugal sacrament is not in the flesh, but in the mind, nor is that consent [to carnal union] required to perfect its holiness. What before sin was required of married people as a function (officium), after sin has reached the point that now it is allowed as a remedy (remedium).36 In no way is the sacrament of marriage to be thought of with reference to that in which then conjugal chastity was not sanctified but exercised, and in which now marriage is not sanctified but the weakness of the spouses is taken into account. 19. For this reason, formerly, when faith existed in one people and the time for multiplying the number of the faithful required it, the deeds of the conjugal duty, carnal commerce was exercised by one with many, but the singular sacrament of one love was not violated.37 However, now when the people of God is to be multiplied by spiritual

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



265

generation instead, to commend the unity of the singular sacrament that is in the spirit, only one woman is joined to one man in one flesh. Then, because of necessity, permission was relaxed exteriorly to the flesh for this activity, and nevertheless interiorly holiness was kept intact; now even the works of the flesh are restricted to one, but in it the unity of the sacrament is not brought about but commended. These things have been said because, there, the proposal was to demonstrate that, without consent to carnal commerce marriage, can be holy and true and the holiness of the conjugal sacrament does not consist in assent to carnal union. 20. After this, it now remains for us to bring to the fore what can be said of the Virgin Mother, and inquire by what reason or authority it can be proven that she was a real spouse and in her assent to marriage she did not change her pledge of virginity. The Angel Gabriel was sent from God to the town of Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, and the name of the virgin was Mary.38 Thus Mary had been espoused by the time that God sent the angel Gabriel to her. Let us see what follows. Having entered, the angel said to her, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, you are blessed among women. When she had heard this, she was disturbed at his words and pondered what sort of greeting this was. And the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary, you have grace with God. You will conceive and bear a son… And Mary said, how will this happen, since I do not know a man.39 This is what we were seeking: the word of the virgin in which she refutes those who are jealous of her virginity. Let us therefore receive, from her, her testimony on her behalf. How will this happen, she says, that is, that I will bear a son, how will this happen since I do not know man.40 She did not say, “I have not known a man,” for nothing would stand in the way of an espoused virgin knowing a man in the future and becoming with child without remaining a virgin. Therefore, this virgin did not say, “I have not known a man,” because it would not have been a miracle of her past virginity nor an impediment to future childbearing if she still had not known a man and she did not plan in the future not to know a man. Therefore, she did not say, “I have not known a man,” but rather, I do not know a man. How will this happen? I do not know a man and I am said to be going to bear a son! How will it be that I will bear a son and I do not know a man? Because I do not know a man? What is this, I do not know a man? I have a pledge not to know a man. I have to conserve the beauty of virginity inviolate until the end. In a similar way, if someone says, I do not drink wine, I cannot taste this cup, that means,

266

H ugh of St   V ictor

because I have a vow not to drink wine, I cannot taste this cup. And when it says, “Nazarites do not cut their hair,” this means they have a vow not to cut their hair.41 In a similar way, it says, I do not know a man. How can this happen because I do not know a man? 21. And the angel said, the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power (virtus) of the Most High will overshadow you.42 He says, do not let the promise of offspring trouble you about your pledge of virginity. The Holy Spirit will come upon you. You will conceive a son, not by a man but by the Holy Spirit. My promise will be fulfilled, but your pledge will not be violated. You have vowed that you are not going to know a man, and I have declared that you are going to bear a son. Therefore, you wonder whether the promise is empty and your pledge will be permanent, or your pledge will be violated if the promise is fulfilled. It is beyond the possibility of nature, and human reason cannot comprehend how an inviolate virgin may bear a son and, without the works of the flesh, flesh may proceed from flesh. Therefore, you wonder how this will happen because you do not know a man. In the meantime, as far as in you lies, you can find no reason why you should doubt about your perseverance, and so you ask how you can be sure about my promise? How will this happen because I do not know man? The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Do not be troubled regarding your pledge because of the promise, because the Holy Spirit will come upon you. Do not be fearful regarding the promise because of your pledge, because the power of the Most High will overshadow you. The Holy Spirit will come upon you so that your integrity will not be destroyed by carnal intercourse. The power of the Most High will overshadow you so your chastity will not be polluted by lust. The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. You will supply the substance, and you will not feel concupiscence. You will not receive seed from a man and, fecund, you will generate the fruit of your womb in a son. Therefore, do not say, how will this happen because I do not know a man, because it will happen not through a man but through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. 22. See, we now have Mary, an espoused virgin still remaining steadfast in her pledge of virginity: truly an espoused virgin, and no less truly remaining steadfast in her pledge of virginity. What more do you see? Does the idea of espousal leave some ambiguity for you? You heard that an angel was sent to an espoused virgin, but you had not heard

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY

 267

that he was sent to a married woman. Perhaps you therefore say, Mary had already been espoused to Joseph then, but she was not yet a spouse because he had not yet received her into her house. If he had received her from that time into his house, why was it later said to him, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to receive Mary as your spouse?43 She was not yet a spouse when the angel was sent to her, but she was espoused. For this reason, it could happen that she had not altered her pledge of virginity when she was espoused, and changed it when she became a spouse. Perhaps you still present this on behalf of your position. 23. Far be it from us to believe that, after she had heard she was to be made fecund by a heavenly birth, she had in any way given assent to carnal intercourse. Before she had learned the secret of the divine sacrament that was to be completed in her, she held inviolate her vow of maintaining virginity, so that when she promised she was going to be a spouse, she proposed to keep that vow to the end in the same devotion and the same perseverance with which she had begun. Therefore, she was espoused and a spouse, but she was a true virgin and had not abandoned her vow of virginity. We confess the espoused virgin, we confess that the virgin became a spouse, and afterward, both mother and virgin, always kept inviolate her pledge of virginity, and the perpetual dignity of chastity reigned with the modesty of a spouse and the honor of a mother.44 24. Look now and carefully consider this virgin, our singular chaste young maid, outstandingly beautiful, singularly chaste. But I know your eye is squinty and the more carefully it looks, the more wickedly it gazes. The law decrees, cursed is the sterile woman who does not give birth, and who does not leave posterity in Israel. But she gave birth and was not sterile, because she left a progeny of blessing in Israel, in which, according to the promise, all nations are blessed with Israel, all who will be blessed in the Lord God of Israel. We have heard in Wisdom: Happy the woman who is sterile and undefiled, who has had no sinful relation, for she will have fruit in regard to holy souls.45 And, again, in the prophets, the Lord shows how great a reward of continence is deposited with him, saying, let not the eunuch say, behold, I am a withered tree. For the Lord says this to eunuchs, to those who have kept my Sabbaths and have chosen what I wish and have kept my covenant, I will give a place in my house and within my walls and a name better than sons and daughters, an eternal name that will not perish.46 25. Who is this who curses sterility in continence, not seeing the purity of continence and not understanding its fruit? In any case, let us

268

H ugh of St   V ictor

not listen to what he proposes. He says, Mary does not escape the curse; she is subject to it by her pledge of virginity. Moreover, why did she wish to marry after she had vowed continence? There are two things: either she did not propose virginity because of the curse of sterility or, because of the vow of chastity, she was going to remain a virgin and would not marry. Now if it is right to say that it is wicked to choose a curse rather than a blessing, what should one say if someone had made of vow of virginity and marries? 26. Gladly I accept that, by your obstinacy, the praise of the Virgin is augmented. Just as truth wishes to be manifested, wickedness needs to be refuted. Let us see, therefore, what you think should be noted in the Virgin. Ah, you said, in her pledge of virginity she incurred the curse of sterility. How great is the curse of sterility? It is as great as the blessing of fecundity. And how great is the blessing of fecundity? When God blessed the first parents of our race, he said, increase and multiply and fill the earth.47 Therefore he gave the blessing of fecundity. Did he therefore give them very much when he gave them the blessing of fecundity, saying, increase and multiply and fill the earth? Did he not say this to the birds of the sky? Did he not say this to the wild animals and beasts of the earth, increase and multiply and fill the earth? When the fifth day of the borning world was completed, when God had produced from the waters the race of fish and birds, Scripture added and said, when God saw that it was good, he said, increase and multiply and fill the waters of the sea, and let the birds be multiplied above the land.48 Likewise, when he led Noah out of the ark with all the living things of the earth in their various kinds, pouring out the gift of his blessing on all of them, he again said, increase and multiply and fill the earth.49 In accord with that mercy by which he saves men and beasts,50 he opens his hand and fills every living thing with his blessing.51 Therefore, the blessing of fecundity has been given not just to men but to beasts also. 27. So, what evil did Mary do? He says she chose the course of sterility rather than the blessing of fecundity. All right, then. Notice the equity of it. Our judge condemns the Virgin because she spurned the blessing of the beasts and, choosing virginity, received the blessing of angels.52 The Psalmist says, my heart was inflamed, I was inwardly perturbed, and I was reduced to nothing and I did not know it. I became like a beast before you, and I am always with you. You took my right hand, and you led me according to your will, and you received me with glory. What, then, is there for me in heaven, and what did I wish from you on earth?53 This is why the prophet, having discovered what

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY

 269

was reserved for him in heaven, willingly despised in comparison to it whatever he had hitherto loved on earth, and seeking heavenly things with a spiritual love, was ashamed that he had lived so long a time in carnal delight. He said, my heart was inflamed and I was inwardly perturbed, that is, why should I desire to be multiplied on earth through progeny of the flesh, when I know an inheritance is reserved for me in heaven? God of my heart, and my portion, God forever.54 This is the best part, which Mary chose, it will not be taken from her.55 Moreover, because she knew she was held in honor, she was not to be compared to senseless beasts, nor did she become like them.56 She wanted to seek something superior to the condition of beasts, and so she deemed it little, or rather she considered it unworthy, to prefer the blessing of the beasts to her honor.57 28. You say why, if virginity is better than fertility, God first blessed fecundity and afterward the law cursed sterility? Listen to why. At first, when the Creator made the world, fecundity was blessed so that human beings would multiply. Later, when God was recognized by just one people, sterility was cursed by the Law so that the faithful would multiply. Finally, when the time arrived in which now all people worship God, virginity has been blessed so that all may be invited from the works of the flesh to celibate life.58 Listen to this also. If that first blessing of fecundity was toward salvation, and that second curse of sterility to damnation, then fecundity of the flesh is meritorious and sterility a fault. Therefore, those women who, one reads, bore many children were better than those who had none or few. Cetura was better than Sarah,59 Peninnah was better than Hannah,60 and many others whom Scripture records pleased God by the merits of their virtues and not by the multitude of their children. However, far be it from us to say that either fecundity of the flesh is meritorious or sterility is culpable. Far be it from us to believe that the law cursed sterility of the flesh to show that it is damnable before God, and not rather to show that at that time, when the succession of the race was sought through a multitude of children, it was not fruitful for humans and for this reason in some way dishonorable. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is not to be blamed nor accused of contempt for the law in which sterility is cursed. Indeed, she alone is to be singularly praised because she was the first to think that the words of the law were not to be understood carnally, and she chose to become the reject of the people on earth and the scorn of human beings61 in order to become the companion of the angels in heaven through the purity of her integrity. Beautifully, and the first among

270

H ugh of St   V ictor

women, the Virgin Mary for love of chastity sustained the curse of the law in her flesh. She was going to give birth from her flesh to him who, receiving the curse of the law in his flesh for our sakes, freed us from the curse of the law. Therefore, rightly, only to her was it given to bear a son and remain a virgin so that, because she was the first to freely prefer virginity to the fecundity of the flesh, now she was both fecund in the flesh and intact in her virginity. Now do you see what sort of accusation you are making? 29. It remains now for us to give the reason why, after a vow of virginity, Mary consented to have a man. Either this holy woman, at Joseph’s suggestion and with his approval, agreed to have a man to hide her pledge, or if by chance Joseph was not aware of this pledge, which could have been the case, she feared to be disobedient to her parents who required the marriage and so consented to marry a spiritual man, trusting firmly through the Holy Spirit who had enflamed her with a love of chastity from the beginning. By the hope that she had in God, she had no doubt that divine mercy would take care of her in such a way that she could show obedience, by not contravening her parents’ will for the marriage, and yet in this marriage she would find no impediment by which she would be forced to break her vow of virginity, which she had undertaken out of love of chastity. She accepted marriage, but did not change her pledge of virginity. Because she loved chastity and maintained obedience, there were found in her both conjugal holiness without any detriment to her virginity and fecund virginity without the dishonor of sterility. 30. Thus, the blessed patriarch, Abraham, a figure of faith and an example of obedience, had received as a promise that his progeny would be blessed in Isaac. Nevertheless, God ordered him to sacrifice that same only-begotten son whom he had from his wife Sarah. Without delay or hesitation he obeyed, knowing for certain that, although according to his reason the command seemed contrary to the promise, according to the power by which all things are possible to God, the promise could be fulfilled even with obedience to the command. Thus, it came about that both the devotion of obedience, by which he did not hesitate to obey the command of God, found merit, and faith, by which he believed the promise of God, resulted in the realization of the faithful promise. So also, here it could happen that this blessed Virgin, commending to God all her desire, had such trust in him that she believed beyond all doubt that she could both show her parents the obedience due them and, as he wished and under his protection, keep

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



271

inviolate the vow of chastity of which he alone was aware. But whether it happened this way or some other way, we must have no hesitation that for a clear and reasonable cause, after a vow of keeping her virginity and a pledge of continence, she received the sacrament of marriage and nevertheless did not alter her pledge of virginity, and truly received the name of spouse and perseveringly maintained the vow of integrity. [II] 31. Having proven the first part of our proposal, by which it was said that in her conjugal consent Mary did not change her pledge of virginity, it is necessary that the discussion advance in an orderly way to an explanation of the second part, which said that she conceived without sexual desire, not from a man but from the Holy Spirit. The opinion defended in the first, because it was questioned more forcefully, required a longer argument, whereas this second part, because it is less in doubt, requires not so much proof as explanation. The first thing62 to be investigated is how one should understand the statement that Mary conceived from the Holy Spirit. We know and have all learned from the usual working of nature that when a woman is said to have conceived by a man, one thinks of nothing else than that she received the substance of the flesh to generate flesh through intercourse of the flesh. This substance of the flesh, transferred from the flesh of the man by intercourse of the flesh, is made one flesh with the flesh of the mother so that what is to be born, truly taking its origin from the substance of each, is generated by him through her and also from her. Therefore, the woman conceives by a man with the flesh of a man, when through intercourse she receives the seed of the flesh to generate flesh. She does not conceive anything other than he is from whom she conceives or she is who conceives. And to what she conceives, she gives birth. 32. What then will we say? Did the Holy Spirit from his substance pour seed into the womb of the Virgin? How could a supernatural substance provide the seed of the flesh? Or was it not the seed of the flesh that was conceived, but it was flesh that was born? What will we say? How did Mary conceive from the Holy Spirit? And if she conceived from the Holy Spirit, how was the Holy Spirit not the father of Christ? All these things deserve great consideration so that, in a difficult and very obscure matter, human thinking does not presume something beyond its capacity. There must be no doubt about these things even though they are obscure, nor is anything to be rashly defined because they are to be believed. Let us

272

H ugh of St   V ictor

therefore inquire what Mary conceived: either she did not conceive flesh and did not give birth to flesh or, if she gave birth to flesh, she conceived flesh. But how could what is not flesh provide flesh, or flesh give birth to non-flesh? Let us consider in what way this troubling inquiry or matter of inquiry can be reasonably and competently understood. 33. Let us first see how in a conception that follows the usual and familiar working of nature, a work of this nature is carried out. When parents generate carnally and through carnal intercourse fashion flesh that will be born, nature provides from both substance for creating a child, and from the flesh of both proceeds the flesh that is to be formed in the flesh of just one. However, this tribute that nature by the institution of the Creator pays as a debt to bring to term the production of a human being is not required of it by any necessity of force, so that it is to be given solely because of affection (sola dilectione) and, as I would express it, by a voluntary love (spontanea caritate). There is nothing besides love that can exact this debt from nature. However, when it has been prompted by voluntary love, then both freely and joyfully hasten to each other to complete this work. Indeed, whatever is seized violently from someone who is unwilling to bring this about is unfitting and ineffective. Only affection can persuade nature and in some way compel someone who is willing to sow a child. In a woman love of a man, and in a man love of a woman, frequently brings it about that, because in just one of them alone nature is not sufficient to do this, one comes to the other through love, so that what was not possible in either of them alone, each is capable of with the other. Therefore, the seed of a human child to be formed is conceived by the woman alone, but it is sown by the man and woman together. Nature brings this about, as was already said, in the woman through love of the man and in the man through love of the woman. For this reason, even the woman is not said to conceive except by a man, since she receives that by which she is made fecund both from herself and from the man. It is rightly said that she conceives from the man alone what she conceives, because on the one hand it is received from the flesh of the man and on the other hand it is provided through the love of the man. She does not conceive solely from the man what she receives from the man, but she also conceives from the man what she receives from herself for love of the man. 34. We have put this first because it says that Mary conceived from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Mary conceived from the Holy Spirit not because she received from the Holy Spirit the seed of a child, because through the love and working of the Holy Spirit, nature provided from

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



273

the flesh of the Virgin the substance for a divine birth. Because in her heart love of the Holy Spirit burned in a singular way, the power of the Holy Spirit did wondrous things in her flesh.63 Love for him had no companion in Mary’s heart, and his working in her flesh had no model. The Virgin conceived only what she received from her flesh by the love and working of the Holy Spirit. From it alone, without an admixture of male seed, she bore a son. It was not the desire of the flesh that brought about conception in the Virgin, for she did not receive seed from the flesh of a man, and she did not conceive from her own flesh through love of a man but through the love and working of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not said to be the Father of Christ because love of her brought about the Virgin’s conception, for he did not provide the seed of a child to the Virgin from his own essence, but rather he provided the Virgin substance from her own flesh through his love and power. Therefore, Christ was born from the Virgin because he received the substance of his flesh from the flesh of the Virgin, and he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, because the Virgin herself, from her flesh alone without the admixture of male seed, conceived through the working and love of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the angel said to the Virgin when she was about to conceive, the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.64 The Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin so that through his working the flesh of Christ would be formed of the flesh of the Virgin. The power of the Most High overshadowed her so that through his working in supplying the substance of the flesh she did not burn with carnal concupiscence. It is thus that we think one should understand what is said about the Virgin conceiving from the Holy Spirit and thus also one can add that in conceiving she is presented as not feeling sexual desire.65 [III] 35. Now there remains the last of the three points that we proposed, namely that we show that she also gave birth without pain and in giving birth suffered no lessening of her virginity. I have heard sometimes that a virgin conceived, but not that a virgin gave birth, because she conceived from a man what she bore. It is fitting that integrity be destroyed in childbirth, because in conception virginity is polluted, and it was just that one not give birth without pain to what was not conceived without sexual pleasure. If conception had not brought feelings of sexual pleasure, childbearing would not have brought pain, because if the guilt of

274

H ugh of St   V ictor

unlawful delight did not pollute the one conceiving, the punishment of pain would not have tortured the one giving birth. After the first mother of our race and of our sorrows had conceived evil pleasure, she heard that she would give birth to children in pain. Thus, it was clearly shown that she did not give birth with pain because she conceived by a man, but because she conceived with sexual pleasure. Who can say whether, if humanity had not sinned, human childbirth, even when conception occurred from a man, would either corrupt integrity or violate chastity? Indeed, if it would not violate chastity, why should it destroy integrity? Let him answer who can. 36. So that in addition to the first making there would be a second restoration, and the grace of the Savior would conquer the nature of the race. The Blessed Virgin Mary not only conceived without sexual desire, she also did not receive her child from the seed of a man. For this reason, she brought forth a son without pain and remained a virgin with the honor of her integrity after childbirth. [IV] A question about the same subject.66 37. Because there is no end of questions, I have been forced to add explanation upon explanation and to diligently repair an old wall with new mortar.67 For rough minds that are always being broken down by a new error, nothing can be straightened out. When they are wrapped in their own darkness, they do not see an outside light. Whatever they cannot understand, they complain is said obscurely. Thus, they turn the deficiency of their minds into an accusation about what is said. 38. In the treatise that I composed about the virginity of the Blessed Virgin, the central question was whether in some way it could be shown that it was possible to sanctify marriage without consent to carnal intercourse. When we proposed what was required to clarify this question, the reason was made clear why the sanctity of the conjugal sacrament cannot consist in carnal consent. Then, determining what things the holiness of marriage required, we defined marriage as the legitimate association between a man and a woman in which, even leaving out carnal commerce, by mutual consent each owes his or her self to the other, so that they keep themselves for the other and do not pass on to another association and they do not deny themselves to the other, so that neither withdraws from the society that they have with each other.68

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



275

39. Although this was able to satisfy those whom plain reasoning satisfies, behold, once again, those who do not want to profess that in the Mother of God there was simultaneously a true sacrament of marriage and a true pledge of virginity, because they assert that marriage without assent to carnal coitus cannot be valid. They try to weaken our definition, which excludes from marriage the necessity of the flesh, by the following argument. If, they say, marriage is nothing other than such a society in which, apart from carnal commerce, by equal assent each one owes oneself by an obligation of keeping for and not denying oneself to that inseparable union and fidelity that is in their common association, why cannot marriage also be celebrated in a most right and holy manner in the same sex and a separate society be sanctioned by a praiseworthy love? What impedes a man from binding a man and a woman from binding a woman to themselves in such of covenant and alliance and loving association? If it is completely ridiculous and ruled out by all human reason that the sacrament of marriage be celebrated in the same sex, when nevertheless this covenanted association is not prohibited, it remains that in the compact of marriage we ought to profess that union of the flesh, which is constituted only in both sexes, is necessary for consent. 40. They force us to show, if we do not wish to assent that intercourse is completely necessary to the compact of marriage, why this association indicated in our definition cannot be sanctified in the same sex. It is sufficient for this that the divine institution ordained this to covenant both sexes and, for this reason, union in the same sex is foreign to the sacrament of marriage and illicit. As even in different sexes, such as between mother and son, a union is not allowed and therefore void of the sanctity of the conjugal sacrament, because he who said, a man will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife and they will be two in one flesh,69 clearly teaches this association between mother and son is disordered and for this reason not chaste, since it shows that to sanctify marriage a mother is not to be sought but to be left behind. 41. This reason would be sufficient on its own to prove that the sacrament of marriage cannot occur in the same sex, however bound together by chaste and indissoluble love. However, we must, as is proper in every divine assertion, pay attention not so much to our own defense as to the edification of those to whom we speak. Therefore, we need to give a rationale why the sacrament of marriage, which between different sexes requires nothing but the love of a perpetual and indivisible

276

H ugh of St   V ictor

association, cannot be sanctified in a similar and identical covenant in the same sex. We do so as follows.70 In marriage, there are two things: the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of the conjugal function, that is, marriage and the function of marriage, both of which are sacraments. Marriage exists in the covenant of love; the function of marriage exists in the generation of a child. Therefore, conjugal love is a sacrament and, among the married, sexual intercourse is a sacrament. But conjugal love is a sacrament of that love which exists in the spirit between God and the soul. Among the married, sexual intercourse is a sacrament of the participation that exists in the flesh between Christ and the Church.71 Therefore, conjugal love should not exist in any way among equals, because that of which it was a sacrament did not exist among equals. Therefore, a male and female72 are joined in the love of a single association, just as God and soul are joined in the love of a single association.73 42. Do you not see now where our entire argument is headed? Observe the two associations of love: on earth, male and female, in heaven, God and the soul, and consider how all things have been arranged by a wise providence. God created male and female and the female from the male. Because she is made for him, she is set under him.74 It is given to him to excel by the liveliness of his reason and the strength of his body. It is ordained for her to be subject to him not only by obedience by also by nature. God wished that she, as though aware of her fragility, rest in his power and providence, and that her weakness might move his loving-kindness so that, in a way, the man would love a woman out of loving-kindness and woman would love him more out of necessity. That man loves woman is in a way a benefit, because he is bound by loving-kindness not to desert her weakness. However, that a woman loves a man is more needed (debitum), because by natural necessity she is compelled to seek protection. And thus in a way, all usefulness of love is referred to the woman, because in her is the reason she loves the man and she is loved by him.75 43. The sacrament of love is therefore apparent. Love is the sacrament and the sacrament of love is love. There is no need for a long explanation to show how, in the figure of this sacrament, the man is the image of God and the woman manifests in herself the image and form of the rational soul.76 It is clear that, as a man is inclined to love a woman by a certain natural loving-kindness and compassion, while a man is loved by a woman more by a necessity of creation, so God loves the rational soul first by a freely given loving-kindness (gratuita

ON T H E V I R G I N I T Y OF T H E B L E S S E D V I R G I N M A RY



277

pietate) and the soul afterward turns toward the love of God by a certain reasonable necessity, though her love is free and voluntary. He first loves us as a free gift so that afterward he may convert us to love him who loves,77 and there may be one association of love, both in regard to us because it is necessary for us, and in regard to him, because it is blessed in him. 44. In this joyous conversion of love, the love of God is in some way the head, because from him love first comes into us and to him converted love is first referred. For a similar reason, in conjugal love, which is a sacrament of this love, the man’s love is the head because in love he first associates himself with the woman through compassion and loving-kindness, so that the woman’s love, turned through creation to the man and received through spontaneous kindness, becomes one in an association of love. Therefore, the Apostle says: man is the head of woman, Christ is the head of man. God is the head of Christ.78 For what is in the sacrament of chaste marriage a holy love of man for woman is in the covenant of faith the love of Christ for the Church, and what is in the sacrament of faith the love of Christ for the Church is in the Incarnation of the Word the love of God for human nature. For this reason, the Song of love, where this eternal charity and ineffable love, either of God for the soul or of Christ for the Church, had to be expressed, not as it was but as it could be, nothing in visible things or in human feeling could be found more similar than the love of a husband and a wife, so that this invisible and spiritual love was shown in no other way than through its sacrament. Thus, the ear received through the Word what human feeling had known, and the heart tasted interiorly through love what it had not known. The bride wished to point to that same exchange of mutual charity, by which with the one woman joined to one man it accepted no division in itself and no sharing in an alien one, when she said, My beloved in me and I am his. He pastures among the lilies,79 until the day whispers and the shadows withdraw,80 and again, I am my beloved’s and he turns to me.81 The Spouse himself, commending the prerogative of a unique love, says, there are sixty queens and eighty concubines and young girls without number. My dove is one, my perfect one. The one for her mother, the chosen of her who gave birth to her.82 On account of the sacrament of eternal love, God wished to sanctify marriage. On account of the usefulness of human propagation, he created sex. Nevertheless, conjugal love is not a sacrament on account of dissimilarity in the sexes, but on account of a difference in nature. It is not sex, but nature, that bestows a disparate charity to the love of

278

H ugh of St   V ictor

each, but nonetheless sex distinguishes the inequality of nature. Chaste love cannot be assigned in a certain way because of a certain sex, but in a certain sex because of a certain nature, since apart from a certain sex it cannot be so assigned, because apart from a certain sex such a nature is not found.83 45. Let this suffice for those who ask how conjugal love from which carnal intercourse is excluded may not be sanctioned with similar truth when both are of the same sex.

N otes



279

NOTES 1

2 3 4 5

6

7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16

17

18 19 20 21 22

This translation is made from the Latin text in Oeuvres 2:182–259, which is based on Troyes, BM 301, 76va–89rb, with eight emendations based on the edition in the PL. The Latin text was prepared by Patrice Sicard and annotated and translated by Bernadette Jollès. I have reproduced many of her notes and profited from her fine French translation. The Roman numerals indicating the four parts of the treatise were introduced by Jollès; the paragraph numbers were added in this English translation. The three propositions in this sentence are the topics of the first three parts of Hugh’s treatise. The fourth seems to be an addendum. 2 Tim 4:3. This phrase “assertor veritatis” occurs in the hymn Magne Pater Augustine, which was sung at St Victor on St Augustine’s feast day, August 28. There, it refers to him. Pseudo-Chrysostom, Opus imperfectum in Mattaeum (PG 56:802), cited by Ivo of Chartres, Decretum 8.17 (PL 161.588A). St Ambrose had stated the same principle in De institutione virginis 6 (PL 16.316C): “Non defloratio virginitatis facit conjugium sed pactio conjugalis.” Ambrose, De  virginibus 2.2.7 (PL  16.209A): “Virgo erat non solum corpore sed etiam mente.” Augustine insisted on the harmony between what is within and without (cf. Doct. christ. 4.21 [Martin, CCSL 32, 131; tr. Hill, WSA 1/11, 212]), an idea that the Victorines embraced; e.g., in Hugh’s understanding of the link between decorum and virtue in Inst. nov. See C. Stephen Jaeger, “Victorine Humanism,” in Feiss and Mousseau, Companion, 79–112. Having mentioned the singular veneration that the Church accords to Mary, Hugh now will contrast to that the consequences of his opponent’s theory, by making an unfavorable comparison of the latter’s understanding of the virginity of Mary with the merit of St Agnes. See Sacr. 2.11.4 (PL 176.485C), which emphasizes that the marital society must be lawful. debitum: duty, debt, due, obligation; the past participle of debere, the “must” of the previous sentence. It is translated here as “debt,” since that is the usual translation. See 1 Cor 7:3–4. See the very similar statement in Sacr. 2.11.4 (PL 176.485B): “Ut deinceps neque ad alienam altero vivente transeat, neque se ab illa quae adinvicem constat societate disjungat.” 1 Cor 7:39. 1 Cor 7:4. See Sacr. 2.11.3 (PL 176.482A): “[Conjugium] tanto verius et sanctius esse quanto in se nihil habet unde castitas erubescat sed unde charitas glorietur.” Eph 5:31–32. Sacr. 2.11.3 (PL 176.482AB): Marriage is the sacrament of that union that exists between God and the soul, and the duty of marriage is the sacrament that exists between Christ and the Church. See Sacr. 1.6.35 (PL 176.284C): “Facta est [mulier] autem de latere viri ut ostederetur quod in consortium creabatur dilectionis… Quia igitur viro nec domina nec ancilla parabatur sed socia … de latere fuerat producenda ut juxta se ponendam cognosceret.” Jollès translates felicius as “fecund” and adds (255 n14) that Hugh characteristically thinks that the gift of self to another engenders fecundity and happiness for oneself. Again, Jollès, Oeuvres 2:95 n43, notes that Hugh applies to the self-gift of marriage what he elsewhere says about the love of God bringing happiness to the human being. Hugh’s position was at odds with Abelard’s, but was endorsed by St Thomas Aquinas, Sum. theo. 2–2.26.13 ad 3 (Caramello, 2:117; tr. Fathers, 2:1305). Gen 1:28. Gen 2:23–24. Hugh ascribes these words to Adam. See also Sacr. 2.11.2 (PL 176.481A). Gen 2:23–24. Gen 2:23–24. In Hugh’s interpretation, the one speaking here is Adam. The Latin is difficult: “Quanto magis que nec esse potuit secundum carneam commixtionem non relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam et adherebit uxiori sue!” Jollès’

280

23

24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49 50

H ugh of St   V ictor

translation (Œuvres  2:202–05) captures Hugh’s meaning by leaving out the last negative: “Combien plus n’est-ce pas sous l’angle d’union charnelle ne pouvant ni n’ayant pu exister, que l’homme quitter son père et sa mère et s’attachera a sa femme!” Thus, a man who marries his wife does not necessarily leave his parents’ dwelling, nor does he cease to love them, much less does he—a repellant idea—cease to have carnal intercourse with them in order to cling to his wife. Hugh will next say what it actually is that a man leaves when he marries. The word translated twice as “creation” is “conditio.” Hugh uses “conditio” to refer to God’s creation, e.g., in the phrase opus conditionis. This word comes from verb condere. Another word, also “conditio,” means “condition, stipulation, contract,” and comes from the verb condicere. A less literal translation would see here a kind of pun: “there it was only coming into existence which gave rise to love, here love alone makes a choice without condition.” My translation of the last several sentences differs from that of Jollès. Hugh frequently distinguishes between being and beautiful and blessed being; e.g., Sacr. 1.1.3–6 (PL 176.180C– 182D); Arrha  37 (Sicard, Oeuvres  1, 254; tr.  Feiss, VTT  2:216); cf.  Achard of St  Victor, ­Sermo 9.4 (Châtillon, 105–06; tr. Feiss, Works, 67–68 and VTT 8). Gen 2:24. Gen 2:24. 1 Cor 15:46. 1 Cor 6:17. Mal 2:13–16; cf. Matt 2:13–16. The Latin text of this citation that Hugh uses is not clear. The NRSV translates the end of the passage as “For I hate repudiation, says the Lord.” Gen 2:23. Mal 2:14. Gen 1:28. Mal 2:15. Gen 2:24. Mal 2:16. See Sacr. 2.13.3 (PL 176.482D); In Eccl. 15 (PL 175.222AB). Hugh is not convincing here. How could the Patriarchs keep a unique love but have many wives? Perhaps they had one wife, but many concubines. What does he mean by saying that they kept interior holiness intact while they had sexual relations with many? Did they do so without concupiscence? Luke 1:26–27. Luke 1:28–31, 34. Luke 1:34. Num 6:5; Judg 13:5; 16:17. Luke 1:35. Matt 1:20. “cum pudicitia coniugis et honore parentis.” On this paradox of fecund virginity, see Augustine, De  sancta virginitate 2.2–7.7 (Zycha, CSEL  41, 236–41; tr.  Kearney, 68–71); Caelius Sedulius, Carmen Paschale 2.67 (www.thelatinlibrary.com/sedulius/2.html, accessed April 5, 2017): “gaudia matris habens cum virginitatis honore”; and the twelfth-century Parisian Sequence, “Lux advenit veneranda” (cf. Margot Fassler, Gothic Song: Victorine Sequence and Augustinian Reform in Twelfth-Century Paris [New  York: Cambridge, 1993], 158): “Cum honore matronali / cum pudore virginali” (The Liturgical Poetry of Adam of St Victor, ed. and tr. Digby S. Wrangham, 3 vol. [London: Kegan Paul and Trench, 1881], 2:228.22–25). Wisd 3:13. Isa 56:4–5. Gen 1:28. Gen 1:21–22. Gen 8:17. Ps 35:7.

N otes 51 52

53 54 55 56 57

58

59 60 61 62

63

64 65

66

67

68 69 70 71



281

Ps 144:16. The “blessing of angels” could be the blessing that angels receive from God, but more likely it is a blessing given by angels; cf. John O’Donohue, “A Blessing of Angels”: May the Angels in their beauty bless you / May they turn toward you streams of blessings (https://thevalueofsparrows.com/2012/12/12/poetry-a-blessing-of-angels-by-john-odonohue/ accessed April 5, 2017). Ps 72:22–25. Ps 72:26. Cf. Luke 10:42. Ps 48:13, 21. Hugh’s argument from the fact that human beings share sexual reproduction with animals is based on a biological fact. However, that this argument occurred to him is indicative of his view of human sexuality as unable to express spiritual love without a taint of sin. In par. 28, he will offer a different argument based on stages in the history of salvation; this argument was stated by St Augustine, De bono coniugali 22.27 (Zycha, CSEL 31, 222–23; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 53–54). In De bono conjugali 9.9; 16.18 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 199–201; 210–12; tr. Kearny, WSA 1/9, 40–41; 47), St Augustine gives a similar explanation of the necessity in the past to multiply the human race and the great good of virginity in the present. See also his De sancta virginitate 9.9 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 242–43; tr. Kearny, WSA 1/9, 72). Cetura was a concubine of Abraham: Gen 25:1; 1 Chr 1:32–33. 1 Kings 1:4–6. Ps 21:7. Hugh incorporated into Sacr.  2.1.8 (PL  176.391D–393D) most of this second part, from here to “…so that as she promised the substance of her flesh was not inflamed with carnal concupiscence,” which occurs near the end of par. 34. This emphasis on “the love of the Holy Spirit,” refers to Mary’s love for the Holy Spirit, not the love that the Holy Spirit has for her. Hugh is here thinking in parallel to what he said in par. 33 about the wife’s love for her husband, eliciting her contribution to the making of a child. Luke 1:32. Augustine thought that sexual pleasure in marital intercourse was forgivably (“venially”) sinful. Hugh seems to say that what he has presented shows that Mary experienced no such sexual feeling in the conception of Jesus. Hugh refers to Augustine’s judgment on sexual pleasure in martial intercourse in the next paragraph, par. 35. As was explained in the introduction, this final section of Hugh’s work has the feel of an afterthought. Although it is found in all known manuscripts of the work, it deals with a question that seems to have been raised by people who had read the first three sections. They ask: if consent to sexual intercourse is not essential to marriage, why cannot marriage be between two people of the same sex, who pledge faithful love to each other but not sexual intercourse, which in Hugh’s estimate, and in the estimate of those who raised the question, would have been an unnatural and sinful act. Thus, the question is about a union that parallels Mary’s marriage, which occurred without a pledge of intercourse, to a union also without any pledge of sexual intercourse, between two people of the same sex. Cf. Ezek 13:11: “linire absque temperatura” (to make straight with unseasoned mortar). That is, people’s incessant questioning forces Hugh to revisit what he has already completed, but that the crude cast of their minds means he can never get them in plumb. The exasperation he expresses, with its polemical edge, mirrors that in par. 2. See above, par. 6. Gen 2:24. The following argument is paralleled in Sacr. 1.8.13 (PL 176.314D–315A). See above, par. 9; Sacr. 2.11.3 (PL 176.482AB).

282 72

73

74

75

76 77

78 79 80 81 82 83

H ugh of St   V ictor Here, Hugh uses for the first time in this work the pair masculus/femina rather than vir/ mulier, which has been used up to this point. Vir/mulier can mean both man/woman and husband/wife, though I have tried to translate it man/woman most of the time. Here, Hugh returns to the idea, hardly acceptable today, that marriage must be between unequals if it is to be a sacrament of the marriage of Christ and the Church or the union of God and the soul. As  Jollès in her note to this text points out, the idea that being made from Adam (Gen 1:21–22: de illo) implies being subject to him (sub illo) is unconvincing. The Bible says that man’s domination of woman came not from the Creation but from sin (Gen 3:16). Again, as Jollès notes (176–77), here the functional difference Hugh finds between man and woman in marriage contrasts with the equality of consent and mutual reciprocal benefits in marriage that Hugh discussed in the first part of this work. Jollès glosses this nicely. The love that constitutes the res of marriage is a sacrament of the union of God and the soul. Jollès translated this text as “C’est lui qui nous aime le premier et gratuitement, pour nous tourner ensuite, pleins d’amour, vers lui qui s’aime lui-même, et pour réaliser une seule union d’amour…” 1 Cor 11:3. Song 2:16; 6:3. Song 4:6. Song 7:10. Song 6:8–9. The Latin here is terse. The idea is that God created marriage as a sacrament of eternal love. He  created sex for the propagation of the human race. Conjugal love is not a sacrament because of sexual difference, but because of a difference in nature between man and woman. It is nature, not sex, that brings about the difference in the love with which men love and the love with which women love. Chaste love results not from the difference of the sexes, but from the difference in nature expressed in the sexes. However, the nature expressed in sexual difference is not found apart from that expression. Jollès (299 n70) thinks that Hugh has misconstrued Paul’s point in Eph 5:21–33, which was to emphasize the unity in love between man and woman. She is correct, but the comparison he makes between Christ and the Church on the one hand, and husband and wife on the other, inevitably suggests inequality of status, even if that inequality is leveled by mutual love. Jollès also points out that here Hugh seems to go against what he wrote in Sacr. 1.6.35 (PL 176.284C): “God prepared for man not a master nor a servant, but a companion” (“viro nec domina nec ancilla parabatur, sed socia”). She also notes, rightly, that Hugh does not define what he means by difference in “nature,” a term he does not use in the parallel text in Sacr. 1.8.13.

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 2.11: ON THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE INTRODUCTION

Sources In composing this treatment on the sacrament of marriage in De sacramentis 2.11, Hugh draws on what he had written about marriage in his treatise On the Virginity of Blessed Mary, introduced and translated above. He extracts from that work the understanding of marriage that he developed there in his effort to show that Mary could be vowed to virginity yet truly married to Joseph. An important source for some of his ideas and terminology is St Augustine, to whom he refers quite often in De sacramentis 2.11.1 These places are indicated in the notes to the translation. Hugh refers to the Bible often, and in the background of his understanding is the contrast between Eve, “the mother of our race and sorrow,”2 and Mary, the mother of the Savior. Hugh lived and wrote at a time when what we would distinguish as the canon law of marriage and the theology of marriage were still closely connected, so that in this treatise he deals with a number of canonical issues, particularly in par. 13–19, which are not considered or translated here. Questions 14–17 concern permitted degrees of consanguinity and affinity, which were important to the canon law of Hugh’s time.3 When in the earlier chapters Hugh draws on his De virginitate to treat of the definition and components of marriage, he is generally concise. In the later chapters, where he is dealing with issues not treated in De virginitate, Hugh writes at greater length, looking at the questions from various angles. 1

2 3

On Hugh’s sources regarding marriage, see Maria Antonietta Chirico, “Il sacramentu conjugii in Ugo di San Vittore,” Benedictina 44 (1997): 12–14. She notes that Hugh differed from many early Christian writers about marriage by agreeing with the views that Augustine ultimately adopted that marriage was instituted before sin entered the world and procreation is not the sole finality of marriage. Virginitate BM, III, par. 35 (Jollès, 240); Allard, 27. Allard, 26; L’oeuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor, 2, ed. Bernadette Jollès, Sous la Règle de saint Augustin (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 11.

284

H ugh of St   V ictor

Outline The paragraphs of Hugh’s treatise on marriage can be summarized as follows:

4

5 6

1.

Sexual intercourse: function (officium) and remedy (remedium); before sin, it had the function of propagating the human race; since then, it is also a remedy to channel sexual desire.4

2.

Marriage was established by God in the beginning of the human race and sanctified by Christ at Cana and is therefore good.

3.

The compact of love in marriage is a sacrament of the bond between God and the soul; and the mingling of the flesh symbolizes the bond between Christ and the Church. The former is greater and only it is essential to marriage.

4.

Definition of Legitimate Marriage: a legitimate union based on legitimate consent between legitimate persons, legitimately made by both male and female partners to observe an undivided association for life. Legitimate marriage occurs among lawful persons with lawful consent, provided there is no impediment known to the Church, such as consanguinity or affinity.5

5.

Marriage begins to exist at the moment of consent, whether private or public, not when a future consent is promised or when there is sexual consummation. “Espousal” (sponsio, desponsatio) could mean either a promise to marry sometime in the future or it could be actual consent to marriage. Consent or permission from parents or guardians, a dowry, and a blessing by a priest are not required for the validity of a marriage.6

Sacr. 2.8.13 (PL 176.315BC, 317A): At the creation, “that the conjugal society would not be idle… a function was added, which was to be fulfilled in the carnal intercourse, so that in it the spouses would be trained for virtue by obedience and be fruitful through the generation of children” (“Iterum ne otiose esset societas conjugalis… propterea additum est officium quod in commistione carnis expleri debuerat, ut in eo conjuncti exercerentur per oboedientiam ad virtutem et fructificarent per prolis generationem”). After sin, sexual intercourse “could not be exercised without base concupiscence and sexual lust” (“illud sine turpi concupiscentia et carnis libidine exercere non potuit”). Allard, 48–49. See Allard, 40–45. Ivo of Chartres distinguished “fides pactionis,” the promise to marry, and “fides consensus,” the actual marital consent.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1

7



285

6.

In regard to those who marry secretly and afterward do something contrary to marriage, the principle holds: what cannot be proven to the Church cannot be judged by the Church. This creates a dilemma for a man who makes a secret marriage, denies it, marries someone else publicly, then repents his sin, and for the wife of his first, secret marriage who is still married to him.

7.

The three goods of marriage are fidelity (bonum fidei), hope of progeny (spes prolis), and sacrament. One cannot dissolve the bond of the sacrament (in an infertile marriage) for the sake of producing progeny.7 Adultery by one or both parties to a marriage or infertility do not invalidate the marriage, because the third blessing, the sacrament, present only among the Christian faithful, remains.

8.

Adultery by one or both parties to a marriage or infertility do not invalidate the marriage, because the third blessing, the sacrament, present only among the Christian faithful, remains.

9.

Unchastity can exist within marriage, if sexual intercourse occurs in wantonly excessive or unnatural ways on the part of one or both spouses.

10.

Polygamy in ancient times was permitted to propagate the race, not to satisfy lustful desire.

11.

Because people may eventually separate does not invalidate their legitimate marriage (unless it is incestuous, that is, within the fourth degree of consanguinity).

12.

A vow of chastity not confirmed by a manifest profession cannot be proven by the Church to prohibit a marriage, and someone who has made a private vow of chastity and then marries is bound by the marriage bond, even though she sinned in breaking her vow. However, someone who makes a vow of celibate chastity publicly attested by the Church cannot validly marry.

13.

Just as baptism by a schismatic is valid, so by divine mandate marriage among unbelievers is valid, though it may not achieve the spiritual effect of Christian marriage. However, there is a higher divine mandate that applies when a pagan spouse refuses to remain married to a spouse who becomes a Christian. The believing spouse may then marry another. If, however, the unbelieving spouse is willing to remain, the believing spouse may cohabit with her or him (the more loving option) or leave and marry a believer. If the believing spouse marries someone else, the unbeliever is not free to marry another. Allard, 70–72.

286

H ugh of St   V ictor

If, after entering into an adulterous union with someone else, the unbeliever repents, leaves that person and becomes a Christian, and then asks to be restored in marriage to the original spouse, who is now married to someone else, the Church must require her to live in continence. To require that has unfortunate consequences, so after her baptism she is allowed to marry someone else. The incestuous union of pagan relatives is not rendered legitimate if they are baptized. 14–17. The permitted degrees of consanguinity and affinity. 18.

If another person is substituted for the one someone thought he or she was marrying, there is no marriage.

19.

If someone marries someone she thought was free but is actually in a servile state, Hugh thinks there is no marriage.

Beginning in paragraph three, Hugh’s approach is dialectical. He states a problem, then gives various answers and his own. Thus, at the end of paragraph three, he writes: a.

Some think that without engaging in sexual intercourse, a woman cannot image the union of Christ and the Church. Therefore, without sexual intercourse there is no marriage.

b.

Marriage itself, apart from sexual union, is a greater sacrament of the union of God and the soul.

c.

A married virgin can relate to this greater sacrament.

Likewise, in paragraph four, Hugh states his opinion that a.

people who are ignorant of the law or of their own relationship of consanguinity or affinity and marry within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity are legitimately married.

b.

Objection: How can a marriage be recognized as existing when there is something that, if known, would prohibit the marriage?

c.

Reply. (i) What is done illicitly is not always invalid. (ii) Ignorance excuses. (iii) It seems too harsh to say that children of such a union are illegitimate. (iv) If the children are in some respect legitimate, so is the marriage. (v) This does not apply to a union between a brother and a sister since, quite apart from the law, human decency knows that such a union is shameful. (vi) Those who consent only to carnal intercourse are not consenting to marriage.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



287

Because of his bedrock conviction that consent is what makes a marriage, Hugh could not reject the legitimacy of clandestine marriages, even though these were often the cause of pastoral dilemmas. He treats some of these problems in paragraph six and others in subsequent paragraphs. Paragraph six concerns those who marry secretly, and then one or both of them deny that the marriage occurred. To unravel various permutations that can result, Hugh invokes a principle: what cannot be proven to the Church, the Church cannot judge; hidden things cannot prejudice manifest ones. Thus, if one party of a secret marriage abandons the other and marries someone else in public before the Church, the Church cannot declare the second marriage invalid on the basis of the unsubstantiated complaint of the abandoned spouse. This puts her in a difficult position, since she claimed that there was a secret marriage, which means that before God she is still married to the man who abandoned her. He, too, is in a difficult position. Because he declares there was no such marriage, he cannot return to the woman whom he married secretly. If he changes his story, he will not be believed. Hugh concludes that both must stay as they are. If the Church made any other decision, there would be chaos, because whoever wanted to leave a spouse could claim he was married previously in secret to someone else. Elsewhere in the paragraphs that follow, Hugh will again conjure the practical implications that would follow from a change in Church policy. Hugh also argues the man is caught in a dilemma between obeying the Church by staying with the woman to whom he is publicly married and leaving the woman to whom he knows he is not lawfully married to return to the woman he had earlier married secretly. If there is no apparent way out of the dilemma, and he is repentant, he should trust in the mercy of God. Hugh, then, thinks about what he would say if such a man would come to him for advice. Hugh would tell him to go to God. Then, Hugh imagines what the man would say as he prayed to God. This resort to imagination is striking. It can serve as evidence that Hugh was an experienced confessor and spiritual guide. In paragraph eleven, Hugh considers whether there can be a marriage if subsequently the union can be dissolved. Against those who answer negatively, Hugh argues that just as Christ is present in the Eucharist even if the recipient through lack of proper dispositions does not receive the spiritual effect of the sacrament, so there can be a true marriage even if the bond uniting the couple is broken and so its sacramental significance is lost. Thus, certain marriages can be true as

288

H ugh of St   V ictor

long as they are considered valid by the Church, although later when legitimate causes come to light they are dissolved. Having refuted what he thinks is a too restricted view about the validity of marriages of those who have made a private vow of chastity, in paragraph twelve Hugh rejects what he considers too lenient a view regarding priests and publicly professed religious who break their vows of celibacy by marrying. If they could abandon their professed state and legitimately marry, chaos would follow. Whenever a publicly vowed celibate found his calling difficult, he would abandon his vows. Hugh images how someone publicly vowed to celibacy would argue himself into leaving his professed state. The imagined argument is heartfelt and moving. However, Hugh rejects it. Perhaps in earlier times there was a possibility of allowing exceptions, but now such a concession would be abused. In paragraph thirteen, Hugh contends that the marriages of unbelievers are valid. However, if an unbelieving partner refuses to accept the conversion of his or her partner, the believing partner may remarry. This can lead to various complicated situations, which Hugh tries to resolve. In doing so, Hugh imagines the argument that the unbelieving partner or his or her family might make. From this survey of the contents of the treatise on the Sacrament of Marriage in De sacramentis 2.11, two aspects of Hugh’s work come to the fore: his pastoral concern and his ability to empathetically imagine how others might think or feel about the situations he considers. The same qualities appear in what is arguably his finest literary text: De arrha anime. Another aspect of Hugh’s mentality that appears, especially in paragraphs twelve and thirteen, is the urgency he feels to interpret authorities such as Augustine and Innocent I in a way that brings them into line with the practice of Church in Hugh’s time. If he cannot do that, he tries to identify historical factors that account for the differences between these earlier authorities and later Church teaching and practice.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1

 289

TRANSLATION

Margaret Jennings and Hugh Feiss, OSB 1. The Sacrament of Marriage Although all the other sacraments were formally instituted after sin and on account of sin, we read that, alone among them, the sacrament of marriage was established even before sin, not as a remedy but as a function.1 Consequently, the following must be proved and discussed: marriage’s origin and establishment, the types of marriage and the reason for them, and the variations that occurred due to time, place, and rites.2 2. The Origin of Marriage The  author of marriage is God who decreed its existence when he made woman to partner with man in the propagation of the race. Adam, knowing in the spirit why woman had been created, when she was brought to him, said, this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh… Wherefore, a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.3 Also, in Cana of Galilee, Christ consecrated nuptials not only by his bodily presence but also by performing a miracle.4 Marriage is from God and is good.5 3. The Twofold Institution of Marriage Marriage was established for two purposes: the first, before sin, was a function; the second, after sin, was a remedy.6 The first had as its object the multiplication of humankind; the second, that humankind might be supported and vice might be checked. The first establishment of marriage was set forth as a compact of love, so that in it would be the sacrament of the society that exists spiritually between God and the soul. It also presented marriage as the mingling of the flesh so that in it would be a sacrament of the society (societas)—anchored in the flesh—that was to exist between Christ and the Church.7 The second institution sanctified marriage as a compact of love so that the goods associated with it might excuse what resulted from weakness and sin in the mingling of flesh. Here, the function of marriage allowed that the mingling of flesh could not only effect the multiplication of humankind but also support its weakness.

290

H ugh of St   V ictor

The Apostle indicates why the sacrament of marriage was instituted when he says a human being is an image of God and by this, in a way, shows that woman is a type of the rational soul.8 God, its institutor and arranger, shows why the function of marriage was first instituted when he says, increase and multiply and fill the earth.9 This function of marriage, that is, the mingling of the flesh, was instituted before sin, not as a remedy for weakness, but for the multiplication of offspring. However, that after sin it was allowed as a remedy for weakness, Augustine testifies with these words: The weakness of both sexes, which inclines toward the ruin of shamelessness, was rightly aided by honest marriage so that what was a function for the well might be a remedy for the sick.10 So, in marriage, marriage itself is one thing and a sacrament of another thing, and the function of marriage is another thing and a sacrament of still another thing. Augustine testifies to this in his book On the Good of Marriage: There appears to be something good in marriage, not just because of the propagation of children, but also because of the natural society of the different sexes. Otherwise, one could not say that marriage existed in elderly people, if they had lost their children or never given birth to any, in whom although the ardor of the flesh had grown weak, ordered love (ordo caritatis) still flourished.11 Likewise, in marriage, the sanctity of the sacrament is more important than the fecundity of the womb.12 Hence, certain ones, not understanding what this says, think that a woman who has not had carnal intercourse cannot relate to the sacrament of Christ and the Church, and so there can be no sacrament of marriage where there has been no sexual intercourse. They do not realize that the function of marriage in sexual intercourse is a figure of that union which occurred between Christ and the Church through the assumption of the flesh,13 and so they think the sacrament of Christ and the Church cannot exist where there has been no sexual intercourse. However, there can be a true marriage and a true sacrament of marriage even if carnal intercourse has not followed. Indeed, it will be all the more true and holy to the extent that it does not involve something at which chastity might blush, but rather that in which love may glory. Marriage itself is a sacrament, just as the function of marriage is known to be a sacrament. Marriage, as was said, is a sacrament of that society that exists in spirit between God and the soul, and the function of marriage is a sacrament of that society which exists in the flesh between Christ and the Church. He says, it is written that they will be two in one flesh.14 If two

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



291

in one flesh, then not two but one flesh. This is the great sacrament that the Apostle says exists in Christ and the Church,15 to which a woman who is known not have had carnal intercourse cannot relate. She can, however, relate to that other sacrament, not the great sacrament between Christ and the Church, but the greater one between God and the soul. Why? If what is in the flesh is great, is not what is in the spirit not just great but much greater? It says, the flesh does not profit, it is the spirit that gives life.16 If, therefore, what is in the flesh is great, what is in the spirit is greater. If God is correctly termed “betrothed” in Sacred Scripture,17 and the rational spirit is also termed betrothed, surely there is something between God and the soul for which whatever exists in marriage between male and female is the sacrament and the image. To put it more clearly, the very society that by covenanted compact is preserved externally in marriage is a sacrament, and the reality of the sacrament is the mutual love (animorum) that is guarded between them in the bond of the conjugal society and covenant. This very love, by which male and female are united in their souls in the sanctity of marriage, is a sacrament and a sign of that love by which God is joined to the rational soul internally through the infusion of his grace and participation in his spirit. Therefore, the bond of the flesh, which before sin was the function in marriage and after sin was allowed in it as a remedy, is doubly joined to marriage, so that although it exists with marriage, marriage does not exist from it. Even before intercourse there is true marriage, and without it marriage can be holy. If, then, marriage would have been less fruitful without it, now, if it is not present, marriage is more pure. The fleshly bond allowed in marriage after sin is more a matter of indulgence and compassion lest, being denied any licit outlet, the vice of concupiscence that took root in human flesh after sin might rampage into every excess. 4. What Marriage Is Some define marriage thus: marriage is an agreement between a male and a female that preserves their unique association in life.18 To this definition should be added the word “legitimate” because, if the consent is not legitimate, that is, legitimately made between legitimate persons, then a marriage cannot be consecrated in it. We name those persons “legitimate” when no reasonable cause can be established why they could not mutually confirm the pact of mar-

292

H ugh of St   V ictor

riage. I use the phrase “no reasonable cause” because if a hidden cause, unacknowledged by the judgment of the Church, were to exist, the marriage compact could neither be prohibited from taking place nor undermined after it has taken place so that it does not stand. What is entirely hidden, insofar as the Church is concerned, should be deemed nonexistent since, as far as accomplishing or preventing something, it does not differ from what does not exist. As it was established at the beginning, only two persons—father and mother—were specifically excepted from a marriage contract, where it says, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and will cleave to his wife.19 It is clear that those who were left behind for this reason should not be sought to this purpose.20 The first institution excludes only these two persons. It forbids no one else from consenting to the sacrament of marriage. A second institution came later, made through the law, and it excluded certain other persons, either for the propriety of nature or for the increase of modesty. Consequently, what had been allowed previously by nature became illicit by a prohibition. When, however, ignorance of the prohibition was not culpable it could excuse transgression. The power of the sacrament was not blocked as long as trespass of the precept was not clear. When, however, what is prohibited began to be clear, what was done could not be legitimate, because what is openly done against the precept is not judged to be legitimate or true. Perhaps some people will find it unacceptable that a marital union is recognized among persons who, were hidden matter known, would be prohibited from entering into such a union. I ask these persons what should be thought of children born from such a union. Are they to be judged legitimate or illegitimate? It seems harsh to call them illegitimate even though their parents may have been joined illicitly but, by the judgment and permission of the Church, legitimately. As long as the disqualifying facts remain hidden, they must concede that the union that produced the children mentioned above was legitimate, as long as the case remained hidden, even if they argue rightly that it was illicit. Everything that is done illicitly is not therefore not done at all simply because it was done illicitly, for what is done is called done, although because it was done thus it is rightly said to have been badly done. If what is done and what is done illicitly are known to occur, but it is not known that it was done illicitly, ignorance can temper or excuse whatever blame accrues to the act, so that it can be

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



293

seen as legitimate even though ignorance cannot bring it about that what was done thus did not occur in a blameworthy way. If the children are deemed legitimate in some respect, the marriage from which they take their existence is likewise legitimate in some respect. If the union itself is rightly said to be legitimate in some respect, I do not see why it is not rightly called a marriage in that respect. There is no big conflict over a name where there is agreement about the truth. With the exception of cases of this sort, in which either because of abomination21 or disgusting behavior modesty must be considered, in all others I think one should think that if there is some offense because of ignorance, as long as it remains hidden a marriage legitimately made according to the judgment of the Church cannot be made null, but is to be called legitimate. Let no one oppose to this the case of a brother and sister or other cases of that sort in which ignorance can offer no excuse. Such cases should not be allowed to challenge those in which ignorance should excuse what has been done. Things like this are matters not of reason but of abomination. Even if there were ignorance in them, shame and modesty could not fail to feel confusion. Something different should be said regarding those of which the Apostle speaks, do not let any temptation but a human one catch you.22 In these, to err is human.23 In these, ignorance of the error can excuse the fault. Therefore, we think these should be called legitimate persons according to the Church, that is, when there is no cause for which they could be rightly prohibited from doing what is going to be done or that could nullify what has been done. As long as the situation remains thus, it is legitimate. If someone asks how something could be legitimate according to the Church’s judgment when it is not legitimate according to the divine judgment, I say that I think it is legitimate in both ways. It can be called legitimate according to the judgment of the Church because, according to the Church’s judgment, there is nothing in it for which it could be called not legitimate. However, according to the judgment of God, there is something about it that, were it known to the judgment of the Church, the marriage would not be legitimate. This is so because there is something in it that is hidden from the Church, but known to God, and if it were also known to the Church the marriage would not be legitimate. For the present, however, it is excused on account of ignorance so that it remains legitimate in the eyes of both God and human beings as long as it is not known. Because nothing in it is reprehensible in the

294

H ugh of St   V ictor

eyes of human beings, in God’s eyes what is reprehensible even if it brings guilt is not imputed to cause confusion or reprobation. Indeed, we think these persons are legitimate in the judgment of the Church. We think that consent is legitimate when it is given to what it should be given. Those who consent only to carnal intercourse cannot be said by such consent to be spouses. Fornicators and adulterers do the same, and the name of chaste marriage is certainly not recognized as applicable to them. Therefore, the consent that makes holy the marriage between a man and a woman is something different. What is marriage said to be, if not that society which God the Creator instituted between man and woman from the beginning, when he formed woman for the sake of man and joined her to him?24 She was given to him as a companion, not as a servant or as a master. For that reason, she was produced neither from his highest point nor his lowest point. If she had been formed from his head, she would have been from his high point and would seem to have been created to dominate. If she had come from his feet, she would have been from his lowest point and would have seemed to be subject to servitude. Hence, she was made from his middle, to show that she was for a society of equals. However, she was in a way lower than he because she was made from him and, so to speak, always looked to him as her beginning. By cleaving to her, he was not to separate from that society that ought to exist between them. This society is marriage, which is consecrated by the covenant of mutual espousal. When that espousal has occurred, each of them by a voluntary promise makes himself or herself a debtor to the other, so that from that moment on they cannot move on to someone else while the other is still living, nor disengage from that society which exists between them. If consent to carnal intercourse was connected with the consent to that first covenant, the spouses are afterward bound to each other by the duty of carnal intercourse. However, if it happened that in the marriage covenant both with an equal pledge withheld the consent of the flesh, the spouses are not bound by that debt to each other. If it is eliminated by the equal consent of both, made firm by a vow, each cannot justly require it from the other. Nevertheless, the sacrament of marriage remains. Just as sexual joining does not bring about the sacrament’s virtue (virtutem)25 when it is present, so also its absence does not take it away. Such consent is believed to preserve an undivided, shared life because this consent was given to initiate a mutual society between them and thereafter it could not be sundered. Therefore, someone who want-

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



295

ed to define marriage could say that marriage is a legitimate consent, that is, between legitimate persons and legitimately made, by a male and a female to observe an undivided common life. In this covenant, by a corresponding vow, either sexual intercourse is not excluded for the future or it is declared that it is not going to occur. 5. When Marriage Begins If anyone asks when marriage begins, we say it begins at the time when the consent we have defined above is made between a male and a female. There is a marriage from that moment, even if sexual intercourse follows later. The latter does not contribute anything further to the virtue of the sacrament. Hence it follows that, if the man or woman moves on to a different society after such a consent, even if sexual intercourse follows there, he or she must return to the previous society in which the sacrament of marriage is sanctified; after a second union is later judged to be completely illicit, he or she will have to return to the first.26 However, you say to me someone promised or strongly swore to someone that at a favorable time he was going to marry her, and she likewise promised or swore she was going to marry him. Meanwhile, plans changed and one or both moved on to the society of someone else. He married another wife and she married another husband. What is to be done? Is not the second covenanted agreement to be sundered because of the prior promise (sponsionem)?27 However, think how different to promise something is from doing it. Someone who promises has not yet acted, while someone who does something, is already doing what he is doing. Insofar as someone does not do it, what he promises is a lie. If someone does something and afterward is sorry that he did it, nevertheless what is done is done. If someone promises he is going to marry a wife, he has not yet married a wife, and someone who promises she is going to marry has not yet married. The marriage has not yet occurred but ought to occur in the future. When later he married a wife and she married a husband, there was then a marriage, and on both sides what was done could not be dissolved even if what was promised could not be fulfilled. The preceding lie is to be corrected by penitence, but the subsequent marriage is not to be dissolved. It is not the same, as was explained above, when the sacrament of marriage is not promised as something that will take place by an

296

H ugh of St   V ictor

espousal, but is made solid by the witness of a present assent, because after such a consent whatever comes later in a different society even with carnal intercourse and the procreation of children must be completely invalid. However, certain people think that what was done later ought to stand because in it carnal intercourse followed after consent. But why should it stand because more was done, if all that was done was not done justly? If later it is judged a marriage, because there was sexual intercourse in it but not in the first union, then if a third union has followed the second, someone will say it is to be judged better than the second because sexual intercourse occurred more in it than in the second. This is not in accord with reason. Therefore, after a conjugal consent that sanctifies a marriage, whatever happens with another man or woman either in consent or intercourse will pertain not to the sacrament of marriage but to the stain of incest or adultery. However, you will say, if after the first consent to the conjugal covenant there is immediately a marriage, what does that authority mean which says that a marriage does not become legitimate until the wife is asked for from those who have power over the woman and are her guardians, and she is given in marriage by her nearest relatives and dowered with an inheritance, and at the proper time is blessed by a priest with prayers and offerings as is the custom, and the other things which are added in this way. Otherwise, one should assume that they should be called not marriages but adulterous cohabitations or wantonness or fornications rather than legitimate marriages.28 Here is how one should understand this. What is not done according to the institution of the laws that lay down that spouses are to be married in this way is not legitimate. For what he adds afterward—otherwise one presumes they were adulteries or wantonness rather than legitimate marriage—he immediately tempers by what he says next, unless someone’s own choice has agreed and legitimate vows have supported it.29 Where someone’s own choice and a legitimate vow have lent support, even without all these other things, there can be a legitimate marriage. If a marriage cannot exist without these, then there can be no baptism unless it is preceded by the consecration of a font, catechizing of the one to be baptized, and exorcism, and anointing with oil and chrism follows it. As baptism can be without these, although they should be part of baptism, so marriage can be without these, even when they should be in and with the marriage. Marriage does not consist of

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



297

sexual intercourse, but in consent. This does not refer to consent to intercourse, because as it can be without intercourse it can be without consent to intercourse, if both parties agreed to a pledge of chastity and continence. Blessed Ambrose testifies that it is not the deflowering of a virgin but the conjugal agreement that makes a marriage.30 It is not sexual intercourse that makes a marriage but consent and, if consent is lacking, even with sexual intercourse everything else is vain.31 Isidore also says that spouses are properly so-called from their first pledge of spousal fidelity, even if they have not yet engaged in sexual intercourse.32 Perhaps this will seem contrary to what we said above about marriage being sanctioned in mutual consent. If marriage begins at the first pledge (fide) of espousal, although the pledge of espousal seems to precede in a promise of future consent, when marriage is said to be initiated by this pledge, then doubtless the matrimonial consent itself is proven to have gone before. If we should understand that this espousal is the agreement and promise about a future marriage, then surely we fittingly accept the pledge of espousal as the fulfillment of a promise and the manifestation of an agreement. It exists from that moment because in the aforementioned consent marriage properly begins, because in it the pledge of future agreement and espousal, which had been made by both parties, is fulfilled. In marital consent, the sacrament of marriage is accomplished. However, the word “espousal” (desponsationis) does not signify that consent to marriage by which a marriage is established, but in this verbal expression we infer the pledge and promise of future consent, because to espouse is not to give or to do, but to promise. Whence, the Apostle says, I have espoused you to one man to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.33 However, if by the name “espousal” one should understand the very contract of matrimony, then we rightly accept that the pledge at espousal is the consent to the mutual society that is called marriage. Whence, Augustine says of the Mother of the Lord that from the first pledge of espousal she was called the spouse of Joseph, although she had neither known nor was going to know sexual intercourse.34 Ambrose says something similar: espoused to a man, she received the name of wife.35 When marriage is begun, then it receives the name of marriage. In words like those above, if we take “espousal” to mean when marriage is rendered holy by mutual consent, it is rightly said that marriage begins then and receives the name of marriage. However, if we under-

298

H ugh of St   V ictor

stand “espousal” to mean a promise to make a marriage in the future, then indeed marriage can be said to be beginning in the things that go before marriage, and from that point the future spouse is referred to by the name “spouse” (conjunx) because of these things by which the marriage is already begun. Whatever one might think about these things and those like them, it is not believed to be a true marriage before the avowal of legitimate assent in which each hands himself or herself to the other for the society of a mutual covenant, and from that time on it is complete. Do you want to know what I say? When he says, I take you as mine so that hereafter you are my wife and I am your husband, and she likewise says, I take you as mine so that henceforth you are mine. I am your wife and you are my husband. Whether they say this or something similar to it, or even if they do not say this but still understand this, or if they do not say this because in some places words are not celebrated but something is done and they do this, he marries her and receives her, as is the legitimate custom for marrying a wife. Whenever they do or say this in the customary way, they give consent to each other. This is what I wish to say: from that time on they are spouses, whether they say this and by doing so give consent to each other before legitimate witnesses as they should, or they do so alone by themselves, in secret with no one present and serving as a witness, which they should not do. Nevertheless, they are certainly spouses and from then on unless some other cause emerges for sundering, they cannot licitly be separated from each other, even if because of a secret consent it cannot be proven if they deny the fact. 6. Those Who Secretly Marry and after They Have Been Married Do Something Shameful against Marriage You say, what is to be done regarding those who secretly come together, if afterward one or both, by denying what was done, has moved on to another society?36 A certain man marries a wife secretly without the presence of witnesses. They give their marital consent to each other when they are alone, avoiding anyone else’s knowledge as sometimes happens for some reason. Later, after a brief interval, before he had demonstrated the hidden consent by a public deed, the man regretted his deed. He sent away the woman he had taken in this way as his wife and married another openly with public pomp, perhaps with the parents handing over the bride and a priest’s blessing. He married.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1

 299

He bore children. Then his first wife comes to the Church demanding a judgment. Openly exposing the injury inflicted on her, she demands justice. He denies it. There are no witnesses who can prove what occurred in secret. You ask what should the Church do here, because either course of action seems to lead to a problem. If solely on her word credence is given to the woman, who indeed is telling the truth but about what is hidden and cannot be proven because she speaks without any legitimate witness, then what is certain and open is dissolved on the basis of what is uncertain and hidden. Then any woman or man could contrive whatever he or she wanted about another man or woman and be believed in the same way. If this were allowed, great confusion would result. Then nothing would stand firm in the Church. However, if by the judgment of the Church the marriage that was first contracted is sundered, then the adultery that is presumed in regard to the second is confirmed. This is another great evil, when not only is freedom given but also even necessity prescribes that a person remain in his or her sin. You ask for advice. Perhaps I am not going to tell you anything better, but nevertheless it is necessary that we not be utterly ignorant about such bad things. If anyone thinks that to avoid such evils such a consent, which no witness corroborates and is not established by the mutual acknowledgment of both, ought to be invalid and no marriage at all is established in it, he easily falls into a problem. One can think that, because of what was said above, hidden consents are not marriages but adulterous cohabitations and defilements, if proper consent does not support them and legitimate vows do not underpin them—that consents of this kind which are made in secret do not make sacred a marriage, unless those who have given consent to each other in secret both voluntarily profess that same consent openly. When what they did in secret they freely profess openly, then their own will supports and legitimate vows underpin it. If anyone speaks in this fashion, then marriage can be begun by a secret consent, but is established only by a public profession by both—in short order, he turns aside many evils. However, the opinion approved by many is this: whether openly or secretly such consent has been given between legitimate persons, the marriage is to be judged a completed sacrament of marriage. If this opinion must be regarded as true, one needs to consider how one should answer the question raised above. There is no doubt that what cannot be proven to the Church, the Church cannot judge. Likewise,

300

H ugh of St   V ictor

there is no doubt that what is done by the legitimate and open judgment of the Church cannot be abrogated without a legitimate, reasonable, and manifest cause. Reason urges us. That woman says that by equal consent she contracted matrimony with that man. But she cannot prove what she says, nor can the Church endorse what is not proven. What is manifest cannot be weakened because of what is hidden. Therefore, the Church must judge as binding the second union made legitimately by the judgment of the Church. But, you say, what then is to be done for this woman who is asking the Church for her husband, but cannot have what she asks because what was done secretly cannot be proven? Perhaps when she sees that she cannot have her husband she will want to marry another, and she will come to the Church demanding that either her husband be restored to her or she be allowed to marry another. Here you are asking what the Church should do, whether because it cannot return the first husband it will allow a second? See, though, how can the Church grant her a different husband, when she professes that her husband is still alive? She says my husband lives and nevertheless she presumes to ask to marry another. Therefore, you say, that woman is to be forced to continence. It is just that she who did not fear to act negligently pay the penalty. Why did she not marry openly? If earlier in marrying she disdained to have the witness of the Church, what grounds has she now to challenge the judgment of the Church? She obligated herself. Therefore, she now undergoes the penalty for negligence and so becomes a corrective and cautionary example for other women not to act with the same presumption. To be continent is not a sin, nor is it impossible, even if it is also difficult. Therefore, if women do not wish to be continent, let them be afraid of marrying in secret. Let them marry where they have witnesses, if they cannot have reliably consenting husbands. If they choose not to avoid the fault, let them bear the penalty. Someone who wants to undertake marriage should first think how in undertaking it he is subject to its law. Someone who wants what delights must bear it if it should happen that in it or for it there also happens something that is burdensome. The Church does not permit that woman who declares she married another to enter into another marriage as long as he is still alive. Even if afterward it happens that the same man comes to his senses after the celebration of the second wedding and, repenting his deed, confesses that he has sinned and that he wishes to return to his first wife and witnesses to the truth of the first compact, the Church does not accept his

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



301

testimony because he has changed his story, testified against himself, and taken away his credibility regarding both. Therefore, the Church cannot without legitimate cause rescind what it has done, but must take it as established so that hidden things do not prejudice manifest ones. Therefore, that woman is judged to be the legitimate wife who according to the judgment of the Church is known to have been legitimately married. However, you say, if the judgment of the Church must stand because hidden things cannot prejudice manifest ones, what is that man to do for his soul who while his wife is still living is forced to cleave to another, whom he cannot dismiss lest he seem to be going against the command and judgment of the Church, and whom he cannot keep without the scruple of his conscience, since he knows that while his first wife was living he joined up with the second illicitly against God’s justice and institution? If someone like this flees to the Church for rescue, asking advice about his salvation, what will the Church say to him? Hear and understand what the Church can say to him. If the Church tells him to dismiss the second wife whom he publicly married and return to the first, whom now he confesses he took as his wife thus contradicting his earlier testimony, and the Church accepts his testimony about this, then all those who come to hate their wives will pretend and lie that they earlier married other wives so that they can separate from the ones they hate. As a result, the law of matrimony will be without stability, but everywhere marriages will be dissolved at anyone’s whim. Therefore, the Church can only tell him that he should be faithful to the marriage that by his testimony was firmly established. But you say: The case concerns his soul; he seeks counsel about his salvation. He sees danger in either option and he does not find reason why he should choose one rather than the other. If he stays in his current marriage, he acts against his conscience. If he leaves it, he acts against obedience. He now does not ask whether it is permitted to leave it but, if he does not leave it, whether it is expedient to remain. He makes known his conscience and asks advice for his salvation. What will the Church say to this man who confesses his sin and asks advice? If the Church says he should stay with her after he has disclosed his sin, this seems to be telling such a person to remain in sin. However, if the Church can say neither the latter nor the former, it seems that there is no way to point out a path of salvation for such a person. It is, however, very abhorrent to the Christian faith to say that there is a person who cannot be saved if, in whatever danger he finds himself, he truly repents.

302

H ugh of St   V ictor

There are many things that could happen in this way. Someone says he had some relation with the sister or mother of his wife; another declares that he had first married someone else, and many other horrible things that human misery either falsely invents or truly commits. It is indeed true that there are many horrible things done by men blinded by their evil desires so that they do what they ought not do. So great are these evil deeds that they scarcely allow for advice, unless God who gave the law bestows grace and mercy. All flesh will not be justified in his sight by the law.37 Just as formerly the curse of the law oppressed all who were under the law,38 and there was no one who could escape the curse, because there was no one who could avoid transgression until the Lawgiver came and took away the curse by grace, lest curse and transgression would always reign, through that very grace he also changed the law, so now sometimes if a man falls into the necessity of sinning under the urging of his sin and wickedness and he cannot bear the law without incurring the curse of trespass, God changes the law for him through mercy and grants the penitent the possibility of being saved, though otherwise he would not be saved if he were judged by justice and the rigor of the law without mercy.39 Perhaps I am not answering according to your estimate of the situation. I am speaking to you from my heart. A sinner comes to me40 and opens his conscience to me seeking advice for his salvation. What may I say to him? If I tell him to leave her, I make him disobedient to his mother, the Church, and by his example I encourage others to dismiss their legitimate wives. When they have grown to hate them, they can dream up whatever they please and lie to the Church to gain freedom to leave them because they do not love them. If the Church accepted this and it were allowed, great evil would result, and all husbands will dismiss their wives or wives their husbands because of lust, and on account of one man many will be condemned. This must not happen. Some have thought they have considered this deeply. Consulting themselves and not their neighbor, they said that whenever this situation arises the Church must do both, namely privately counsel the penitent to abandon this kind of union, while at the same time publicly forcing the one leaving to remain. This would not be to seek the salvation of one’s neighbor, but, as it were, to want to free oneself from danger. My conscience does not urge me to say this to him. He asks me what he is to do; he shows me the danger he is in; he makes clear his need; and he testifies that he is prepared to do whichever option he is commanded to do. I am not very confident in myself. I tell him to go to God.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



303

Lord, through your servants you gave the law to those you wanted through those you wanted.41 Behold, we your servants are under you law. You, Lord, the giver of the law are not under the law. What you established when you wished and for as long as you wished, you can, when you wish and for whom you wish, offer exemptions (indulgere) without being guilty of trespass. There will no longer be guilt, because it is a remission by the one granting an exception, not the presumption of the agent. Lord, you have commanded through your servants through whom you have spoken, and you ordered your Church that as long as his wife is living a man should not leave for another. I had a wife and while she was alive I cleaved to another. Behold, I cannot bring it about that this did not happen, but you can bring it about that this did not happen unto damnation. Likewise, Lord, you commanded that we obey the Church acting in your place on earth, just as if it were you. So that we would not scandalize one of your little ones,42 you said that to spurn the command of your Church43 was to fail to obey you. Behold, wretched because of my sins, I have come into a contradiction and fallen into a trap of necessity, so that I cannot escape without sin. If I stay, my conscience accuses me before you because of my hidden sins by which I act against your dispensation. If I leave, I will disobey your Church and I will scandalize not only the little ones but also your great servants who are unaware of the hidden aspect but want what is just, while my conscience accuses me of my manifest deeds by which I acted against your precept. Therefore, placed in a tight spot and girded about with dangers on every side,44 I implore your mercy. I am ready to do whatever you command, if only you would make it known. If you say to leave, I will not stay. If you say to stay, I will not leave. I know that whatever happens at your command cannot be bad, no matter what it is. Yours is the power by which everything is good that pleases you. To the one to whom you grant an exception, evil is not imparted; the one to whom you impute evil is not exempted. If, therefore, Lord, you have issued a command involving scandal to your Church and contempt for the command of my teachers, whom you have given me and whom you have commanded me to obey, I am listening to you rather than to man. I am listening to him only on account of you, and not to choose against you. Therefore, Lord, if you command, I will not pay attention to man. If, however, you wish to preserve authority for your little ones and your Church for the sake of the salvation of many, because of my sins I am under your judgment,

304

H ugh of St   V ictor

but I know that you are kind and merciful and you can, if you wish, not impute the necessity45 if you have accepted the willing. I prefer to fall into your hands rather than into the hand of men, because with you are both power and loving-kindness.46 Human beings cannot change the law, but the law does not rule you who are Creator and Lord of the law. Human beings judge deeds, not the will (voluntatem); you forgive deeds because of the will. Trusting in your mercy, I commit to you the hidden things of my necessity, not presuming because of fear to cause a scandal for your Church. I hope that you must kindly forgive the offense I have committed against you, since thereby I do not presume to offend my neighbor, lest in my neighbor I offend both my neighbor and my God. So it seems to me47 that as often as some hidden things torment conscience in necessity, especially if they were such that the established dispensation allows for forgiveness—because the things which are against nature could never occur without sin, nor receive remission unless they were corrected—in hidden matters like this, in which the fault is a matter of temporal institution and not of a precept of nature, it seems to me that those things which are hidden must never prejudice manifest things, especially those which cannot be changed without great scandal. In manifest matters it is more beneficial that scandal be avoided, but in hidden matters it is more helpful that one flee for refuge to grace and mercy. It is possible that what at sometime is done against what is established in order to avoid scandal, because it cannot be proven and thereby avoided because it is hidden, is through mercy not imputed to someone who is repentant and sorry. A man does not have power over his body, but his wife does, and likewise, a woman does not have power over her body, but her husband does.48 A man can by sinning act in such a way that he loses power over the other’s body, but he cannot act in such a way that he takes from her the power that she has over his body. One can lose what is one’s by right (sui iuris); one cannot take away what does not belong to one. So, therefore, although sometimes he may act in such a way that he cannot rightly require the debt owed him in the body of the other, he does not bring it about that he can rightly deny the debt in his body that is owed to the other. There is a question about what is to be done regarding those that before or after conjugal consent had carnal intercourse with sisters or mothers close to them in the line of consanguinity (cognationis), if the fact can be proved by legitimate testimony.49 As long as it can reason-

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



305

ably be done, I would avoid these sorts of testimonies and proofs in order to keep the peace of the marriage bed. However, if the matter becomes public then, because of the awfulness of the deed and to avoid scandal, I would urge a separation, but in such a way that each is required to live in continence, because the conjugal sacrament between them should not be sundered, even if the act of sexual intercourse was contrary to it. However, if anyone says, how can the one who did not sin be forced against her will into continence, let him consider that this concerns the misery of the flesh. If someone does not hold back from its pleasures in good times, it is fitting that in bad times he also bear its sorrows. What would this woman who now says that she cannot remain continent do if her husband suffered from a long, continuous, and even permanent illness? Let she who would not desert him if he were lying sick with bodily illness, not desert him when he is now repenting his sin. If perhaps she does not wish to bear the condition of the flesh, let her not submit herself to the law of the flesh, nor accept as pleasure what she does not want to suffer as affliction. These are the things that we needed to say about secret consent to marriage and about other things that have been hidden in it or can be hidden or feared. As has been said, we declare marriage is sanctioned by marital consent, and when that has been done legitimately, whatever else happens against it cannot stand, provided only that this can be proven by legitimate testimony. After that, we demonstrated what marriage is and from what moment marriage should be said to be valid. Now, following these topics, one should consider the goods of marriage. 7. There Are Three Principal Goods that Accompany Marriage By fidelity, one who is married does not have sexual relations with a woman or man other than the person to whom one is joined by the conjugal bond. By hope of progeny, one devoutly awaits, lovingly receives, and religiously nurtures children. By the sacrament, marriage is not to be riven, and a man or woman sent away from a marriage is not joined to another even for the sake of children.50 These are the goods that marriage opposes to what still remains in the flesh of sin and of the concupiscence of the flesh, without which sexual intercourse cannot occur. As Blessed Augustine says, the goods of marriage limit the evil of the disobedient members to some extent and modify it so that at the least carnal concupiscence becomes conjugal modesty.51

306

H ugh of St   V ictor

This good occurs as a remedy against that evil in two ways: when by limiting that immoderate ardor of sexual desire under the fixed rule of one covenant it limits wandering sexual activity, and when it excuses, because of the goods that are joined to it, something that is in itself evil.52 It does not bring it about that evil no longer exists at all, but rather that it is not damnable. That good does not become culpable because of this evil but, because of this good, that evil becomes pardonable.53 Unless it was evil, it would have no need to be excused; and again, unless it had a remedy, it would have to be imputed. If marriage had no good in it, it could not be called a remedy against evil. Now, however, the goods that are in it excuse the evil that is not sought in it but tolerated so that what necessity imposes rather than what volition seeks is not imputed to damnation. As Augustine wrote to Valerian, not only fecundity whose fruit is in progeny, not only modesty whose bond is fidelity, but also the sacrament of marriage is commended to believers. The reality (res) of this sacrament is that those who are legitimately joined are not separated as long as they live.54 8. Whether These Goods of Marriage Are Inseparable from Marriage or Not If the fidelity of marriage is not to know anyone else outside the marital union and the violation of this faith is to commit adultery, it is clear that this good so adheres to marriage that, if it is present, marriage is all the more to be commended because of it, but if it is not present, the sacrament of marriage is not destroyed. If a woman is an adulteress, she is not therefore not a spouse because she is an adulteress. Indeed, if she were not a spouse she could not be an adulteress. There is no adultery except when the fidelity of a lawful marriage bed is violated, but even when that happens the sin does void the sacrament. Likewise, if the hope of offspring consists of devoutly awaiting them, lovingly accepting them, and religiously nurturing them, there is no doubt that this good also cannot be present in every marriage and in all spouses. How could those who by a mutual vow maintain continence, or because of their age can no longer generate children, hope for progeny? Therefore, these two, that is, fidelity and hope of offspring, so accompany marriage that where they are present the marriage appears both sincere in the one and fruitful in the other, but where they are not present it proves to be either blameworthy in the one or unfruitful in the other, but it does not therefore cease to be a marriage.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



307

However, the sacrament seems to be so inseparable that without it there can be no marriage. Whence, Augustine writes that to the extent that the nuptial covenant is the reality (res) of this sacrament, it is not rendered void by separation because, while her husband who has left her is alive, a woman commits adultery if she has married another.55 The strength of the conjugal bond is such that it would not be so great were it not a sacrament of something greater, which remains unshaken. An intervening divorce does not abolish the marriage covenant, so they remain spouses even if separated. This is so because in marriage there are two different things, because it consists both of a legitimate society and of a conjugal function that occurs through sexual intercourse. In marriage, the sacrament consists in one thing, and fidelity and hope of children seem to pertain to another thing, that is, to the function of marriage. Fidelity is that by which illicit carnal intercourse is avoided, hope of offspring is that by which licit carnal intercourse is exercised. Just as the function of carnal intercourse can be absent from a marriage, so a marriage can exist without these things that pertain to the function of carnal intercourse, although, as was said, if fidelity is missing the marriage is less sincere, and if hope of offspring is lacking it is less fruitful. Fidelity bears fruit in chaste modesty, the hope of offspring bears fruit in useful fecundity. Marriage, however, is a sacrament because of the marital society itself. Therefore, just as that society is not divided as long as both are living, so the sacrament of the conjugal society is not separated from it as long as the marriage lasts. In marriage, the sacrament externally is the indivisible society; interiorly, it is the lasting charity burning in their minds. The sacrament exteriorly refers to Christ and the Church; the reality of the sacrament internally pertains to God and the soul, so that as we say that in the joining of the flesh is the sacrament of Christ and the Church, so in the covenant of the society we show the sacrament of that same union. This has been said to show that although sometimes marriage is without fidelity and without hope of offspring, it can never be without the sacrament, although the sacrament is sometimes found to exist where the sanctity of the sacrament is shown not to exist. Blessed Augustine says, the sacrament of marriage can be in common to all nations, but the sanctity of the sacrament is only in the city of our God and on his holy mountain.56 That this is in some fashion true can be seen by anyone who considers the things said above. We said above that there is a twofold sacrament in marriage: the one, in the fleshly mingling is

308

H ugh of St   V ictor

a sacrament of that society that exists between Christ and the Church; the other, in the conjugal society is a sacrament of that society that exists between God and the soul. Alternatively, the sacrament of Christ and the Church exists in the conjugal society, the sacrament of God and the soul in conjugal love. Whether the sacrament of marriage is taken in either sense, the sacrament of marriage is rightly said to be common to all peoples but the holiness or power (virtus) of the sacrament is found only in the city of our God and on his holy mountain.57 This is exhibited in the fidelity and love in holy Church and among the faithful. Those who by mutual consent come together to maintain toward each other indivisibly that society that God instituted between male and female have the sacrament of marriage. Only those who by faith have been made members of Christ and have been united to God intimately by charity in mind and devotion have the holiness of this sacrament. 9. Those Who Live Incontinently in Marriage and Maintain It More to Fulfill Sexual Desire than to Generate Offspring Blessed Augustine speaks thus of those who conquered by weakness or the desire for pleasure are subject to such incontinence.58 Marriage does not force marital intercourse that is not for the sake of offspring, but it implores forgiveness, provided it is not so excessive that it interferes with times that should be for prayer or turns into activity that is contrary to nature. Sexual intercourse that is necessary for the sake of offspring is without fault, provided it occurs within marriage. However, someone who goes beyond this necessity is then no longer obeying reason but lust. A spouse should not require this, but should render it to his spouse lest she commit fornication. If both are subject to this kind of concupiscence, they are doing something that does not belong to marriage, a transgression that marriage does not encourage but discourages.59 The honor of marriage is the chastity of procreating and fidelity in rendering the carnal debt. This is the work of marriage that the Apostle defends from all fault (crimen), saying, if you have taken a wife you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries she does not sin.60 Immoderate intercourse61 is permitted by way of pardon.62 An unbelieving spouse need not be an obstacle to the holiness of marriage. Instead, the believing spouse can benefit the unbelieving one. Whence the Apostle, an unbelieving husband is sanctified by his believing wife,63 and so on.64

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1

 309

10. The Reason Why the Ancient Fathers Had Several Wives at the Same Time St Augustine also spoke about this. In ancient times when the mystery of our salvation was not yet unveiled, the just contracted marriage for the function of propagating, not conquered by desire but led by devotion to duty (pietate). They could be and chose to be continent much more easily. They employed wives, and one man was allowed to have several. They had these wives more chastely than those to whom the Apostle grants one wife by way of indulgence.65 They had their wives for the work of generating children, not in sick desire.66 Likewise, he said in his book about virgins that for the ancients it was not a sin that they made use of many wives. They did not do this against nature since they did it not because of lust but to generate children, nor did they do it against the morals of their time since these things were done then, nor did they do it against a precept, since no law prohibited it.67 Indeed, as he testifies elsewhere, it belongs to the good of marriage that a man be joined with one woman rather than with many, which the joining of the first marriage indicates. Thus, marriage took its beginning in a place that offered a more honorable example.68 The same author says, just as the merit of patience is not unequal in Peter who suffered martyrdom and in John who did not so suffer, so there is not unequal merit of continence in John who experienced no marriage and in Abraham who generated children. For the celibacy of the former and the marriage of the latter both served Christ according to the arrangement of the times. But John had it in act, where Abraham had it only as a virtue.69 The chastity of celibates is better than the chastity of the married. Abraham practiced one in his actions and had both as interior virtues. He lived chastely in marriage; he was also able to be chaste without marriage, but that was not what he needed to do then.70 Similarly, although the just person desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ, still he takes food, not out of a desire to live but because of his duty to give counsel, and so that he stays because that is necessary for others’ sake.71 To mingle with women by the law of marriage was for the holy men a matter of duty and not of lust. What food is to the health of people, sexual intercourse is to the health of the race. Neither occurs without carnal pleasure. If this is moderated and restrained by temperance and restricted to activity in accord with nature, there can be no lust. However, what illicit food is to life-sustaining food, such is

310

H ugh of St   V ictor

fornication and adulterous intercourse to seeking offspring. Likewise, what is immoderate appetite in licit food, that is pardonable (venialis) intercourse between married couples.72 11. Is It a Marriage If It Can Be Dissolved Later? Some deny that there is any sort of marriage if it later allows a separation. They find certain authorities and words of divine Scripture set forth by the holy Fathers that seem, as it were, to support this. Thus, Blessed Augustine says in his book about The Good of Marriage that the nuptial covenant is so much the reality of this sacrament that it is not made null by separation. If, while her husband who left her is still living she marries another, a woman commits adultery.73 Likewise, because if a divorce occurs the nuptial covenant is not abolished, they are still spouses even if they are separated.74 Because of statements of this kind, it seems to those who think this way that it should not ever be called a marriage if at some point it admits of division and separation, so that divided from each other they may not be called spouses. However, it is not apparent with what argument they can prove that it pertains to the virtue of the conjugal sacrament that both maintain an undivided society as long as each lives, so that there was no marriage if it could sometime be dissolved. If they say this was not a marriage because it did not have in their entirety the things that pertain to a marriage, let them take note. When it is said that an undivided society pertains to marriage, it is said rightly that marriage must have this. This belongs to marriage and marriage requires it, or rather confers it insofar as lies in it. As it belongs to baptism to confer the remission of sins, and it is right to say that baptism confers the remission of all sins, and the virtue of the sacrament of Christ’s body is to confer society and participation in Christ, and it is right to say that the reception of the Body of Christ confers spiritual participation in Christ, nevertheless a feigning recipient (fictus) who pretends to receive the sacrament of baptism does not receive the remission of sins, and someone who eats the Body of Christ unworthily does not in any way merit thereby spiritual participation in Christ. If, then, we rightly say that these things belong to those sacraments, but nevertheless we sometimes find those sacraments without them, they belong no less to those sacraments when they are without them. The sacraments are sometimes where they should not be and among those where they should not be. Is it any

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



311

wonder then if we say that undivided association belongs to marriage, although we nevertheless find marriage without it, namely, when it is where it should not be and among those where it should not be? Therefore, if they say there is no sacrament of marriage because this marriage does not have what it should have when it is where it should not be, let them say likewise that the true sacrament of baptism is not found in a feigning recipient and such a person is not truly baptized because the forgiveness of sins is not effected there, and what is received unworthily is not the true Body of Christ because in that case spiritual participation in Christ is not conferred. Let them understand that whenever spiritual effects of this kind are attributed to the divine sacraments, the power of the sacrament is expressed. This does not indicate what will happen through the sin of those who abuse the sacraments of God, but rather what can happen through the sacraments by the efficacy of the spiritual grace that is in them, provided it is not stuck in the depravity of those who abuse them. Someone who says this wishes to say that marriage should have this in itself, if it is where it should be. However, if it is not where it should be, it is no surprise if what it should have is lacking in it. It is not therefore any less a true sacrament, although it is less useful to the one in whom it exists. In this manner, we think that certain marriages can be said to be true as long as they are regarded as valid according to the judgment of the Church, although later when legitimate causes come to light they are dissolved. If afterward they are maintained against the prohibition of the Church with obstinate presumption, they are judged to be illicit and illegitimate unions. However, as I mentioned above, we do not think that all such marriages should be regarded in this way. None, when someone has made an excuse for a horrible act, can be called legitimate. It is otherwise regarding those where there is pardonable (venialiter) sin, for example, if someone out of ignorance would commit defilement with the seventh and sixth or perhaps the fifth degree in the line of consanguinity, which in fact is not so much against the natural or the Old Law as against the subsequent precept of the Church. We read that Pope Gregory granted to the English who were newly converted to the faith a dispensation to unite in marriage within the fifth degree so that they would not be shocked by the Christian religion.75 From this it is clear that what at one time was allowed by dispensation can surely be licit. They have an excuse even if without a dispensation they

312

H ugh of St   V ictor

do it in ignorance. Therefore, as long as cases of this sort are completely hidden, it is more fitting to judge them excused by reason of ignorance. However, if they become public, they should not be tolerated because they are contrary to a precept. These things have been said against those who think a marriage can in no way be said to exist, if at sometime it can be dissolved. 12. Those Who Think That Even For Persons Who Are Not Legally Qualified Consent Made to Each Other Effects a Marriage Others, by no less reckless a judgment, are carried to the opposite assertion to such an extent that they say that any not lawfully qualified persons of any profession or order by consent to each other are spouses. They think that priests professed to celibacy, bishops, monks, or holy virgins are not exceptions to this law.76 These people also have certain words of Scripture by which they think to fortify and confirm their judgment. There are indeed certain statements of this kind in which that could be fittingly understood, if in fact that could be fittingly understood. However, those to whom the teaching of the Word of God is entrusted should not make a judgment by which, in order to confirm one thing, they depart from the meaning of all the rest. The whole should not follow the part, but the part the whole. If something is found to be discordant to the whole, it can be harmonized with the whole if that is possible; if not, it should be rejected. It is better to leave behind the part rather than the whole, but it is best if both the part and the whole can be retained.77 These are the things they advance in support of their assertion. In his book on the profession of holy widowhood, Blessed Augustine said this: in the conjugal bond, if modesty is maintained, there is no fear of condemnation. However, in widowhood and virginal continence, the excellence of a greater gift is sought. When that has been sought, and chosen, and offered with the required vow, it is damnable not only to enter into marriage, but also even if one does not marry it is damnable to want to marry. In order to show this, the Apostle does not say that although they have acted in illicit pleasures, they marry in Christ, but that they want to marry. They are condemned because they have made void their first pledge of fidelity (fidem),78 not by marrying but by wanting to marry. This is not because marriage itself or the marriages of such people are judged condemnable, but because the violation of the pledge is condemned. The broken promise of the vow is

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



313

condemned. To accept a lesser good is not condemned, but falling away from a higher good is condemned. Such are condemned, not because they enter into a conjugal pledge of fidelity, but because they void the first pledge of continence.79 Then after a few things he continues, next it seems to me that those who say marriages of such people are not marriages but adulteries80 have not considered what they are saying with sufficient acuity and diligence. The appearance of truth deceives them. Women who do not marry for the sake of Christian holiness are said to choose marriage with Christ. Hence, certain ones argue that if while her husband is alive a woman marries another she is an adulteress,81 as the Lord himself specified in the Gospel. A woman who has chosen marriage with Christ, whom death no longer rules,82 is an adulteress if she marries a man. Those who say these things proceed in a penetrating way, but they pay little attention to how much absurdity follows this line of argument. When, in a praiseworthy act, a woman vows continence to Christ while her husband is living and with his consent (according to the reasoning of these people no woman should do this)—it is wicked to think it—she commits adultery with him when she marries while her husband is living.83 After a little bit, he continues, through this ill-considered opinion by which they think that if women lapsed from their holy pledge, there is no marriage, no small evil occurs. Wives who have separated from their husbands are, as it were, adulteresses, not wives. When they wish those who are separated to return to continence, they make their husbands real adulterers, when they marry others while their wives are still alive. For this reason, I cannot say that women who abandon their better pledge and marry are in adulteries rather than marriages, but clearly I do not hesitate to say that falls and downfalls from a holier chastity vowed to God are worse than adulteries. St Augustine spoke thus. This seems to be clear authority and evident reason that one cannot doubt. Let us so speak and think that these women who have fallen from the pledge and profession of continence and marry have true marriages that cannot be dissolved in any way. What then? Should one not think in the same way and for the same reason regarding the other sex so that if men fall from their pledge and profession of continence and marry wives, the marriages must be true and valid so that they cannot be dissolved at all, even though their guilt cannot be defended? Behold, therefore, let us say that it is thus and it is necessary to think and hold to it, and that we have no other argument by which we can refute and

314

H ugh of St   V ictor

weaken such an evident authority. We are necessarily bound to think and hold this.84 See what follows. If  this were decreed and men heard that the Church held that those who have fallen from a pledge and profession of continence and enter into a marriage cannot be forced to go back to keeping their pledge of continence, nothing could then be stable or valid. No order or habit, not even any vow or profession could keep men from loosening the brakes on unchastity. They would rush headlong in accord with their desires, either seeking to be freed from the good that they have, should they start to grow tired of it, or when they have been tempted, hurrying to fulfill their desire regarding an evil in which they do not yet find themselves. Thus, all the order and beauty of the Christian religion will be reduced to nothing and great corruption will follow. I speak in the light of the weakness of our time. Who, established in the habit and profession of religion, will remain standing if he begins to feel the urges of his flesh, such as mortal nature subject to corruption usually undergoes? He will say to himself:85 You cannot resist such violent passion, such great fires and conflagrations of your desires, which declare war against you not today or tomorrow or for three, four, or eight days, or even for a month or a year. As long as you live on earth, as long as you bear mortal flesh, as long as you are conscious, they will give you no peace or rest. They will always weigh upon your intention, they will always deflect your thinking, so that you can never raise a free mind or pure soul to God. See, then, that you are losing this world and you are not gaining the future world. It would be better for you at least to avoid these torments than to perish completely and feel nothing good. God sees that you suffer unwillingly; you are dragged involuntarily; and you are forced to consent. Perhaps he will take note of the violence of your passion and mercifully pardon your excess, especially since the Apostle says that it is better to marry than to burn,86 and on account of fornication let everyone have his own wife.87 The Apostle knew human weakness well and therefore he did not say, let those have wives because it is allowed them, and let these not have wives because it is not allowed them, but rather he says, let everyone have a wife, because it is better that someone who cannot be continent marry than that he burn.88 It is better to accept weakness in a licit way than always to be ignited by evil inclination toward passion. The Lord himself says that whoever can accept this, let him accept it.89 He knows that I cannot accept this word to remain permanently con-

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



315

tinent. When I thought I could, I freely pledged, and I would gladly persevere in the same choice if I could bear it. However, I  am not able to bear the heat of bodily nature, to sustain the fire of bubbling concupiscence. I do what I can. I am going to get married and accept my weakness, sad that I am forced to go down from a higher good, but not therefore entirely desperate because I am going down to what is allowed. I choose to be saved in a lesser good than to be in danger in a higher one. If perhaps there is any fault in going down because thereby I do not keep my pledge, I will do penance and please God by satisfaction. It will not be hard or difficult provided only I can escape this passion and this death into which I am forced to turn while I am still living. Who do you think will not prod and exhort himself with such arguments, when he begins to be afflicted and burn with the urges of his flesh, if he knows that it is allowed and that it can be done, and there is salvation for those who do this, and the Church cannot force those who thus look back, but rather allows them to live in this way and regards their marriage as legitimate? Who, when in grave temptation, does not prefer to do penance for many years and make whatever satisfaction, provided only that he can enjoy his desire and liberty and licitly fulfill his desires? So, what will we say? We dare to attest plainly that, even if it turns out that it is not possible to deny what is said here in this way and this saying is to be understood in this way, there is no line of reasoning that clears the way to holding this position and acting upon it, especially in these times when people are prone to evil impulses (vicia). If anyone wants to say so, these things were said of those times in which people were more ashamed of sinning, and when just being ashamed of sin was enough to check the wavering and those undergoing temptation, so that they did not slide from their pledge and vow of holiness. Then they were more afraid because they knew that, after their fall, the way to return to the purity of their former excellence no longer lay open. So then the Church, in accord with the situation of that time, needed to maintain and did maintain that those who, after a vow and profession of continence, descended to marital intercourse could remain thus, and agreements like that were not loosed and, according to the judgment and permission of the Church, marriages of this kind were valid. Later, when people began to abuse such a concession and permission, the Church, because of the dangers posed, changed its usage and reversed its opinion to something different. Now, therefore,

316

H ugh of St   V ictor

these are not marriages, because of the prohibition and institution of the Church, according to which all things licit and illicit, valid and dissolvable are judged. If someone says this, perhaps it will seem he said something.90 We do not rebuke any of the things that permit the peaceful existence of the truth. If someone understood those who vowed a pledge of continence secretly and offered their vow to God alone without any human witness and afterward having broken their vow they wish to descend to a conjugal union, the Church cannot prohibit this, because the Church did not receive their profession. The Church cannot require them to observe continence. If anyone thinks such widows and virgins who after a vow of continence descend to marital union are held condemned, that is, do something condemnable not because they marry but because they break a vow, not because of the lesser good they seek but because of the higher good that they abandon, and so because of this violated pledge fall under condemnation, let him realize that the spouses certainly should not be separated. It is certain, as we said above, that the things the Church cannot prove she cannot judge. It is established then that these things are true; if we rightly accept the statements recalled in the opinion above, no question remains why we may not approve them as truly said and usefully maintained. It is certain that those who, after a hidden vow of chastity and a pledge of continence not yet confirmed by public profession, return to carnal experience can in no way be prohibited by the Church, nor does the Church judge void a union of this kind when it occurs, but confirms that it is valid and that hidden things must not prejudice manifest ones. However, if someone still wishes to say that women who have married Christ cannot then have husbands while he is living, their assertion is rightly refuted by the argument given above. To this extent, each is allowed to think in his own measure about these things that are publicly false and secretly true. To me, however, the most probable opinion is what saves the truth and does not reject authority, especially the authority of so great a man about whom we must think highly even when we cannot think what he thinks. Let us, then, say as much as we are able in accord with the truth, namely, that this was said at a time when it was what was required or that it was said only of those who after a hidden vow of continence returned to the experience of the flesh and became spouses, whom therefore the Church cannot separate because although what was done later was public, what was done earlier and secretly cannot be proven.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



317

In such cases, the guilt attaching to broken fidelity is said in some respect to be greater than adultery, because by the latter one sins against a human being, but by the former against Christ. It is otherwise with those who, after a vow and a public profession before the witness for the Church, obligate themselves to God and, perhaps what is even more, are consecrated to the holiness of continence. Regarding them, we rightly say that, after such a pledge and such a vow confirmed by a public profession, they cannot descend to a conjugal covenant, and if it happens that at some time they attempt this, they are not spouses but fornicators and violators of spiritual chastity. They are to be recalled to repair the early integrity of this pledge and to keep it strictly. However, if with rash boldness they wish to persist in what they have begun, and they haughtily refuse to leave the illicit union, which they entered contrary to the duty of their first profession, let them be cut off by a sentence of just severity from the communion of the Church as disobedient and sullied with the lewdness of heinous fornication. Let them never be received for penitence unless they have withdrawn from the notorious liaison in which they are living.91 This is perhaps what those words wish to say that are known to almost everyone for their ambiguity. Pope Innocent, whose authority in the Church of Christ is well known, spoke thus: women who spiritually marry Christ and are veiled by a priest, whether they married publicly or in secret and have become defiled, are not to be admitted to doing penance unless he to whom they have joined themselves has departed from this life.92 If this reasoning were applied to people, so that a woman who left her husband and passed on to another man was regarded as an adulteress, and no scope for doing penance were granted her unless her other man had died, how much more so a woman who had joined herself to the Immortal Spouse?93 There is no doubt that under consideration here are those who are consecrated in a pledge of continence, even by a manifest profession to keep chastity. They say of these that if after such a pledge they pass on to carnal marriage, they are not to be admitted to penitence unless the one to whom they have joined themselves, that is, the fornicator or adulterer, has passed from this life, that is, from such a lifestyle. They cannot do penance as long as they are in that state in which they cannot be saved while in it.94 Certain ones wish to interpret the person to whom they have joined themselves as Christ, to whom they first vowed themselves by a pledge of continence. It is said, as it were conditionally, that the second to

318

H ugh of St   V ictor

whom they crossed over is not judged legitimate unless he to whom they had joined themselves dies. If any people maintain this rationale, so that as long as the first one lives, the second one cannot be legitimate, it follows immediately that where the first one cannot die in any way, the second cannot by any reason be legitimate. In this manner, it is in a way proven that those women who have been consecrated as spouses of Christ cannot transfer to carnal marriage. This proof is not convincing in all respects, but there is a fitting comparison in some respects, because spouses of Christ are taught that if such fidelity is required for the carnal bond, much greater devotion and much purer love are required for the spiritual one. There are those who think these things are said to terrorize people; others say they refer to public penance, which sometimes seems to be denied so that rigor may strike fear. When the sinner is repulsed externally according to this directive, fear of falling may be increased in those who are standing and the humility needed in those who are lying prone.95 I do not reject any of these ideas that is not contrary to truth. Anything may be said, provided what is believed is licit. Here is a summary. If anyone after making a vow of continence passes on to carnal marriage, if his vow was secret, the Church cannot prohibit him from marrying, and if perhaps she later repents her deed, the Church cannot refuse the counsel of salvation to someone repenting secret deeds, nor can the Church dissolve public things because of hidden ones. If, however, those who have confirmed their pledge by public profession and vow then want to move on to the rights of a carnal covenant, the Church can in no way permit them, and if it happens that they presume to do it against the purity of their pledge and profession, the Church dissolves with the severity it deserves the marriage as illegitimate and foreign to holiness. This is what the Church holds, as we must hold who follow the enactments of the Church and believe to be helpful and regarded as worthy of respect whatever the Church has instituted under the dictate of the Spirit. Even if it can be shown that in other times it sometimes was not thus and is now otherwise than it was, we must not therefore think it was done lightly, as it were, so that now one may hold otherwise, or that it was established otherwise than it was. Rather, it was then necessary and helpful that it be thus commanded and maintained, but now these are other times and something different is fitting or necessary for human salvation.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



319

13. The Marriage of Unbelievers Certain ones think that the marital society of pagans or any other kind of unbelievers is not a marriage, even if it occurred legitimately according to the manner of the divine institution. They say it must not be called legitimate because it occurred without faith. However, meanwhile, no reason occurs to me why they can deny that a marital society made according to the divine institution is a marriage, unless perchance they wish to say in a similar way that there is no sacrament of baptism if a heretic gives it or receives it, because neither the one giving it nor the one receiving it is a believer. For this reason, they contend that the sacraments of God are not open to participation by unbelievers, if unbelievers cannot have the sacrament of marriage. Or, is the sacrament of marriage to be said to be more excellent than all the others, if it alone does not admit of participation by unbelievers? Can an unbeliever have the sacrament of baptism, but an unbeliever not be able to have the sacrament of marriage? Can an unbeliever have the sacrament of Baptism, in which in a special way there is the seal of faith, and not be equally able to have the sacrament of marriage, which is not so much a sign of faith as a sign of nature, not so much an indicator of power as an instrument of propagation? However, they say that when an unbeliever received the sacrament of Baptism, he did receive it, because although in one respect he was an unbeliever, he received the sacrament itself according to the proper form of faith. Otherwise, if he had not received it according to the proper form of faith he would not have received it at all, whether he was a believer or an unbeliever. Therefore, since in receiving this he was not opposed to the faith, he could receive it, although in one respect he was not a believer. I say this. An unbeliever marries a wife for the sake of propagating children; he maintains the fidelity (fidem) of the marriage bed; he loves and takes care of his companion. While she is alive, he does not pass on to another society. Although in another respect he is an unbeliever because he does not believe, in this respect he does nothing against fidelity or the divine institution. However, they say that an authority says that marriages of this kind are not true,96 because it says that all things that are done outside of the faith, even if they are true in appearance, are not true for salvation. Even if they are true with reference to the form of the sacrament, they are not true regarding the effect of its power (virtutis) and spiritual

320

H ugh of St   V ictor

grace. They speak thus about certain other sacraments, because they are not true when the participants are unbelievers. Not only unbelievers but also believers engage in them unworthily, if the latter are evil or acting unworthily. An authority says of the sacrament of Christ’s Body that what a schismatic confects is not the true Body of Christ.97 Another authority says that those who think that the words of the priest and not his life make the Body of Christ are mistaken.98 They find many others sayings in this vein. It is a worthy thing that in everything we venerate the utterances of the saints in all cases insofar as we are able and believe to be true what those in whom and through whom the Spirit of truth speaks to us. Therefore, we say that the truth of the sacraments of God is twofold, on the one hand, in the sanctification of the sacrament, on the other, in the spiritual effect. The truth of the sacrament is said to be in the power (virtus) and spiritual grace that is received in them and through them. Those who receive the sacraments unworthily cannot receive this truth. In this fashion, Sacred Scripture sometimes says that the sacraments of God are not true for those who participate in them unworthily, because they only touch the sacraments exteriorly and do not attain to their truth, which consists in spiritual grace. Thus, the sacraments of God are always true in themselves in regard to the sanctification that happens through the word of God, and they are not true for those who handle and receive them unworthily, that is, in regard to what pertains to the participation in the spiritual grace that is received in them. Thus, the sacrament does not confect the true Body of Christ, because the Body of Christ is the sacrament of unity. The schismatic does not confect unity for himself, since he has separated himself from that unity. In a similar way, those err who think that the words of a priest suffice for the consecration of the Body of Christ, and a good life and manner of living is not also required of him, so that the sacrament of God that occurs through him happens for him and is useful to him. Those who think this way err because the sacraments of God and the flesh of the Lord do not sanctify those remaining in sin, although through their ministry they become sacraments for the salvation of others. We also speak thus of the sacrament of marriage, which in one respect is not rightly said to be true or valid or holy among those who have only the sacrament, because they do not merit to receive its truth, that is, its power (virtus) and spiritual effect. Blessed Augustine says that the sacrament of marriage is common to all peoples, but its sanctity is only in the city of God and on his holy mountain.99

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



321

Likewise, when he first began to preach the gospel, he found gentiles joined as spouses to gentiles.100 Likewise, if the Lord allows only fornication as a reason for dismissing a wife,101 and he forbids dismissing a pagan marriage, then it follows that paganism was not subjected to fornication.102 They say, what is it that blessed Ambrose says: there is no valid marriage apart from God, and therefore it is not a sin to be joined to another after someone has been dismissed for God?103 Likewise, Blessed Gregory says, after someone has been dismissed for God, it is not a sin to join to another; injury to the Creator loosens the law of marriage.104 However, notice how they prove there is no marriage in this case, namely, because, he says, it is said that there is no valid marriage apart from God, and again because it is said that injury to the Creator dissolves the law of matrimony (ius matrimonii). Therefore, he denied there was a marriage, because he said it was not valid (ratum) and, again, because he said injury to the Creator dissolves the law of matrimony. But notice that in saying this, he was actually saying there was a marriage, when he affirmed that it was a marriage but not a valid one. Likewise, when someone says that injury to the Creator dissolves the law of marriage, he asserts that there is a marriage there and it has a law. This is so because, if the law were not dissolved by the intervention of a greater cause, the law would stand and would not be negated without sin. If there was first no law there, what need was there to make so much of an excuse for those who withdrew themselves from that law by dissolving it? If he who was dismissed seems culpable unless he is excused by a greater cause, how can he who sends someone away without a cause not be lawfully accused? Now, that there was a true debt of the conjugal sacrament cannot at all be denied without a reason. A husband must not leave a wife or a wife her husband, one or the other, and if one does leave, the one who is abandoned is to keep the law and debt of marriage inviolate. However, the cause of God is greater; no other cause can stand against it. When it is harmed, nothing is owed to anyone against it. Whoever opposes this cause loses his right. We owe certain things under it, and in accord with it, but nothing against it. Your wife says to you, you have become a Christian. I will not follow you because you do not worship idols, because you have cast off the ritual and custom of your ancestors. I am going to another, or if I do not go to someone else I am not going to you. I do not recognize you as my husband unless you renounce Christ.

322

H ugh of St   V ictor

Notice that here injury to the Creator dissolves the law of matrimony. You owe her nothing else. She has lost her right because she has injured her Creator. It would not have been lawful for you to leave her if she had not lost her right in regard to you. She had power over your body, and it was not permitted for you to take from her what was hers until she wished to take from the Creator what was his. After she chose to do injury to her Creator, she rightly lost her right. It is necessary for you to do this in regard to your father, your mother, your brother and your sister, your children and relatives, and even your own soul.105 You owe something to all of these, but for God and not against God. Behold, on the one side, there are your father, your mother, your brother, your sister, and even your soul, and one of them says to you, “I love this, I want this, I am intent on this, I am going to obtain, acquire, and complete this. Come after me; agree with me; cooperate with my will; and promote my desire.” Your God stands on the other side and says to you, “I oppose this. I detest that wickedness; that sin does not please me; do not agree to it lest you do it. Instead, pay attention to me; yield to me; come after me; seek after what I urge; follow where I go before you.” On the one side, your father says, “Son, how will you desert the one who gave you life? I led you into this life; I fed and nurtured you; I taught you how to believe and gave you discipline.” On the other side, your God says, “He did indeed give you birth, but when he did that he received what he gave you from what is mine. Generating from what is mine he ministered substance to you, but once you were conceived he could not give you life. I alone without him vivified what I ministered to you through him from what is mine. I gave you your life; I gave you my death. Your father did not die for you as I did so that you would have life in me. He who could not go ahead in grace and benefit ought not precede me in any situation. So, do not listen to him against me; do not follow him in what displeases me. You owe him nothing except because of me, for you could have received nothing unless it had been given by me.” Listen to what I am saying. When such a thing happens, when father, or mother, or brother, or sister, or wife, or children, or to go even further, even if our soul wishes to turn us from our God, we must not listen to it, nor give our attention to it, nor follow its decisions. The Gospel calls to us, whoever does not reject father or mother, brothers or sisters, wife or children for my sake or even his own soul for my sake is not worthy of me.106 All family piety (pietas) is impiety when you are pious in order to become impious. Therefore, see that no cause can stand against the cause of God. Indeed, there is never a case, if it is in

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



323

opposition to that cause which is sole and highest.107 In this way, dismissal on account of God is not a sin if one is [then] joined to another, because injury to the Creator dissolves the law of matrimony. If the unbeliever departs, let him depart. A brother is not subject to servitude in this way.108 He would be subject to servitude if he were dragged unwillingly or held involuntarily. He owes nothing to her, whether she leaves or remains. Whoever does injury to his Creator loses her right. Therefore, if the unbeliever departs let her depart. In our estimate, nothing forces the believer as though he were obligated by some debt either to follow the one departing or to bear contempt. He is not subject to servitude. He is free to do what he wants provided he does it in the Lord.109 Whether it is a man or a woman, let them marry. Let he or she choose the society he or she wishes. He or she is no longer bound by the obligation for the former society; its law is dissolved by injury to the Creator. That injury to the Creator does more than excuse the believer when an unbeliever sends him away on account of God. Without fault, he is joined to another. When the believer prefers a faithful society, he is excused. He is also excused when he renounces the unbeliever who wishes to cohabit but refuses to accept the faith. The one who becomes a believer owes nothing to the unbeliever, whether the latter chooses to leave or to stay. The other cannot force him to do what that other wants. Injury to the Creator dissolves the law of matrimony. The unbeliever can no longer require anything from him, because she lost her right (debitum) over him after she disdained to render to her Creator what she owed. The believer now has a cause by which he can justly deny even what he formerly owed and what he would still have owed, if there were not an intervening cause that dissolved the obligation. Therefore, the believing person is free to choose a believing companion if he wishes. No one can prohibit him. However, if he accepts cohabitation with the willing unbeliever, he does a work of perfection in order to win over his neighbor. The Apostle said, a believing woman sanctifies an unbelieving man, and likewise a believing man sanctifies an unbelieving woman.110 If, therefore, he agrees (patitur) to cohabit with a consenting unbeliever in order to make a believer of the unbeliever, whether he succeeds or not, insofar as he is able he has gained the soul of his sister111 and completed a work of loving kindness. If, however, he does not want to take this on because he detests her unbelief, the brother is not subject to servitude in this kind of situation. No one can force him if he wishes not to leave the unbeliever, and no one can prohibit him if he wishes to be joined to a believer.

324

H ugh of St   V ictor

The sin is in the unbeliever who rejects the faith. His fault dissolves the law of matrimony in such a way that he can no longer require by right what could not have been denied if it were required without the injury. The fault of the unbeliever absolves the believer from her debt, just as contrariwise the justice of the believer binds the unbeliever to the debt. Therefore, the believer does not sin if he or she unites with another, because he or she is loosed from the law of matrimony in regard to the unbeliever, but the unbeliever, if left behind, does not without fault seek another society, for the law of matrimony and the debt of the conjugal covenant binds him or her to the believer. Therefore, it cannot be called adultery if a believer is joined to another, but the one left behind incurs the serious sin (crimen) of adultery if he or she is joined to another. For this reason, if the believer, in order to avoid danger to his neighbor, even restrains himself from what is allowed him, he performs a more perfect act, but one to which he cannot be forced, because it is not a duty but a work of charity. As Augustine says in his book On Adulterous Marriages,112 the Lord does not prohibit the separation of the believer from the unbeliever because it does not appear unjust to him, but the Apostle gives a counsel of charity, not only to avoid scandalizing those sent away, but also because when they fall into other marriages and are bound by adulterous ties, it is very difficult for them to be freed from their unbelief. Therefore, an unbeliever commits adultery if he or she enters into a society with another, because he or she has not been loosed from the debt of the previous compact. You are saying, look, an unbeliever, whether a pagan or a Jew, by the freedom of the faith leaves behind the wife he first had because she does not want to follow him to the faith and marries another, a believing woman. The first wife sees that she has been spurned and marries another, binding herself to him with an adulterous bond. Later, it happens that she is contrite and begins to regard her lack of belief with horror. She comes to the faith and is made a Christian. What is to be done regarding this woman? She cannot be continent. She demands of the Church that she receive back her husband or be allowed to marry another. If the Church returns her husband to her, it dissolves a marriage that is made solid by Christian holiness and makes an adulterer of him who, while his wife was still living whom he legitimately married as one believer to another, is joined to another. This can in no way be allowed to happen. Therefore, the Church does not give her back her husband. What will the Church say to her? If it tells her she may marry another, it seems to make her an adulteress, since it grants her, not yet loosed

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 1



325

from the right (ius) of her living husband, to join in marriage with another. There seems to be no other alternative than for the Church to force this woman to maintain continence, for by her sin she seems obligated not to have her husband or another. However, if the Church did this, it could happen that the woman would be scandalized and finding the Christian faith abhorrent would return to unbelief. Also, once other women or men existing in unbelief, whose husbands or wives now convert to the Christian faith and leaving them behind enter into marriages with other believers, knew this, they would be afraid to come to the Christian faith. The ruin of many would follow, when these spouses fled from the faith because they did not want to be or could not be continent. If afterward this woman, having received the grace of baptism renounced her earlier sin, it would seem that grace had been imperfect and that the guilt that had preceded was not totally washed away in the bath of rebirth.113 Then it would not be true that the former things have passed away and all things are made new.114 Therefore, it seems that this woman is liberated after she receives the faith and puts on the sacrament of freedom and renewal so that thereafter she is not bound by the debt of the previous union. It is just that one whom injury to the Creator bound would now be set free by her reverence and faith. Therefore, the Church does not prohibit people in this situation, if they do not wish to maintain continence, from being joined with someone else in matrimony. However, one could ask, if it happens that he who first came to the faith has not entered a conjugal union before the one who remained in unbelief follows him into the faith, what the Church ought to do about this situation? There is no doubt that if after such people have been made one in faith, they do not want to be continent, they must with Christian devotion return to and come together in the first marriage, which they did not enter without the arrangement of the Creator, in order to render their debt. One can also ask about someone who remained in unbelief but had followed into the faith the one to whom prior to coming to the faith he had been joined by an adulterous bond. Should the Church allow that after receiving the faith those remain together who when unbelievers were joined in an evil way. By the intervention of grace wiping out all the former things, nothing stops those who were badly united outside the Christian faith from remaining together rightly in Christ.

326

H ugh of St   V ictor

It may also be asked regarding those who when they were unbelievers married relatives or others to whom by Christian law they could not be joined. If both come to the faith together, is the Church able to allow this kind of union? This is a different matter, because the grace of baptism does not destroy nature. In baptism, what is in human nature is sanctified; what is culpable sin is forgiven. Hence, the Christian religion must not grant what could indeed be begun outside it but must not be allowed within it, when such a matter is brought to it for judgment.115 These things that have been recalled above are to be applied to both sexes in the same way, that is, whether the man preceded the woman into the faith of Christ or the woman the man. 18. Whether Deception by Substitution Dissolves a Marriage We sometimes hear that for those espoused to wives, whose faces they had never seen, other base women are deceitfully substituted. In these cases, we judge that if afterward those who suffered this deception do not wish to ratify (prebere) the deed that they did not do intentionally, it must not be a valid marriage. What has been done stands if it was done intentionally, but they cannot be forced to carry out what they did not intend when they did it and did not want when they knew of it. 19. Whether Servile Condition, If Not Known, Afterward Dissolves a Marriage? It is also asked whether, if a woman marries a man who is in a servile state thinking he is free or a free man marries a female servant thinking that she is free, when the deceit is later discovered the marriage must be dissolved. There are those who think that this deception should be judged differently from the preceding one, for here the error is not about the person but about the quality of the person. Therefore, they think it necessary to decide for (preiudicare) the holiness of the marriage. However, perhaps this pertains more to the truth and peace to which God called us, so that where the ignorance of the other is shown not to be culpable, the deception of the other party may not be allowed to stand to the detriment of the innocent party in regard to what the former took possession of by deceit.

N otes



327

NOTES 1

2

3 4 5

6 7

8 9 10 11

12 13

14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

officium: service (voluntary or required), courtesy, ceremonial service (e.g., the “Divine Office”), function, duty, business. No English translation seems to quite fit Hugh’s use of this term, which along with remedium he derived from Augustine. Here, it will be consistently translated as “function.” The notion that the sacrament of marriage existed before the Fall reflects Augustine’s mature thinking on the subject. Sententie Anselmi, Anselms von Laon Systematische Sentenzen, ed.  Franz Bliemetzrieder. ­BGPTMA 18.2/3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1919), 129.24–30. On this work and its discussion of marriage, see Philip Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 309–313. For references to Hugh’s sources, I am indebted to Rainer Berndt’s edition of the De sacramentis, on which this translation is based. The paragraph divisions are patterned on those in the German translation by Peter Knauer, Hugo von Sankt Viktor, Über die Heiltümer des christlichen Glaubens, CV Schriften 1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2010). Gen 2:23–24. Hugh interprets these verses at great length in De virginitate. John 2:1–11. Sententie Anselmi 129.32–130.2. This is a bedrock conviction that Augustine insisted upon against the Manicheans in his early writings, and later reaffirmed when he opposed Jovinian while trying to avoid Jerome’s extreme polemic that presented marriage in a negative light. Sententie Anselmi 130.6–7. Eph 5:31–32. “societas”: fellowship, association, community, union, society, alliance. The  word implies a common purpose. Hugh uses the term often in regard to marriage. To reflect this use and distinguish it from other words that Hugh uses for communion and union, it seems best to translate the term as “society” although this sounds stilted in English. 1 Cor 7:1–4. Gen 1:28. Augustine, De  Gen. ad litt. 9.7 (ed. Joseph Zycha, CSEL  38 [Vienna: F.  Tempsky, 1898], 275.18–20; tr. Hill, WSA 1/13, 382); Sententie Anselmi 130.35–131). De bono coniugali 3.3 (ed. Joseph Zycha, CSEL 41 [Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1900], 190.19–25; tr.  Ray Kearney, On  the Excellence of Marriage, in St  Augustine, Marriage and Virginity, WSA 1/9 [Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999], 34–35); Sententie Anselmi 132.21–28. This is an aspect of marriage that Augustine does not emphasize, though it is central in Hugh’s understanding of the spiritual union of the spouses. De bono coniugali 18.21 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 215.18–19; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 49). The assumption of the flesh by the Word of God made possible the union of Christ and the Church. Hence, one can say that the function of marriage is a sacrament of the Incarnation (the union of the Word with the flesh) as well as the union of Christ and the Church. Mark 10:8. Eph 5:32. John 6:64. Isa 62:5. Justinian, Institutiones 1.9.1–2, Latin text in http://.thelatinlibrary.com//.shtml: “Nuptiae autem sive matrimonium est viri et mulieris coniunctio, individuam consuetudinem vitae continens.” Hugh has “conjugium esse consensum masculi et feminae individualem vitae consuetudinem retinentem,” which emphasizes the centrality of consent. Gen 2:24. The Latin has a parallel construction: “quia non requiruntur ad hoc, qui relinquuntur propter hoc.” horror: Hugh may be thinking particularly of incest, to which he refers just below. 1 Cor 10:13.

328 23 24 25

26

27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

45

H ugh of St   V ictor Cicero, Orationes Philippicae 12.5 (www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/phil): “Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.” Gen 2:21–24. As was shown earlier, when Hugh spoke of the three elements of the Eucharist, sacramentum, res et sacramentum, and res tantum, he often substituted virtus for the res tantum. That seems to be the case here. The power of the sacrament is manifest and active in the final goal or reality of the sacramental action. For  the text from here to “another husband,” see De  coniugio, ed.  Franz  P. Bliemetzrieder, “Théologie et théologiens de l’école épiscopale de Paris avant Pierre Lombard,” RTAM 3 (1931): 281.160–63. sponsio: a solemn promise, engagement. Sponsio used regarding marriage sometimes meant an engagement to marry, and sometimes an agreement that was in fact a marital consent. This ambiguity will complicate Hugh’s treatment. For the early medieval period, see Reynolds, “Betrothal” in Marriage, 315–27. In that period, a sponsa (or desponsata) was a fiancée, not a spouse, but the understanding of Christian thinkers was that the sponsio (or sponsalia) was an agreement to marry, which became ratified when the father of the bride handed her over to her new husband and the marriage was consummated. Between the sponsio and the consummation, a ritual kiss or hand-holding and a benediction by a priest might intervene. Christians thus gave more importance to the sponsio than pre-Christian Romans did. Chirico, “Sacramentum,” 6–8, describes the evolution of the marriage rite in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, in which ritual elements multiplied and tended to converge in a single ceremony in the presence of a priest. For references to this authority, see Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 6.31 (PL 161.1249– 50); Ivo of Chartres, Decretum 8.4–5 (PL 161.586). Ivo of Chartres, Decretum 8.5 (PL  161.585); Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 6.31 (PL 161.1250). Ambrose, De institutione virginis 6.41 (PL 16.316). Nicholas I, Responsio ad consulta Bulgarorum 3 (PL 119.960). Isidore, Etym. 9.7.9 (ed. Lindsay; tr. Barney, et al., 210). 2 Cor 11:2. Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.11.12 (Zycha, CSEL 42, 224; tr. Teske, WSA 1/24, 35–36). Ambrose, De institutione virginis 6.41 (PL 16.316). De conjugio 284. 214–216. Rom 3:20. Gal 3:13. In this very long sentence, the PL has several readings that differ from Berndt, although the sense remains the same. This statement and what follows suggest but do not prove that Hugh had pastoral experience with people facing these dilemmas. In this paragraph and the three that follow, Hugh imagines the prayer of someone in this dilemma whom he has told to turn to God. Matt 9:41. Luke 10:16. “cinctus undique periculis”; cf. Cicero, De imperio 30: “Testis est Sicilia, quam multis undique cinctam periculis” (http://dcc.dickinson.edu/cicero-de-imperio/de-imperio-30-­ essay). Accessed February 11, 2017. “necessitatis”: “necessitas” has a wide range of meanings including need, neediness, necessity, necessities. For example, Hugh thinks that the three evils (mala) that resulted from sin’s entry into the world are weakened capacity to know, moral weakness, and physical neediness (necessitas), which are remedied respectively by instruction in the truth, formation in virtue, and the mechanical arts. Here, the word refers to an unsolvable practical dilemma, in which no possible course of action seems morally satisfactory. The man wants to do right, but is unable to escape the dilemma of either disobeying the Church or the law of God.

N otes 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78 79 80

81 82



329

1 Chr 21:13. Here, the imagined prayer has ended and Hugh’s authorial voice speaks on his own account. 1 Cor 7:4. De coniugio 281.152–60. De coniugio 275.17–21. De coniugio 275.10–11; Augustine, Ep. 187.9.30 (PL 22.843–44; Letters 156–210, tr. Roland Teske, WSA 2/3 [Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2004], 244). De coniugio 275.12. De coniugio 275.14–16. Augustine, De  nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.10.11 (ed. Joseph Zycha and C.  Urba, CSEL  42 [Vienna: Tempsky, 1902], 222; tr. Teske, WSA 1/24, 34–35). Augustine, De bono coniugali 7.6 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 196; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 38). Ps 47:2; De coniugio 276.49–53; Augustine, De bono coniugali 7.7 (Zycha 197; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 39), and 24.32 (Zycha, 226–27; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 56). Ps 47:2. Part 9 is based on Sententie Anselmi 133.15–26. Augustine, De bono coniugali 10.11 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 202–03; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 42). 1 Cor 7:28. “progressio”: progression, advance, climax. Augustine, De bono coniugali 11.12 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 204; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 42); “secundum veniam”: according to indulgence, pardon, remission. No translation seems adequate. Here, the translation is varied in hopes of trying to bring out the different nuances. 1 Cor 7:14. Augustine, De bono coniugali 11.13 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 207–08; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 43). 1 Cor 7:28; Sententie Anselmi 136.14–19. 1 Thes 4:5; Augustine, De  bono coniugali 13.15 (Zycha, CSEL  41, 207–08; tr.  Kearney, WSA 1/9, 45). Augustine, De bono coniugali 25.33 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 228; tr. Kearney WSA 1/9, 57); Sententie Anselmi 136.6–10. Augustine, De  nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.9.10 (Urba and Zycha CSEL  42, 221; tr.  Teske, WSA 1/24, 34); Sententie Anselmi 136.26–28. Augustine, De bono coniugali 21.26 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 221; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 53). Augustine, De bono coniugali 22.27 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 222; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 53–54); Sententie Anselmi 136.10–12. Phil 1:23–24. Augustine, De bono coniugali 15.17–16.18 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 210–11; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 46–47); Sententie Anselmi 136. Augustine, De bono coniugali 7.6 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 196; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 38). Augustine, De bono coniugali 7.7 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 197; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 38–39). Gregory  I, Registrum epistolarum, ed.  Paulus Ewald and Ludovicus Hartmann, MGH, Epistolae 1–2 (Berlin: Weldmann, 1887, 1891), 2:356; The  Letters of Gregory the Great, tr.  John  R.  C. Martyn, 3  vols, Mediaeval Sources in Translation 40 (Toronto: Pontifical ­Mediaeval Institute, 2004), 2:535–36, with discussion of authenticity 1:52–65. De coniugio 284.218–221. Here, Hugh states his approach to dealing with auctoritates that seem to conflict, a preoccupation of thinkers of his time. 1 Tim 5:11–12. Augustine, De bono viduitatis 9.12 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 317; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 120–21). Augustine, De  bono viduitatis 10.13 (Zycha, CSEL  41, 318; tr.  Kearney, WSA  1/9, 121); Rom 7:3; 6:9; Abelard, Sic et non, 122 (ed. Blanche Boyer and Richard McKeon [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976–77], 421.121–22). Rom 7:3; Matt 19:9. Rom 6:9.

330 83 84

85

86 87 88 89 90

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

105 106 107

108 109 110 111

H ugh of St   V ictor Augustine, De bono viduitatis 10.13 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 319–20; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 121); Abelard, Sic et non, 122 (Boyer and McKeon, 422.143–53). In this paragraph, Hugh says, in effect, “let us say we have to agree with the literal sense of this authoritative statement.” In the next paragraphs, he offers a picture of the trouble that will follow if we do that. In this paragraph that now follows, Hugh imagines how someone publicly professed to continence, but tempted by sexual desire, would argue himself into abandoning his vows and marrying. I think that Chirico, “Sacramentum,” 32, mistakenly thinks that Hugh agrees with this argument. 1 Cor 7:9. 1 Cor 7:2. 1 Cor 7:9. Matt 19:12. Hugh here summarizes the various ways in which he has suggested that Augustine’s statement can be interpreted, before passing on to another difficult authority, a statement by Innocent I. De coniugio 283.205–206. Innocent I, Epistolae 2.13.15 (PL 20.478–79). De coniugio, 284–284.195–204. Sententie Anselmi 150. De coniugio 284.204–207. Ivo of Chartres, Sententiae 14 (Bliemetzrieder, Zu den Schriften Ivo von Chartres, 67–68). Pelagius, Ep. ad Viatorem (PL 69.412). Jerome, In prophetas minores, In Sophoniam 13.1–7 (Adriaen, CCSL 76/76A, 697). Ps 47:2; Augustine, De bono coniugali 24.32 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 226; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 56). Augustine, De adulterinis coniugiis 18.20 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 367; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 155). Matt 5:31–32. Augustine, De diversis questionibus 83, 83 (Mutzenbecher, CCSL 44A, 248–49; tr. Ramsey, WSA 1/12, 156–57). Decretum Gratiani 2.28.2.2 (Friedberg, 1090). Sententie Anselmi (Bliemetzrieder, 137–38). The quotation attributed to Ambrose is actually from Ambrosiaster, In 1 Cor. 15.2 (CSEL 81, 77.2–7). The quotation attributed to Gregory is derived from the same text of Ambrosiaster. The phrase “dimissio propter deum” refers to the situation in which a husband or wife, married to a pagan, converts to Christianity and his or her spouse refuses to live with their newly converted spouse; the unwilling pagan is subject to dismissal for the sake of God, that is, for the sake of the new convert’s faith in God. This “dismissal” is known as the Pauline privilege. On  this see Philip  L. Reynolds, How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments, Law and Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 39. Luke 14:26–27; Matt 10:37–39; 16:24–25. Luke 14:26. In this passage, the ambivalence of the Latin word “causa” is evident. It can mean a causal agent (the earthquake was the cause of an avalanche); a court case; a cause (he was dedicated to the cause of care for neglected children). I vary the translation according to the context. 1 Cor 7:15. 1 Cor 7:39. 1 Cor 7:14. I have translated this section rather literally to reflect the situation that Hugh has in view: a man becomes a believer, and his unbelieving wife does (or does not) want to stay married to him because he has become a believer. As Hugh indicates later, the situation could be the opposite, where the wife becomes a believer. I have chosen to translate “fratrem” as sister, for the sake of clarity and simplicity.

N otes 112 113 114 115



331

De adulterinis coniugiis 18.22 (Zycha, CSEL 41, 369; tr. Kearney, WSA 1/9, 156). Titus 3:5. 2 Cor 5:17. This concluding consideration of paragraph 13, about unbelievers who married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity and then converted to Christianity, leads into the following four paragraphs, which consider marriage within prohibited degrees of consanguinity (14), affinity (15), and spiritual relationship (16), and the differences between these three  (17). In  these paragraphs, Hugh collects many quotations from authorities. It seemed best to omit here these chapters that concern primarily canonical issues.

VOWS

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 2.12: VOWS INTRODUCTION

The understanding and vocabulary regarding vows has changed considerably in Christian history. Hugh of St Victor’s brief treatment is a watershed in that history, providing a definition, some basic distinctions, a consideration of the binding force of vows, and how and why they might be commuted, dispensed, or abrogated. The Historical Context The New Testament speaks little of vows. Paul (and perhaps John the Baptist) seems to have made Nazirite vows,1 and some (Hugh of St Victor mentions this theory) have thought that Mary had made of a vow of virginity.2 Virginity was highly esteemed in the early Church but, in general, vows of celibacy were not a juridical institution, though some widows and virgins were officially recognized.3 Those who decided to be monks, either as hermits or in community, sought an elder who invested them in monastic clothing and instructed them in monastic living. Most of the instruction occurred after the aspirant was given monastic garb. This was the practice of both Pachomius and the other Egyptian monks visited by Cassian. However, there is also evidence in the Pachomian writings of an alternative three-year trial period, which according to the Novellae of Justinian should precede reception of monastic garb. The writings of Basil speak of a professio virginitatis, propositum, and pactum, and provide that Church officials (bishops) are to be present as witnesses at the monastic profession; there is contemporary evidence of severe ecclesiastical penalties for failure to keep that commitment.4 1 2 3 4

Luke 1:15; Acts 18:18; 21:23–24. Luke 1:34. For vows in Scripture, see Antonio Queralt, “Voeu,” DS 16 (1994): 1168–74. 1 Tim 5:9–10; Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnians 13.1. J. Gribomont, “Voto: In Oriente,” DIP, ed. Guerrino Pelliccia and Giancarlo Rocca, 10 vol. (Rome: Edizione Paoline, 1973–2003), 10:550–53.

336

H U G H O N S T V IC T O R – VOWS

Thus, the development of the legal character of monastic profession, and what later would be called monastic vows, followed the usual way of things: a new charism appears in the life of the Church, it first concerns a small number and is carried out in flexible, not well-defined form or ways of living. Yet as the charism spread to a larger range, then progressively the intuition or inspiration of the beginnings takes shape in an institution dotted with acknowledged norms and recognized by ecclesiastical authorities.5

The legislation on monastic profession in the Rule of Benedict was an important stage in this development. RB 58, “On the Procedure (disciplina) for Receiving Brothers,” which reworks chapter 90 of the Rule of the Master, says the newcomer should first be kept at the door, then allowed to stay in the guesthouse for a few days, and then enter the novitiate. There he is tested for a year to see if he truly seeks God, and is eager for the work of God, for obedience, and for humbling things. After intervals of two, six, and four months, he is read the rule, and asked if he is willing to promise to serve under it. Then, finally, if after having thought about it, he promises to observe everything commanded him, he is received into the community, knowing that from then on he is not allowed to leave the monastery. In the oratory, he comes before all, and before God, the saints, and the abbot, and promises stability, the monastic way of life (conversatio morum, “way of life and behavior”), and obedience. This is done to impress upon him that if he acts otherwise, he will be condemned by One whom he mocks. He writes this out, signs it, and places it upon the altar. He utters a prayer (Ps 118[119]:116), asking God to receive or sustain him. He must first divest himself of all his property. Then, there in the oratory, he is clothed in the monastery clothes. Should he ever leave the monastery, he will surrender the monastery’s clothes and receive back his own. Benedict thus combines investiture in monastic garb and profession of promises and puts the event after a full year of testing and formation. Benedict assumes the monks will embrace a life of chastity, but his emphasis is on obedience and perseverance in the monastery, though he clearly expects that some will not measure up on either count. He does not distinguish three vows, but refers rather to a promise to 5

Christophe Vuillaume, “Monastic Profession: Its  Theological Background and Spiritual Meaning,” Word and Spirit, a Monastic Review 18: Monastic Profession (Petersham, MA: St Bede’s Publications, 1999), 11.

I ntroduction



337

live obediently in a monastic community until death. He does not say how that promise or profession was worded. He indicates that profession took place at Mass (cf. RB 59.2), and later commentators connect the monk’s self-offering with the offering of Christ. In all of this, there is no mention of a vow. The new monk makes a solemn promise before (coram) God, the saints, the abbot, and the community.6 One way in which the terminology of “vow” and “bound by a vow” (voti reus) entered the Latin Christianity is Augustine’s Letter 127 to Armentarius who, Augustine has been informed, has decided with his wife to take a vow of chastity.7 Citing Psalm 75:12, “vow and render,” Augustine warns “not to delay to undertake and discharge rendering to the Lord what you know you have vowed to the Lord.”8 Augustine then develops an idea that Hugh of St Victor emphasizes: “Render what you have vowed, because it is you yourselves, and you are rendering yourselves to him from whom you are.”9 By giving yourself, you gain beatitude in addition to being. “How much more ought one to render when it is promised to him to whom it is owed even if not promised.”10 Augustine then explains the added obligation that results from a vow: Because you have already vowed, you have already bound yourself; there is no other option for you. Before you were obligated by a vow, you were free for something less… Now, because God has your promises, I do not invite you to great justice; rather I dissuade you from great iniquity… Advance without fear, and by deeds fulfill what you have said. He will help you because he desires your vows. Happy the necessity that compels to something better.

This text of Augustine regarding the obligation arising from a vow appears almost unchanged more than 500 years later in Ivo of Char6

7 8 9 10

RB80: The Rule of St Benedict in Latin and English with Notes, ed. Timothy Fry (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1981), 437–66. Michael Casey, “Sacramentality and Monastic Consecration,” Word and Spirit, 18:27–48, discusses the development and meaning of the idea of profession as a consecration both by the one making profession and by Christ acting in a way analogous to the workings of a sacrament. PL 33.483–87. On this letter, see Alain Boureau, Le désir dicté: Histoire du voeu religieux dans l’Occident médiéval (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2014), 22–27. Ep. 127.1 (PL 33.483): “Ne tardes… ad Dominum… arripias curesque reddendum quod ei te vovisse nosti… Vovete et reddite.” Ep 127.6 (PL 33.486): “Reddite igitur quod vovistis, quia vos ipsi estis, et ei vos redditis a quo estis; redditis, obsecro.” Ep. 127.6 (PL 33.486): “Quanto magis ergo reddenda est cum promittitur cui etiam non pro­ missa debetur.”

338

H U G H O N S T V IC T O R – VOWS

tres’ Decretum 8.137.11 It called for definition and distinctions. Hugh provided these. Hugh of St Victor Hugh of St Victor treats of vows twice. In De sacramentis 1.12.4 he notes that the written Law promulgated before Christ contains precepts, sacraments,12 and promises. Precepts are a source of merit; promises concern reward. Sacraments help one merit reward. Then he discusses the Ten Commandments. He begins his discussion of “Thou shalt not bear false witness” by distinguishing lying, swearing a false oath (falsum juramentum, perjuria), and breaking vows. Of vows, he writes: A vow is a voluntary pledge of the mind. Whoever vows a vow to God must render what he owes, according to the saying of the Prophet, vow and render to the Lord. Scripture also says, the vows of the foolish should be broken. From this we understand that the vows of the foolish are all those that are bad or, if good, are not ordered and what results from them is worse than the good that is in them: for example, if a wife when her husband is unwilling or a husband when his wife is unwilling vowed continence, or a subject without the advice and permission of his prelate would promise inordinate abstinence. Vows such as these are obviously foolish; they should not be kept at all. If someone vowed something good and afterward could not fulfill it, or in order to perform a greater good did not want to fulfill it, with the permission of those to whom dispensation in his regard is entrusted his vow could be relaxed or changed, so that it is not left to his choice either to dismiss what he vowed to do or to do something else in its place even if what he did not vow is greater.13 11 12 13

PL 161.614C–615A. See above for what Hugh says in De sacramentis 1.12.10. Sacr. 1.12.7 (PL 176.358BD): “Votum est voluntaria sponsio animi. Quisquis Deo votum vovet, reddere debet quod vovet, juxta illud prophetae: vovete et reddite Domino (Ps 75:12). Dicit autem Scriptura: vota stultorum frangenda sunt (cf. Eccles 5:3). Unde vota stultorum intelligimus omnia quae vel mala sunt, vel si bona sunt ordinata tamen non sunt, et majus malum est quod est ex eis, quam bonum quod est in eis. Verbi gratia: si mulier nolente viro aut vir nolente muliere voveret continentiam, aut subjectus sine consilio et licentia praelati sui inordinatam proponeret abstinentiam. Hujusmodi vota quia manifeste stulta essent, tenenda omnino non essent. Qui bonum quodcunque vovet si postea illud aut implere non potuerit, aut pro majori bono perficiendo implere noluerit, poterit secundum licentiam eorum quibus dispensatio in eum credita est, votum ejus aut laxari aut mutari, ita ut in ejus arbitrio non constet vel hoc dimittere quod faciendum vovit, vel aliud pro eo facere, etiam si majus est quod non vovit.” As Boureau notes, the definition with which this paragraph begins is found in Principium et

I ntroduction



339

Hugh’s treatment of vows in De sacramentis 2.12 is arguably the first systematic treatment of the subject in Latin theology. It had farreaching influence both through Hugh’s own book and through what Peter Lombard took from Hugh for his own discussion of vows. Hugh sometimes incorporated earlier writings of his into the De sacramentis, so he would not have to go over territory he had already covered.14 This treatment of vows seems to be an example of that. It is prefaced in the first paragraph by an address to an unidentified correspondent who has urged him to write on the subject.15 Hugh says he has managed to find some time to write something on the question of whether all vows are equally binding on those who promise them. He says he could simply have answered no. However, he thinks his correspondent wants not just an answer to his question, but edification, and Hugh wants to satisfy his devotion.16 This intent of Hugh is something that is characteristic of his whole theological enterprise; he writes not just to inform his readers, but also to form them in their Christian existence. Hugh’s treatment of vows is conditioned by its original context as a response to a particular person’s circumstances and questions. The title of the first paragraph seems a bit inept; translated literally it reads, “On Vows, whether they are diverse.” This confirms that Hugh (or perhaps Abbot Gilduin who saw to the publication of Hugh’s collected works after Hugh’s death) inserted the paragraph divisions and titles into a pre-existing work. This introductory paragraph personalizes the discussion: Hugh says in effect, “I am writing this for you, not just to answer a theological question, but to help you as a devout person.” The reader of the text is invited to put himself in the place of the original recipient. Hugh does not again directly address the reader until the last part of treatise, when he says there is one more thing to add: Ecce vovisti virginitatem: you have vowed virginity. Render what you owe. Ecce vovisti et votum non tenuisti, quia virginitatem amisisti.

14 15 16

causa, a sentence collection from the school of Laon. Hugh’s discussion of vows is presented clearly in Massimiliano Guareschi, “Le voeu de Hugues de Saint-Victor à Pierre Lombard,” Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherches historiques [Online], 21 | 1998. Accessed February 14, 2019. References will be to section numbers of the article rather than pages. Sacr. Praefatiuncula (PL 176.73–174). Sacr. 2.12.1 (PL 176.519D). “Devotion” is the central idea in Hugh of St Victor’s De virtute orandi (Feiss, Oeuvres 1:126– 60; tr. Feiss, VTT 4:315–48), commentary by Karin Ganss, “Affectivity and Knowledge Lead to Devotion to God: A Historical-Theological Study of Hugh of St Victor’s De virtute orandi,” in Companion, 422–68; and, for example, the final paragraph of Sacr. 2.15 (PL 176.580B), translated below.

340

H U G H O N S T V IC T O R – VOWS

You have not kept your vow. Is there any salvation for you? That Hugh includes this suggests that readers of the De sacramentis would not know to whom Hugh originally wrote his response. What exactly Hugh is doing depends on the force of Ecce. Does it mean “Look here” at what you have done, or “suppose” you have done this? Whether Hugh is including here something he wrote earlier to a specific person or adding something that is destined for the imagined reader, his use of the second person singular “you” suggests he is writing primarily for professed (publicly “vowed”) religious although, as we shall see, his discussion of vows is not limited to the vows of monks, canons, nuns, and clergy. Those who have vowed virginity are held by the Gospel to a very high, perhaps impossible, standard: “Whoever looks at a woman with desire has committed adultery with her.”17 What if one of these religious or clerics not only sinned in thought but also in deed? Hugh wants to assure them (or one of them, if originally he wrote this for a single individual) that there is hope. What God ultimately asks is the humble offering of themselves; they can give that, and it is enough. In paragraph two, Hugh discusses four different but interrelated activities by which the mind arrives at a fifth, the vow. His goal here is not to carefully analyze each mental step leading to a practical decision, but to show where vowing fits in the activity of the mind. Cogitatio: before coming to a practical decision, one thinks about things, or even just lets the mind flit among objects and options. Voluntas: something one is thinking about appears desirable; desire for it arises spontaneously. Deliberatio and propositus or assensus: here, Hugh conflates several steps: one deliberates about the desire for that object and decides whether one should assent to it. That assent is good or evil. All of this occurs within the individual’s mind and is only binding (tenetur) there. Promissio: However, if the decision leads to a promise, one is now in a relation that involves a debt to another. Votum: adds something to a promise, as the next paragraph shows. Paragraph three defines and distinguishes vows. It is perhaps the most lasting contribution Hugh made to the theological and canonical tradition regarding vows: “Votum… est testificatio quaedam promissionis spontaneae quae ad solum Deum et ad ea quae Dei sunt magis proprie refertur” (“A vow is 17

Matt 5:28. One should distinguish: desire that naturally arises without deliberation and consent is not a free and imputable act; it becomes imputable when one indulges it.

I ntroduction



341

a kind of witness to a freely given promise that is referred to God alone or to those things that are most properly God’s”).18

A vow obligates one toward God; because of it, one owes God something.19 Hugh then says that vows can be secret (occultum), to God and before God, or public (manifestum), to God and before man. To break a secret vow is a sin; to break a public vow is both an offense to God and a sin against neighbor. Here Hugh has muddied the waters somewhat, since a secret vow has no testificatio; testificatio alone will not distinguish a secret vow from a promise. The crucial distinguishing characteristic of a vow is that it is a promise that is ad solum Deum et ad ea quae Dei sunt magis proprie. In the statement ad ea quae Dei sunt, ad seems to have the sense of “regarding” rather than “to,” since one cannot make a promise to things. However, ad Deum can mean both “to(ward) God” and “concerning God.” In any case, a promise made about or to God is a vow, and if it is made in a public way, then that vow falls under ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In the fourth paragraph, citing a text that he ascribes to Scripture but is not found in the Vulgate, Hugh says stupid vows are to be broken. These are of two kinds: vowing something evil (a vow to murder someone), or vowing something but in an evil way, that is, something that is not lawful (a woman vowing virginity without the consent of her husband) or is not beneficial (a fast that is beyond one’s ability). Some such vows should be commuted to something else; others admit of no substitution.20 The final two paragraphs of Hugh’s discussion of vows are longer. They concern vows that do not admit of commutation (substituting something else for what one has vowed), and vows that do allow for commutation. Of the former, Hugh says he would like to mention just one: the gift of oneself. There is nothing one can give in place of one’s very self (anima), because one has nothing else of such value. Hugh says that it is impossible to be good if one does not make this vow; all Christians must promise themselves to God. This is a significant point. Hugh’s treatment of vows is not limited to public vows with juridical consequences, which would concern religious profession or marriage. Paradoxically, if one honors the vow to give oneself to God, one will 18 19

20

Sacr. 2.12.3 (PL 176.521B). Some of the ideas that follow are found in Guareschi, “Voeu,” 3–4. Sacr. 2.12.3 (PL 176.521B): “Vovere siquidem est testificatione promissionis spontaneae Deo se obligare ac debitorem statuere.” Guareschi, “Voeu,” 3, says that “obligare” is a “strictly juridic word”; certainly, “testificatio” is a legal term. Sacr. 2.12.4 (PL 176.521CD).

342

H U G H O N S T V IC T O R – VOWS

receive oneself; if one does not give oneself, one loses oneself. Money cannot be a substitute for the gift of self, although it can be offered with and be an enhancement of that offering. A further paradox is that one has received oneself as a gift through God’s creation (opus conditionis); if one offers oneself to God, one receives oneself back (opus restaurationis).21 Paragraph six discusses vows that allow for commutation. All vows except the vow to give oneself to God admit of commutation because place, time, or some cause may require it. Hugh lists some examples that are indicative of what people of his time most often vowed: money, pilgrimage, a fast, or to serve God in a certain place, way of life, or community. One is only required to do what one can. However, one cannot grant oneself a commutation; that must come from someone who has a supervisory or magisterial relation to the person needing the commutation. Here, Hugh uses very vague words: if he were talking about a claustral or a cleric, he would say “prelate.” His terms are broad enough to include ordinary parishioners (and their pastors) or students (and their teacher or perhaps their confessor). Hugh then concludes with the discussion of vows of virginity that was treated above in conjunction with his first paragraph. Hugh and the Development of the Theology of Vows after Him Peter Lombard cites Hugh of St Victor’s definition of a vow at the beginning of Sentences 4.38, a short distinction concerning vows included in Peter Lombard’s discussion of marriage (Sent. 4.26–42): “a vow is a certain witness of a freely made promise that ought properly to be made to God and regarding the things of God.”22 In the second chapter of distinction 38, elaborating on Hugh’s distinction between hidden and public vows, the Lombard distinguishes two kinds of vows: common (e.g., the vow made by all at Baptism) and particular (singulare) (e.g., when someone freely promises to maintain virginity). A particular vow may be solemn, that is, made before the Church, or private. To violate a private vow is a mortal sin; to violate is public vow is a sin and a scandal. Those who have vowed continence should not contract 21 22

Sacr. 2.12.5 (PL 176.522A–523B). Sent. 4.38.1 (Quaracchi [1916], 967; tr. Silano, 4:208): “Votum est testificatio quaedam promissionis spontaneae, quae Deo et de his quae Dei sunt, proprie fieri debet.” For Peter Lombard on vows, see Quareschi, “Voeu,” 15–19.

I ntroduction



343

marriage. If they do, it is a mortal sin.23 Through Peter Lombard, Hugh’s definition of “vow” remained influential for centuries. Vows and dispensations from vows have received ongoing attention from canonists from Hugh’s time to the present.24 The 1918 Code of Canon Law for the Latin Catholic Church defined a vow as a free and thought-out promise made to God regarding “a possible and better good.”25 The salient points of this definition are (i) a promise, obligating oneself to another, that is (ii) deliberate, with knowledge and intellectual judgment, (iii) free, not coerced by force or grave fear, (iv) made to God, (v) of a possible good, (vi) better than its opposite, that is, not evil or indifferent, and better than its omission.26 The Code of Canon Law then indicated some distinctions, just as Hugh did. By 1918, the number of distinctions had multiplied, but the first one in the Code (#1308.1)— public (received by a legitimate superior in the name of the Church) or private—corresponds to Hugh’s distinction between public and secret vows. The Code (##1309–14) followed this with how circumstances of time or condition can nullify a vow and under what conditions and by whom a vow may be commuted or dispensed, two topics also considered by Hugh. This legislation from 1918 remained substantially unchanged in the revision of Canon Law promulgated after Vatican II in 1983.27 Thus, Hugh of St Victor’s definition of vows, his treatment of the kinds of vows, the factors that eliminate the obligation to fulfill them, or allow the dispensation from or the commutation of vows, have remained the foundation of Catholic jurisprudence ever since. The pastoral concern that he wove into his response to the query remains a window into his way of doing theology and a model. 23

24 25

26

27

Sent. 4.38.2 (Quaracchi [1916], 967; tr. Silano, 4:208–09). The Lombard goes on to elaborate about the effects of a vow of virginity on a subsequent marriage in terms congruent with what Hugh says in Sacr. 2.11: If a couple who have made a private vow of virginity marry, the married partners should not be separated, since a private vow cannot be proven. However, those who have solemnly vowed continence cannot marry. For the developments up to 1521, see Boureau, Le désir dicté, 48–166. Codex iuris canonici #1307 (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1949), 445: “Votum, idest promissio deliberata ac libera Deo facta de bono possibili et meliore, ex virtute religionis impleri debet.” St Thomas Aquinas treated “vows” in conjunction with the virtue of religion. That connection was kept in the revised Code of Canon Law of 1988, although there was some discussion of moving vows to a different section of the Code. James Lowry, Dispensation from Private Vows: A Historical Synopsis and a Commentary, Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 237 (Washington, DC: The Catholic ­University of America Press, 1946), 1–14. See The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, ##1191–98, ed. James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, and Donald E. Heintschel (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1985), 842–43.

344

H ugh of St   V ictor

TRANSLATION

1. Vows and Whether There Are Different Kinds Regarding vows, I  am not released. I  am forced to render what I  promised.1 Having snatched a little leisure among my numerous occupations, I have drawn together some things in a summary way, but I have not fully pursued what you asked. Regarding your vows, you have queried whether those who promise them are bound with the same obligation and necessity. If I had wanted to give a response to your inquiry and not also offer edification, I could have answered briefly that there is not one obligation attaching to all vows. However, because I do not doubt that it was not just a question that moved you, but rather that you sought edification, I have tried for the present to satisfy your devotion insofar as it is possible and reasonable. 2. On the Five Ways by Which the Mind Considers what Things Are to Be Done There are five ways by which the human mind usually considers what to do: thinking, willing, deliberation, promising, and vow. It is one thing to think about something, and another to want what you have thought about. You can think about what you do not want, but you cannot want something except when what you are thinking about is pleasing to you. It does sometimes happen that what is attractive because of pleasure does not please according to reason, and so reason has not yet acquiesced to do what gives pleasure. There is indeed in that pleasure a wanting of the deed, but in reason there is not yet a decision (propositum) that the mind be now held to confirm assent to what is pleasurable, whether toward guilt if it is bad, or toward merit if it is good. This totality of thinking, willing, and decision is in the mind, and wholly in it, and it is either good or evil for it. It is not held bound except in itself, and it is bound insofar as it is in it.2 However, when a promise has followed the decision, then the one promising begins to be obligated toward another and becomes duty-bound by his promise to another, and obligated by his promise to his neighbor to preserve it truthfully. If, in fact, what he promised is good, he is obligated both because it is good and because he promised it. If, however, what he promised is bad, he is not obligated insofar as what he promised is bad. He is, however, guilty because he presumed to promise what he

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 2



345

could not fulfill without sin. Finally, there follows a vow, which seems to include something beyond a promise. 3. What Is a Vow and What Is It to Vow A vow is a kind of testimony to a freely given promise that concerns God alone or the things that more properly belong to God. To vow is to obligate oneself to God by the witness of a freely given promise and to put oneself in his debt. Someone who simply promises just declares that he is going to do something, whereas someone who vows bears witness to his promise and affirms that promise. Whence, one is bound insofar as it is a promise; insofar as one bears witness, one is obligated. One sort of vow is to God and before God and is hidden; another sort is to God and before man and is public (manifestum). To break a hidden vow is a sin; to break a public vow is a sin and a scandal. In the former, one offends God; in the latter, one sins against neighbor. However, if you ask which vows are certainly to be kept, and which can be set aside or commuted without sin, accept this first distinction.3 4. Which Vows Are not to Be Kept Scripture says that the vows of the foolish should be broken.4 By the vows of the foolish, we understand those made regarding evil or made evilly regarding good. For example, if someone vows to kill someone else or that he is going to do something else in which sin is found, he would be vowing to do evil and that would be evil, and therefore not to be done. In such a case, the first sin was to vow, and the second would be to do it. Likewise, if a vow has been made regarding something good, but it cannot be done well, it is to be classed among the vows of the foolish that are to be broken. It is not done well if the vow is about something good but what is vowed is not permitted or is not beneficial. It is not permitted that a woman vow continence if her husband does not consent but opposes it. It is not beneficial if someone proposes to do something regarding fasting or some other work that is beyond his strength or possibility. All these things are to be classified among the vows of the foolish, because they are wrong, or illicit, or thoughtless. However, regarding instances where something good is vowed and vowed well, some of them may be the subject of commutation by way of dispensation, but some are such that they admit absolutely no room for commutation (recompensationem).5

346

H ugh of St   V ictor

5. What Vow Admits of No Commutation You wish to know which ones allow for no commutation. You are seeking authority, but perhaps you will not believe me if I choose to present just one vow out of them all. There is one that allows for no commutation. There can be no dispensation where there is no place for compensation. Dispensation is the name for cost; it suggests some amount of loss. It is foolish to suffer damage voluntarily where no gain is acquired. When is loss freely tolerated in a small matter, so that gain will accrue in a greater matter? This is called dispensation. Such dispensation is a good thing. Note, however: how can one rightly and freely sustain damage in a case where nothing greater can be acquired? If you want an authority, there is one thing that allows of no commutation. I do not say this, but Truth says it and, if I speak, I speak following the Truth and according to the Truth because a human being cannot give a recompense (commutationem) for his soul.6 However, perhaps you will answer and say that Truth did not say, “he will not give,” but, “what recompense will a human being give for his soul?” That is, he does not assert, but asks. So, then, he does not assert, but asks. Answer, then, if you can, what recompense will a human being give for his soul? You see clearly that there is one thing that does not allow for commutation or admit of dispensation. If you vow this, indeed because you vow (for you cannot be good if you have not vowed this), render what you have vowed, render the very thing you have vowed because if you wish to render something else, it will not be accepted in place of this, no matter what it is. The Psalmist says, Vow, and render to the Lord your God all you who bring gifts into his presence.7 What gifts? Sons of God, bring to the Lord, bring to the Lord the offspring of rams.8 Perhaps these are the gifts that the Psalmist orders us to vow and render—rams and the offspring of rams—when he says, Vow, and render to the Lord your God all you who bring gifts into his presence.9 Gifts to whom? Hear what follows: to the terrifying one who takes away the spirit of princes… the one terrible among the kings of the earth.10 Why was this pertinent so that, after he had said, render your gifts to the Lord your God, he immediately added, who takes away the spirit of princes, if not because he wished these gifts to signify the spirit? If he takes away the spirit of princes, could he not take away your spirit? Therefore, render voluntarily so that you will not lose involuntarily. Vow and render to the Lord your God, all you who bring gifts into his

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 2



347

presence, to the terrifying one who takes away the spirit of princes, to the one terrible among the kings of the earth.11 See, then, brother, what it is that we should vow and render to the Lord our God. If we do not wish to vow this or afterward render our vow, we will not be able to retain it. If we render, he will accept; if we do not render, he will take away. If we render, he will remunerate us for what we have given; if we do not render, he will condemn for what was not given. If we render, we give what is ours, and it is credited to justice; if we do not render, we retain what is another’s, and it is considered as sin (ad culpam). He says, whoever loves his soul will lose it and whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.12 He keeps for himself who gives to me, and he who keeps for himself loses. So, vow and render. If you vow your soul, give your soul. Do not think that you can render your money for your soul. This would be to vow more and render less, and it would not be equal compensation. If you give your things to God and yourself to the devil it is not an equal apportionment. Have you not sinned if you offer justly but do not divide justly? The soul is worth more, and money is worth less. Is not the soul greater than food, and the body greater than clothing?13 If the soul is greater than food, it is greater than money, because food is greater than money. Money is given for food, and if there is no food, what good is money? What confers and benefits more is more necessary. Therefore, if you vow your soul, do not give money in place of your soul, because if you do that, you commit fraud, vowing more and rendering less. You can give your money with your soul, but you cannot give it for your soul, unless perchance you have vowed to give your money for the soul in such a way that the soul you have given may become more acceptable. Given on behalf of the soul, the money is loved with it; given on behalf of the soul, but without it, it is not accepted. So, do not think that you can give your money for your soul, that is, as a substitute (pro commutatione) for your soul, because he would not accept money given thus, and you could not save your soul if it is kept back in this way. Thus, the money would be lost and the soul would not be saved. Therefore, this is the thing that does not admit of substitution. 6. All Other Things Admit of Commutation on Account of Place, Time, and Cause You have vowed gold. You can render silver, because the amount of what is less valuable can be greater. You have vowed to the Lord

348

H ugh of St   V ictor

a pilgrimage. It admits of commutation if it happens that it is more beneficial, as can happen, that you remain in your native place and in your house. If you can complete something of equal value there, whether some work of devout virtue, or some useful service, you can give an equivalent. You have vowed a fast, and this can be commuted, if perhaps that is not beneficial, as can happen. Let me say something else: you vowed to serve God in some place, or way of life,14 or society. I say this: all can be commuted, because a place can be destroyed, people die, and habits change. Do you think you lose your soul if some place is devastated or people die? Provided only that what happens to them is not your doing, there remains nothing in you that you need to do. There is no danger for you where there is no fault of yours. Do what you can and as much as you can and that is sufficient for you. Nothing more is required of a good will beyond what it is capable of. However, if you have vowed one of these things or something similar, which can be taken away from the unwilling or commuted for the willing, and you can fulfill what you vowed, it is not up to you to choose the commutation of your vow, even if you see some greater or better deed that you can do. A dispensation can be made for you, but it should not be made by you. You are obligated to what you have vowed as much as you are able and no more. To commute it for something else is not allowed to you, but to your supervisor and teacher. If he wishes it and it is beneficial, it is permitted to accept from him something else. If you give the same thing, it was owed; if something else is accepted from him, it is an indulgence. Someone is called a supervisor who can grant to all his subjects by a wholesome and reasonable commutation, according to utility and yield of compensation, things different from the first and other than what had been proposed. As your vow resides in your will, so the commutation of your vow lies in his power. In the former case, you can do a good that delights; in the latter, you must take counsel with him regarding what is most beneficial. There is something else that should be added to what has been said. Lo and behold, you have vowed the virginity of your flesh to the Lord your God. I say, you ought to render what you have vowed. It is not lawful for you to look back so that you then descend to carnal experience. I say, render what you owe. It is not permitted to you to render something for this, if you can render it. But what do we do? Behold, you vowed and you have not kept your vow because you have lost your virginity. You can no longer render virginity; you cannot give what

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 1 2

 349

you do not have. Once virginity is lost, it can no longer be regained or recovered.15 What will you do? What will you render the Lord your God for your virginity that you vowed and lost after that vow? Is there nothing that can be rendered for this so that the debt is discharged and the vow fulfilled? If there is nothing else that can be rendered for this, there is no salvation for those who have vowed this and cannot render what they have now lost. Will we dare to breach the bridge of mercy in this way? Let someone who dares to say this do so. I neither presume nor wish to do so. Let the one who wants to say this see to it that he does not put himself in danger. In fact, there is something that you can render for your virginity if you have lost it. What is it? Render your penitence; render your contrition; render your humility. For virginity of the flesh, render humility of heart; for broken flesh, render a broken heart. On your part, you owed humility even if you had virginity. Nevertheless, if you cannot render virginity, render humility in place of it, and it will satisfy both for itself and for virginity. See how great is the virtue of humility. Humility is the companion of virginity, and virginity is the companion of humility; and if humility is absent, virginity cannot please God. However, if virginity is absent, humility can still please God, if it is genuine humility.16 Therefore, there is something else that you can render to God for your virginity, if you cannot render virginity itself. There is a way to make satisfaction to God even if you do not offer this. Do I not speak thus of your soul? Lose your soul, so that you can no longer render it, and see if there is anything left to you that you can render for it. Therefore, I said to you: there is one thing for which there can be no commutation, if this only cannot be given. Unless you render this, whatever you give does not satisfy. If you render this, no matter what you have not given, you do not offend.

350

H ugh of St   V ictor

NOTES 1

2

3 4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

This selection is translated from PL 176.519C–524D. The text, especially near the end, is corrected in light of Rainer Berndt’s edition. In this opening sentence, Hugh is punning. The implication is that he has promised his correspondent something about vows, and there is no way he can be released from his promise or commute it into something else. What follows concerns vows: which should be kept, and which can or cannot be commuted. Here, as elsewhere in this section, I have kept the translation fairly literal, so that the reader may interpret the text himself. The idea here is that the process of thinking and willing that concludes with a decision is a single totality that occurs in the mind. This mental process leading to a decision is either good or evil. The mind is not held to something except insofar as this process occurs, and its obligation is to itself. This changes when a promise is added. “accipito”: a second imperative, “accept,” with the connotation of “as a basis for the discussion.” “vota stultorum frangenda sunt”: This text is not in the Vulgate. The biblical text closest to it is Eccles 5:3: si quid vovisti Deo ne moreris reddere; displicet enim ei infidelis et stulta promissio sed quodcumque voveris redde (if you have promised something to God, do not wait to pay it; a faithless and foolish promise displeases him but whatever you have vowed render it). This seems to say the opposite of what Hugh’s statement says. Guareschi, Voeu, n14, refers to Eccles 5:15, which is not relevant. Another text that might be seen as relevant is Sirach 35:14: “Noli offerre munera prava, non enim suscipiet illa” (“Do not offer wicked gifts, for such he will not receive”). Hugh has discussed the nature of vows, and when vows should not be kept. Now he considers those that should be kept, some of which allow for commutation (substituting a different act) and one that does not. Matt 16:26. Ps 75:12. Ps 28:1. The first part of this verse, Afferte Domino filii Dei, was used in the liturgy as part of an antiphon. See cantusindex.org, #001303. Ps 75:12. Ps 75:13. Ps 75:12–13. Matt 10:39. Matt 6:25. There is a slightly different version of this saying in Luke 12:22–23. “habitu”: habitus can mean way of life, clothing, religious garb or order, habit, condition. On whether and in what sense virginity once lost could (Peter Damian) or could not (Jerome) be restored, see VTT 2:232 n49. Augustine, De  sancta virginitate (ed. Iosephus Zycha, CSEL  41 [Vienna: Tempsky, 1900], 233–302; tr. Ray Kearney, Marriage and Virginity, WSA 1/9 [Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999], 65–107), extols virginity as a great gift of God, but also insists that it must be guarded with great humility. See David Hunter, “Virginitate, De sancta,” in Augustine through the Ages, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 870–71.

PENANCE

HISTORICAL SETTING 1: PENANCE BEFORE HUGH OF ST VICTOR INTRODUCTION

Historians’ interpretations of paenitentia (penance, penitence, repentance) in the early and medieval Church have changed considerably during the last forty years. The result has been a blurring of a threestep chronology that had held sway previously. According to Bernhard Poschmann’s very influential summary of this earlier view,1 published in German in 1951, the age of public penance was followed by a period of decline in penitential theory and practice in the fifth and sixth centuries. This decline was occasioned by the extreme rigor of canonical penance—it imposed renunciation of public office, military service, and marital intercourse—that led to the custom of postponing penance to the very end of life. The Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Churches broke this impasse by introducing a form of private penance, which missionaries then took to the continent. Although this new form of penance was still very rigorous, commutations were allowed. Meanwhile, although collections of canons, the forerunners of codified canon law, still referred to public penance, it was almost never performed. In the second stage, Carolingian bishops promoted both canonical (public) penance and private penance, but public penance gradually declined. Finally, in the third stage, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, confession rapidly evolved into the form it had for the rest of the Middle Ages and beyond. One way recent scholarship has challenged a too rigid interpretation of this narrative is by questioning the distinction between “private” and “public” penance. There was a public dimension to most “private” or “secret” penance. Moreover, the traditional form of public, canonical penance continued to be performed well into the later Middle Ages. Historians have become more doubtful about how well official decrees 1

Bernhard Poschmann, Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, tr. Francis Courtney, Herder History of Dogma (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), 81–154. Translations unless it is otherwise indicated are mine.

354

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

and theological theory represent what actually happened, and they have sought further information in other sources: e.g., saints’ vitae and manuscript use or provenance. Recent studies also contend that from the beginning penance involved external ritual forms and internal acts of compunction and contrition. The boundaries between ecclesiastical penance and political punishment also are more permeable than was previously thought.2 The following historical sketch of the development of penance up to the time of Hugh of St Victor will be brief, with some more detailed looks at particular examples.3 It will be followed by an introduction to Hugh of St Victor’s De sacramentis 2.14, discussing his contribution to the theology of penance and his interaction with the thought of Peter Abelard. Then will come Andrew Salzmann’s translation of Hugh’s treatise. This will be followed by a second historical introduction to the setting for Richard of St Victor’s two treatises on penance (1160s), which will then be translated. Then a third historical summary will cover the period from Richard of St Victor to Peter of Poitier’s penitential. Peter’s penitential, written not long before the Fourth Lateran Council, will then be translated. The theology of penance during last half of the twelfth century is largely shaped by Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Gratian’s Decretum, which became the standard texts for theological and juridical instruction. In the decades immediately before and after 1200, theologians such as Peter the Chanter took a more pastoral approach to theology, a movement that helped encourage the composition of penitential handbooks for priests. This treatment of penance is longer than sections on the other sacraments because it was a topic of intense interest to theologians, in and out of St Victor, throughout the century from Hugh of St Victor to Peter of Poitiers of St Victor.

2

3

Rob Meens, “The Historiography of Earlier Medieval Penance,” in A New History of Penance, ed. Abigail Firey, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 14 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008), 19–71; Sarah Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 900–1050 (Woodbridge: Royal Historical Society/Boydell Press, 2001), 1–24. For an excellent study of the interweaving of sacramental penance and social reconciliation, see Katherine Ludwig Jansen, Peace and ­Penance in Late Medieval Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018). It is based primarily on Poschmann, Penance; Rob Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe, 600–1200 (New York: Cambridge, 2014); and Wilhelm Kursawa, Healing Not Punishment: Historical and Pastoral Networking of the Penitentials between the Sixth and Eighth Centuries, Studia Traditionis Theologiae 25 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017).

I ntroduction



355

From the New Testament to the Fourth Century The New Testament Penance and forgiveness of sins are pervasive themes in the Bible. God promises to hear and answer cries for help from the needy and the sinful. The just are anawim, who turn to God in their need for help and forgiveness.4 Their cry is definitively answered in Christ. The programmatic summary of his preaching in Mark 1:15 includes a call for repentance: “This is the time of fulfillment. The Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent (metanoeite) and believe the gospel.” In several gospel passages that were destined to loom large in medieval theology of penance, Jesus entrusts Peter and the disciples with the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19; 18:18). After the resurrection, Jesus breathed on the disciples and told them, “receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (John 20:23). Paul speaks often of sin and forgiveness, though it seems that his writings are not cited as often in medieval theological discourse on penance up to ad 1130 as are the gospel passages just cited. The Letter to the Hebrews raised the question of whether there are post-baptismal sins that cannot be ­forgiven.5 The Letter of James recognized that all believers sin in many things,6 but that all sins are forgivable.7 Following his admonition to pray over the sick, James urges the recipients of his letter to confess (exomologeisthe) their sins to one another, pray for one another, and bring sinners back to the truth.8 The first letter of John declares, “if we say we are without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge (homologomen) our sins, God, who is faithful and just, will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us.”9

4 5 6 7 8 9

Rebekah Eklund, Jesus Wept: Laments in the New Testament, New Testament Studies 515 (New York: Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark, 2016), 1. Heb 6:4–6. Jas 3:2. Jas 1:21; 5:19. Jas 5:16–20. 1 John 1:8–10. For this biblical evidence, see Poschmann, Penance 6–19; Joseph P. Healy (Old Testament) and A. Boyd Luter, Jr. (New Testament), “Repentance,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 6 vols (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 5:671–74.

356

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

So while baptism is a rebirth to a new life, the baptized must struggle all their lives against sin.10 They will not always be successful, and so they must forgive and seek forgiveness.11 The Second Century Christian authors of the second century speak of penance and forgiveness for both slight and major sins. Penance requires conversion, which involves both turning away from sin and obedience to God’s law. Christians ask and receive forgiveness from God when they say the Our Father or weep for their sins. Fasting and almsgiving are methods of penance. Confession is made directly to God or in the presence of others, especially at the Eucharist. When obstinate sinners are excluded from the community for a time, others should pray for them. Those who have sinned very seriously should do penance before they receive communion. Presbyters should be ready to forgive. Ignatius told the Philadelphians, “all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop, and all who do penance and come into the unity of the Church—these also will belong to God.”12 Hermas (probably about the middle of the second century), moved by a vision of the personified Church, wrote his book, The Shepherd, to call people to penance before time ran out. The interpretation of The Shepherd is not easy.13 Although Hermas said that the newly baptized should not be told so, he taught that the baptized were allowed one opportunity, but only one, for sincere penitence. After that, they will have life only with difficulty. Penance requires internal repentance, fasting, almsgiving, and humble acceptance of punishment from the Church. To those who sincerely do these things, healing, purification, and forgiveness are granted. It seems clear that after a penitent had completed his penance, he was reconciled to the Church, but how this was done is not explained. Kursawa sees a pastoral emphasis in the The  Shepherd of Hermas, that he also finds in other early Christian writings on penance. The Shepherd of Hermas emphasizes the need for a holy life after bap10 11 12

13

Mark 14:38; 1 Pet 5:8. Mark 6:14; Matt 28:21–35. Letter to the Philadelphians 3.2, ed. Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols, Loeb 24, 25 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976–77), 1:240–41. See Poschmann, Penance, 19–26. Poschmann, Penance, 26–35, offers a careful analysis.

I ntroduction



357

tism, but he is not inflexible. There is one opportunity for repentance. The Shepherd accompanies Hermas to strengthen him in his effort to live and exemplify a holy life.14 The text provides a list of vices to be avoided that expands those given in the Didache and Matthew 15:19 and anticipates Cassian’s list of eight sin-inducing thoughts. The Third Century There are three main sources of information about third-century penitential theory and practice: Tertullian (d. c. 240), Cyprian (200– 58), and the Alexandrian theologians, Clement (c.  150–c.  215) and Origen (c. 184–253 or 254).15 The influence of the Montanist heresy, the New Prophecy, seems to have been especially strong in North Africa. Tertullian joined the movement later in life. In De paenitentia, written before he became a Montanist, he taught that forgiveness is available to all who are sincerely repentant. In De pudicita, from his Montanist period, he denies that the Church has power to forgive grave sins and excoriates a bishop who extended forgiveness to sinners. In his earlier Catholic period, Tertullian wrote that doing penance was required for satisfaction and reconciliation. The process required confession, both internal and external. External penance was not so much by word as by deeds, such as prostration, sackcloth and ashes, fasts, weeping and prayers, with the assistance of presbyters and fellow believers. The shame of a two-stage self-accusation, before the door of the church and later inside before the altar, was the most daunting event in the process that ended with reconciliation with the bishop. Like Hermas, Tertullian declared that this process could only be entered into once. In his Montanist writings, Tertullian introduces a distinction between remissible and irremissible sins; the former are liable to punishment, the latter to damnation. Only God can forgive the latter, whereas the Church can forgive lighter sins. Irremissible mortal sins include fraud and other sins, besides murder, adultery, and idolatry, the three that some later writers made the sole objects of ecclesiastical penance. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, strove to formulate a policy for those who had lapsed from the faith during persecution. He objected to the 14 15

Kursawa, Healing Not Punishment, 23. Poschmann, Penance, 36–80; for Tertullian, see Ron Meeks, Penance, 16–17.

358

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

claim by some lapsed that all they needed for re-admittance to the Church was a “letter of peace” from a martyr or confessor. Cyprian required the lapsed to make a lengthy penance, but he allowed mitigations for those who were dying or facing renewed persecution. Both clergy and laity had a part in readmitting sinners to the Church. Cyprian’s writings indicate that, to be reconciled, a sinner must repent his sin before God and confess it to the bishop privately, and later be reconciled before the community by the laying on of the hands of a bishop (or, in necessity, of a deacon). Clement taught that only the truly repentant could be forgiven serious post-baptismal sin through a painful process of purification. This exomologesis required acts of penance (prayer, fasting, works of charity). Clement seems to recognize the need for reconciliation with the Church, but he does not identify it with reconciliation with God. Clement gives an important place to the psychological healing that sinners receive from spiritual guides. According to Origen, all sins can be forgiven, but the most serious sins (idolatry, adultery, unchastity, deliberate murder, and the like) can be forgiven only once. The leaders of the Church are physicians who assist Christ, the Great Physician. Wounds of sin must be shown to both Christ and the representatives of the Church. The process of healing includes excommunication, reconciliation, and penance. Penance should be moderate, although the period that the penitent has to wait before being readmitted to the Eucharist is longer than the period that candidates for baptism must wait. Readmitted penitents are not allowed to hold Church offices. Even secret sins may require public penance. Origen makes the power of priests to forgive sins dependent on their holiness, though he may have been thinking of the priests’ role as spiritual guides, a role that could also be performed by a lay person. From the Fourth to the Six Century In the East God is presented in the Old Testament as a healer or physician, and Jesus says he has come to heal those who are sick with sin.16 Gregory of Nazianzus says that the physician of souls engages in the “art of arts,” applying suitable medicaments to a variety of sins. Theodore of 16

Exod 15:26; Matt 9:12. This paragraph and the next are based on Kursawa, Healing Not Punishment, 37–49.

I ntroduction



359

Mopsuestia speaks of priests as kindly healers who do not reveal to others the sins they have treated. As St Benedict would advise the abbot who treats erring monks,17 the Didaskalia says the bishop should use less drastic measures, such as the bandages of kind words and the compresses of reprimand, before resorting to excommunication. The bishop receives the penitent back into the community by the laying on of hands while the community prays for the one being reconciled. The Didaskalia does not limit what sins can be forgiven or how often. Basil of Caesarea wrote three important letters (188, 199, 217) giving advice to Bishop Amphilochios on the ministry of penance. Penance had four steps: weeping outside the church, listening inside the church, kneeling to receive a blessing before leaving the Church after the liturgy of the word, and standing when allowed to remain for the liturgy of the Eucharist. In the letters, Basil especially deals with sins that fall under the headings of murder, apostasy, and fornication, and what penances should be assigned for them. Clerics receive greater penances. St Augustine (354–430) The writings of two monk-bishops, Augustine of Hippo and Caesarius of Arles, are windows into the development of penance between ad 350 and 550 in the Latin Church.18 Although penance was not a core issue of Augustine’s, his many writings are a rich source of information on the subject.19 Augustine interpreted the command to do penance to mean “be angry at yourselves regarding your past sins and cease from sinning further.”20 Genuine sorrow for sin is an entreaty for the mercy of God. Augustine understood penance in the light of his experience as a convert and a pastor. All Christians are sinners, and so all need forgiveness, which he describes with terms such as renewal, reconciliation, and pardon (renovatio, reconciliatio, and venia). These occur in baptism, which was a template for the understanding of penance. Augustine focused on the creedal affirmation of remission of sins through the Holy Spirit and the Church, in baptism and afterward. 17 18 19

20

RB 28:2–6 (RB80, 224–25). See also Kevin Uhalde, “Judicial Administration: The Church and Pastoral Care in Late Antiquity,” in Firey, New History, 97–120. This section is based on Allen Fitzgerald, “Penance,” in Augustine through the Ages, ed. Allen Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 640–46, which provides excellent bibliographic information. En. Ps. 4.6 (Dekkers and Fraipont, CCSL 38, 16): “Agite paenitentiam; id est, irascimini vobis ipsis de praeteritis peccatis, et ulterius peccare desinite.”

360

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

Those preparing for baptism were to join other Christians in prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, which are actions that help purify the heart. When discussing penance and healing for the baptized, Augustine often referred to Matthew 18:15–18. He tried to adapt his ministry to the needs of different people as he urged them to repentance, both publicly and privately, sometimes even depriving them of communion. Through Peter, everyone in the Church receives some power to bind and loose. Everyone can admonish or invite someone to penance. In giving this admonishment or correction, Christians should not be motivated by hostility or self-love. Correction should be a healing medicine. Faults committed privately should be corrected privately. Minor sins can be very harmful if they lead to bad habits, so they too should receive correction. Not all sins need to receive a public penance. The extent of punishment should be measured not only by the kind and number of sins, but also by the ability of someone to accept and perform penance. The bishop decides who can be admitted to the “place” (locus) or state of penitents. Some enter that state voluntarily, others because they have been excommunicated by their bishop. One can enter it only once. Augustine leaves it to the discernment of the bishop to decide the form of penance. In answer to a question regarding the different kinds of sin, he writes: Some sins are of weakness, others of inexperience, and others of malice. Weakness is contrary to virtue, inexperience is contrary to wisdom, and malice is contrary to goodness. Whoever knows what are the virtue and wisdom of God can evaluate what sins are venial. Whoever knows what is the goodness of God can decide for what sins certain punishment is owed, both here and in the future age. Someone who has thought about these three things well can judge, with greater probability, who are those not to be forced to do a doleful and deplorable penance, although they confess their sins, and those from whom there is no hope of salvation at all unless they offer to God the sacrifice of a heart crushed through penitence.21 21

Div. quest. 83.26 (Mutzenbecher, CCSL 44A, 32; tr. Boniface Ramsey, WSA 1/12, 410): “Alia sunt peccata infirmitatis, alia imperitiae, alia malitiae. Infirmitas contraria est virtuti, imperitia contraria est sapientiae, militia contraria sit bonitati. Quisquis igitur novit quid sit virtus et sapientia dei (1 Cor 1:24), potest existimare quae sint peccata venialia. Et quisquis novit quid sit bonitas dei, potest existimare quibus peccatis certa poena debeatur et hic et in futuro saeculo. Quibus bene tractatis probabiliter iudicari potest, qui non sint cogendi ad penitentiam luctuosam et lacrimabilem, quamvis peccata fateantur, et quibus nulla omnino salus speranda sit, nisi sacrificium obtulerint deo spiritum contribulatum per penitentiam (Ps 50:18–19).” Ramsey translates “quibus bene tractatis probabiliter iudicari potest” as “an ­appropriate judgment can be made in the case of those who have acted well.”

I ntroduction



361

Deadly sins can occur in the heart, in deed, or by habit. Reconciliation for sins of thought takes place between the individual and God, or by disciplinary action imposed by the Church followed by imposition of the bishop’s hands in the presence of the community. Sins determined to be mortal and liable to formal penance included murder, heresy, adultery, theft, and rape. Augustine usually refers to these as crimina. Penance for such crimina included excommunication, but excommunication occurred in other contexts also. The decision to excommunicate should be made very carefully, keeping in mind the primacy of charity and Church unity. Excommunication aimed to limit the harm the excommunicated person could do and to prompt him to seek reconciliation. The excommunicated were excluded from the Eucharist and the faithful were not to share meals with them, but the excommunicated were still members of the Church and were to be the recipients of prayer and solicitude. Augustine does not give details of the process, e.g., the acts of penitence to be performed or special clothing, nor does he speak of the effect that doing penance has on a penitent’s marriage or secular profession. For minor daily sins, the remedy was the recitation of the Our Father at the Eucharist, when those present beat their breasts. Almsgiving and mercy were expressions of mutual forgiveness. Thus, Augustine’s writings portray a flexible, pastoral approach to penance and reconciliation. He emphasizes the importance of mercy and concern for the sinner. Penance for grave, public sins remains a one-time opportunity. This restriction prompted many people of his time to put off baptism until adulthood so that once baptism had washed away their sins, they would have in penance a chance for a second cleansing before they died. St Caesarius of Arles (470–542) Penance has a prominent place in Caesarius’ sermons, and in the legislation of the Church of Gaul during his lifetime.22 Caesarius says there is a lively debate among the members of his Church (fratribus et filiis nostris) whether a sick person who receives penance and immediately dies receives pardon. Caesarius gives his opinion about this in the light of the rules of the holy fathers. 22

Jákó Ors Fehérvéry, Multi sunt poenitentiae fructus: Pénitence monastique aux ve-vie siècles dans le passage de pénitence ecclésiale, Studia Anselmiana 147 (Rome: EOS, 2009), 142–59; Meens, Penance, 15–28.

362

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

It is not unfitting to think that people reach this sudden penance in three ways. The first and preferred way is that a Christian avoid very serious sins (crimina capitalia)23 or, if he has committed them, repent them in such a way that he washes them away with good works, so that he does not later return to those sins, gives tithes on all his income and, with whatever remains of the remaining nine-tenths after his needs have been met, he redeems the little sins that overtake a person each day, and he extends this love not only to his friends but also to his enemies. Whoever has wished to faithfully fulfill these things, even if he does not receive penance, will have a good death because he has done these things fruitfully and faithfully. And if, when he is going to die, he accepts penance and assigns part of his substance for himself and for Christ and for his children, we believe that not only will he obtain pardon for his sins, but also the rewards of eternal life.24

The second kind of final penance is that of a person who committed not just little sins but serious (capitalia) ones also. He has sinned more out of ignorance than out of hope for a final penance. When he lies dying, he cries out with great humility and contrition of heart and resolves that, if he lives, he will do penance with his whole heart and strength, make amends for what he has taken from others unjustly, forgive his enemies, and give generous alms. We can be confident that God will remit all his sins. The third kind of final penance is that of those who sin, counting on a final opportunity for penance but with no desire to make amends, forgive, or change their ways should they recover. It is hard to believe that such people, who sow no good fruits, will have a good end. 23

24

In Sermo 189.2 (ed. Germain Morin, Sancti Caesarii Arelatesis Semones, CCSL 103 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1953]), 771–72, Caesarius identifies capitalia crimina, such as bearing false witness, murder, and divination as sins that stain one’s baptismal garment and require public (communi) satisfaction and cannot be expiated by middling or secret satisfaction. They require an abrenuntio, a canonical penance but, as we shall see, Caesarius does not recommend such penance for many, especially not for the young, who, he thinks, are incapable of this rigorous penitential program. See, for example, Sermo 56.3 (ed. Morin, CCSL 103, 249–50). Sermo 60.1 (Morin, CCSL 103, 263–64): “Non incongrue potest credi tribus modis ad istam subitaneam paenitentiam perveniri. Primus et praecipuus modus est, ut christianus crimina capitalia non admittat; aut si forte admiserit, sic pro illis paeniteat, et ea bonis operibus diluat, ut postea ad peccata ipsa non redeat; de omnibus fructibus decimas reddat, et de novem partibus quidquid suis necessitatibus superfuerit, minuta peccata quae cotidie subripiunt redimat, et illam caritatem teneat quae non solum amicos, sed ipsos diligit inimicos. Qui haec fideliter implere voluerit, etiamsi paenitentiam non accipiat, quia semper illam fructuose et fideliter egit, bene hinc exiet, et si eo tempore quo moriturus est eam acceperit, et partem sibi et Christo ad substantiam suam cum filiis suis fecerit, non solum eum veniam peccatorum credimus obtinere sed etiam praemia aeterna percipere.”

I ntroduction



363

Caesarius says that the first kind of deathbed penitent should be a model for all Christians. Let us leave behind what is uncertain and turn our thoughts to that penance that good Christians perform all their lives, through which serious sins are avoided and light sins are absolved. If we are doing good works, we will have security in God’s mercy. Life and death are so uncertain that it is dangerous presumption to postpone penance until a very uncertain future. Let us ask the Lord, to inspire us to flee quickly all evils and tirelessly exercise good works, not covet others’ things, not commit serious sins, redeem little sins, which we cannot be without, through forgiving enemies and giving alms to the poor, and according to our strength frequently perform fasts, vigils, and prayer with perfect charity.25

However, one should not overlook a clause in Caesarius’ description of the first kind of death, that of a sinner who lives a penitential, fruit-bearing Christian life. “Even if he has committed [crimina capitalia],” Caesarius offers him hope. If he is not able to perform onerous canonical penance, he need not bank on a deathbed opportunity for penance. He can repent his sins and live the good and penitential life Caesarius describes. If he does so, he can approach death with confidence. Caesarius may have had in mind a young person who falls into serious sins that cannot be removed by middling or secrete satisfaction. It is not realistic to demand of him that he take up a severe penance that will prohibit him marriage and many professions. It would be very dangerous for him to count on deathbed penance. So, he should seriously repent and live the good and penitential life required of any good Christian. Furthermore, until he can perhaps receive canonical penance at the end of his life, Caesarius recommends that he confess his sins to God and to observant Christians and ask their intercession.26 In addition to this important teaching, to which practical pastoral experience led him, Caesarius gives a rather comprehensive teaching on other aspects of penance. Lighter sins are unavoidable; all Christians must do penance for them. If not, they may grow into grave sins, in the way that drops of water can become a flood. Slight wounds require 25

26

Sermo 60.4 (Morin, CCSL 103, 266): “ut nobis inspirare dignetur omnia mala velociter fugere, non concupiscere, capitalita crimina non admittere, minuta peccata, sine quibus esse non possumus, per indulgentiam inimicorum et elemosinorum pauperum indesinenter redimere, secundum vires nostras, ieuuniis, vigiliis et orationibus cum perfecta caritate frequenter insistere.” Sermo 152.3 (Morin, CCSL 103, 624), prayer; Sermo 30.4 (Morin, CCSL 103, 261), confession to God; Sermo 59.1 (Morin, CCSL 103, 259), confession to others and to God, citing Jas 5:16.

364

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

daily treatment, lest they become gangrenous. The wedding garment received in baptism must be cleaned, so one can go to meet the groom. By penance done now for such sins, one will escape purifying fire later. Caesarius’ understanding of day-to-day, Christian living as a way of penitence seems to derive from his understanding of monastic life as a life of penitence. However, although this daily penitence is both individual and communal, it is not institutional. Penance and remittance are the result of internal conversion and good works. From these soundings into the works of two sainted monk-bishops, it seems, as Meens argues, that there were many ways toward forgiveness of sins, including baptism, tears, alms, forgiving others, good deeds, martyrdom, and the intercession of the saints.27 In general, penitential theology and practice seem to have been more robust in sixth-century Gaul than Poschmann thought. For example, Bishop Mamertus (d. 475) instituted a three-day Rogation time in Vienne, and his successor Avitus (d. 525) emphasized its penitential character. These Rogation Days were widely adopted in Gaul. Councils held in Gaul regularly discussed penance supervised by the bishops, which aimed at reintegration of sinners into the community. Gregory the Great made popular the idea that sins forgiven on earth could be expiated in the afterlife and that the prayers of believers can help the dead who are undergoing purgation. The Sixth and Seventh Centuries: Insular Texts and the Continent Four texts, from the sixth or early seventh centuries, known as the Preface of Gildas on Penance, Excerpts of a Book of David, The Synod of North Britain, and The Synod of the Grove of Victory seem to be insular (Irish, Welsh, or British).28 All four texts assign a period of fasting as 27

28

Cassian, Conf. 20.8 (ed. and tr. E. Pichery, Conférences, SC 64 [Paris: Cerf, 1959], tr. Boniface Ramsey, Conferences, ACW 57 [New York: Paulist 1997], 698–701). Ramsey refers to discussions of the means to forgiveness of sins in Augustine, De civ. Dei, 21.18 (B. Dombart and A. Kalb, CCSL 48 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1955], 784–85) and Enchiridion 19.70–20.77 (ed. and tr. J. Rivière [Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1947], 228–43). Meens, Penance, 70–100. I will present these penitential documents in the order in which Meens does. Kursawa (summary on 176–77) presents a different chronology: – First half of sixth century: four documents from southwest Britain. – Before 549: Finnian’s Penitential. – End of sixth century: Paeniential of Columbanus. – First decade of seventh century: Columbanus’ De octo vitiis. – After 610: Ambrosianum. – About 650: Penitential of Cummean.

I ntroduction



365

penance for improper behavior. The Preface of Gildas contains rules for penances for sins committed by monks, and gives options for penances suited to the different penitents: monks, clergy, and laity. The Excerpts of a Book of David seems to be a collection of conciliar decrees about punishment for delinquent clergy. The First Synod of St Patrick, another insular text from this period, lays down penances for both clergy and laity. The sins these texts list closely match those mentioned in Matthew 15:19: murder, adultery and fornication, perjury, theft, and slander. They require confession, but they are not specific about to whom the confession should be made. These early texts were followed by penitentials. The Penitentiale Ambrosianum, used by followers of St Columbanus, presents the confessor as a physician offering pastoral care. A sinner should be admonished. If he refuses to repent, excommunications of varying severity should be used to force him to obey. The priest receives a confession, measures out a penance, prays for the penitent, and absolves. Culpability increases when a sin is not the result of ignorance but of negligence or, worse, contempt. The Ambrosianum is structured according to the eight vitia that were formulated by Evagrios and brought to the West by Cassian.29 It draws on Basil’s Rule for Monks, as well as the Excerpta Davidis and Synod of the Grove of Victory, and has affinities with the Regula coenobialis attributed to Columbanus. It may have been an effort to bring monastic discipline to the secular clergy. It begins with drunkenness. Columbanus (who entered Francia from Ireland around 590 and died at Bobbio in 615), used the Penitential of Finnian (d. 549), who had been in contact with Gildas. Finnian was abbot of Clonfert, but his penitential refers not just to monks but also to lay people, who presumably lived near the monastery. Finnian’s penitential begins with sins of the heart, which should be cured by penance and weeping. Citing an ancient medical dictum, Finnian says vices should be cured by their contrary virtues. He considers the major vices of apostasy, murder and bodily harm, and sexual sins. Finnian assigns greater penances to 29

Evagrios (345–99), a theologian who became a monk in the Egyptian desert, listed eight “thoughts” or feelings (mental events) that a person needed to control in order to achieve self-mastery. Cassian (360–435) brought the list to the West in his Institutes and Conferences. Gregory the Great took up the list and altered it somewhat. It gradually morphed into the “seven deadly sins.” The vitia were not sins so much as stimuli toward sin, nor were they vices in the sense of bad habits, though they could become such. As will be seen below, lists of them were used extensively in the medieval practice of penance and in religious instruction.

366

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

clerics than to lay people. The penances include fasting and alms, and envisage restitution for damages of property or another’s marriage. He gives strict directives about the sexual behavior of married people, but no penalties for failure to comply. He also considers perjury and fraud, carelessness regarding the Eucharist, as well as lesser sins. He refers to confession made in private and asserts that no sin is unforgiveable. It is likely that the penitential of Finnian and the Ambrosianum were intended to extend monastic penitential practices to the lay associates of monasteries. Some of their provisions concern conflict management. Kursawa considers Finnian’s work the first penitential. The Penitential of Columbanus has a known author, who was born around 550 and educated at Bangor before he became a peregrinus in Gaul. His other writings sometimes speak of sin and atonement. For example, his Regula coenobialis has many penitential prescriptions designed to foster community life. Instead of fasting, corporal punishment is most often prescribed by this rule, but it also imposes psalms and silence. A ritual enacted in church, publica paenitentia, which may be a later addition to the rule, has the offender lie prostrate and ask pardon while other monks pray over him. At the end of the ritual, the abbot grants absolution. The Penitential of Columbanus has sections for monks, clerics, and laity. It deals mostly with serious sins, both of thought and deed. Clerics and layman are required to make restitution for sins that harm others. It is not structured around Cassian’s eight vitia, but Columbanus did write a short treatise, De octo vitiis. They are to be treated by their contraries. Cummean’s Penitential is another influential work of this genre.30 Its author has been identified as Cummean Fota, an Irish abbot and bishop who died in 662. This work draws on Basil’s letter, the Ambrosianum, and Cassian. Its author was a well-informed compiler and reviser. It is the first penitential known to have been explicitly written for all three categories, monks, clerics, and lay people, although it has a strong monastic flavor. It had considerable influence in Ireland and on the continent. Cummean makes use of Cassian’s eight vitia, which are to be cured by their contrary virtues that are health-giving medicines for spiritual 30

Although very dated now, Medieval Handbooks of Penance. A Translation of the Principal libri poenitentiales and selections from related documents, tr. John T. McNeill and Helena M. Gamer, Records of Western Civilization (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990 [1938]) is a convenient source for many of the documents discussed here.

I ntroduction



367

ails. Cummean gives a list of twelve medicines, which seems to derive from Origen’s list of ways in which sins could be forgiven, and came to him via Cassian’s Conference 20 and Caesarius of Arles. Cummean does not mention the role of the priest very often, perhaps because he took it for granted, but he does admonish priest-confessors in an appendix. Cummean approaches penance as something that is part of a Christian life, private and repeatable. The Life of Columba of Iona (521–97), written by Adomnán, who was abbot there from 679 to 704, provides valuable information about the penitential practices in this important Irish monastery.31 Penitents traveled to Iona to receive penance from Columba. Some stayed for a time, even years, to do penance. Irish monks who, like Columbanus and Columba, left Ireland for the continent or Britain took penitentials with them. People seem to have been attracted to these Irish pilgrim monks because of the purity of their lives and the power of their intercession. A group of eight closely related “simple Frankish penitentials” combined Columbanus’ penitential with ecclesiastical legislation. The Bobbio Missal, found in a manuscript containing one of these penitentials, provides two prayers to be said over a penitent. One of these prayers is found in the liturgy for public penance in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary.32 The evidence suggests that older penitential disciplines supervised by a bishop were employed in Gaul along with Columbanian forms without conflict or controversy. Columbanian missionaries brought to Europe an emphasis on penance in monastic life and in the lives of laity connected with monasteries. As Columbanus’ penitential shows, they also correlated sins with fixed penances, although they allowed for commutations or substitutions (e.g., almsgiving for fasting). With the Vita of St Fursa, and similar documents that followed it, the Irish missionaries aroused interest in journeys of the soul to the other world. In a similar, and probably related, vita of Barontus, devils accuse Barontus of many serious sins. Barontus acknowledges to Peter that they are telling the truth. Peter defends Barontus: he has given alms, confessed his sins to priests, done penance, and left everything 31

32

Columba (Columcille) reportedly studied under St Finnian of Moville. He founded the monastery at Iona around 565. It became the head of a very large parruchia, or monastic federation. According to Meens, Penance, 29–30, this sacramentary preserves Roman liturgical traditions although it is preserved in a manuscript written in Gaul about 750. It influenced many eighth-century sacramentaries in Gaul.

368

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

to follow Christ. When the devils continue to harass Barontus, Peter threatens them with three keys that he has in his hand. Meanwhile, in the seventh and early eighth centuries, Irish texts such as Cummean’s Penitential became known in England. The first important penitential work produced in England is attributed to Theodore, a Greek who was sent to England to be archbishop of Canterbury in 668. There, he established a school. His decrees and judgments were gathered into collections that formed a penitential. The most widespread version of this penitential combined this penitential with a collection of judicial decrees. Theodore noticed differences between Roman and Greek penitential practices: e.g., the Romans reconciled sinners in the apse on Holy Thursday under the supervision of a bishop. He also noticed that re­ conciliation was not required in Britain. In his penitential, Theodore required restitution as well as penance in cases of theft and bloodshed. His may be the first penitential to require penance of married couples guilty of disapproved sexual acts. He warned not to speak with penitents about unusual sexual sins.33 The text indicates that people came to confession spontaneously as well as when they were required to. For those who could not do the usual penances, Theodore provided for commutations (Latin: arrea). Only priests and bishops can validly receive confessions, but if a priest is not available one may confess directly to God. The sins he discusses include homicide, gluttony, disrespect of the host, avarice, perjury, and leaving religious life. Theodore’s penitential remained influential into the eleventh century. Another probably English penitential that had wide influence beyond the British Isles is attributed to Egbert. A manuscript of this penitential, now in the Vatican Library, copied by an English hand, was at the monastery of Lorsch by the early ninth century.34 In the manuscript, the penitential occupies one nine-folio quire. This made it handy for missionaries, but unlikely to survive as a loose bundle of pages. The prologue emphasizes that in assigning penances confessors should take into account the penitent’s financial situation, social status, health, and age. It also insists that the confessor show mercy and that the penitent be truly contrite. The prologue says that, in addition to the

33 34

Kursawa, Healing Not Punishment, 273, who finds a similar warning in Theodulf, Capitularia (PL 105.219C). The Abbey of Lorsch was founded in 764. Its first abbot was Chrodegang of Metz.

I ntroduction

 369

penitential, a priest needs a psalter, lectionary, antiphonary, sacramentary, baptismal ritual, martyrology, sermon collection, and computus. Penance in Carolingian Times The Carolingians, even before they became kings, were very interested in religious affairs, probably both for religious and political reasons. When Willibrord arrived in Frisia in 690 he sought out Pippin II, the mayor of the palace. Willibrord may have been the author of a penitential known as Oxoniensis II, which has Frisian connections. This penitential is concerned only with lay people and is deliberately more lenient than earlier penitentials. Warriors going into battle are to be given the same penitential pastoral care as the dying. Its provisions regarding restitution of stolen property indicate that maintaining social harmony was a concern. To be freed from excommunication, one must confess and receive a penance. Churches should not receive alms from unrepentant sinners. Willibrord’s kinsman, Boniface (675–754), was harsher toward sinful Christians. The Excarpus Cummeani, a penitential composed in the eighth century, seems to have been associated with Boniface and his circles. It draws materials from the penitentials of Theodore and Cummean, and from the “simple Frankish penitentials,” and synthesizes them. It assigns penances for each grade of clergy for each major sin, and to laity for superstitious practices and sexual transgressions, and includes legislation to guide clergy in matters other than confession. Other penitentials drawing from the same sources were composed about the same time. Like the Excarpus Cummeani, they tried to iron out the differences among their sources. Charlemagne’s capitulary of 789, the admonitio generalis, shows the importance that the king and his advisors attached to the Christian life of his subjects. They wanted to raise the level of religious knowledge and observance. This led to a great increase in book production, notably texts intended for use in pastoral care including penitentials. Four church councils held in 813 discussed the right way to judge penitents and what authorities should be used, but no consensus was reached. One of these councils, at Chalons-sur-Saône, condemned existing penitentials and complained that, in many places, for public sins people no longer did public penance according to the old canons and rituals. These councils and other legislation emphasized interior conversion and the requirement that penitents confess to their local clergy.

370

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

The council of Chalons-sur-Saône also recognized that one could confess directly to God. A question that Carolingian churchmen faced was the penance of rulers. They assumed that the spiritual health of the kingdom was connected with the spiritual health of the king and his court. This assumption was behind Louis the Pious’ penance for the death of his nephew, Bernard, his reconciliation with his half-brothers in 822, and his penance and temporary deposition in 833.35 In a council at Paris in 829, the bishops sharply criticized penitentials that employed inauthentic sources or were written without proper authority. Halitgar, Bishop of Cambrai, was commissioned to compose a penitential using proper sources that would assist priests in hearing confessions. Halitgar composed a text in six books. The first five were excerpts from authorities such as Julianus Pomerius, Gregory the Great, and two Carolingian canonical collections, the Dacheriana and the Dionysian-Hadriana. The sixth book was a penitential that Halitgar seems to have written slightly earlier. He claimed it was taken from the Roman archives. This penitential was widely copied, although sometimes along with other penitentials that it was meant to replace. With the same goals, Hrabanus Maurus, abbot of Fulda, prepared two penitentials, one in 841 and the other in 853, but in the second one he was more willing to admit materials of questionable authority. Neither of Hrabanus’ penitentials had much influence. Other new penitentials drew on less authentic sources, including earlier penitentials. The earlier penitentials seem to have provided for the pastoral needs of confessors in ways that these deliberately more “authentic” penitentials did not. Thus, the Carolingians were not able to achieve uniformity in penitential practice. However, the bishops’ efforts increased their control of penance. Average Christians were now expected to confess their sins between one and three times a year (Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost). The inclusion of minor sins in penitentials suggests that penance had become a regular feature of Christian life. Penance from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Centuries In the post-Carolingian period, there are fewer surviving manuscripts of the penitentials so far discussed. However, two important col35

For later examples of royal penance, see Sarah Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 900–1050 (Woodbridge: Royal Historical Society/Boydell Press, 2001), 174–82.

I ntroduction



371

lections of Church legislation include information on penance.36 Shortly after 900, Regino of Prüm (842–915) completed for the archbishop of Trier Two Books on Synodal Investigations and Ecclesiastical Instruction. This work was a selection of statements from Church councils and decrees and from three penitentials, including that of Theodore, which Regino regarded as authentic. Bishops could take Regino’s compilation with them as they toured their dioceses on visitations. One question he included for priests was whether they had a penitential, heard confessions, and decided on penances according to that penitential. When the bishop visited a parish, he was to ask seven trustworthy parishioners about the state of the parish, posing to them 89 questions, many of which were found in penitentials. It is difficult to determine how often this process of visitation occurred. The procedure is described in the vita of Ulrich of Augsburg. It is clear that penance was a way of enforcing Church discipline and settling local disputes. Penitents were brought before the bishop at the beginning of Lent, barefoot and wearing sackcloth. They prostrated themselves before him. The bishop and his assistants assigned penances, then the bishop led the penitents into the church, where he laid his hand on them, a hitherto unknown gesture, and they were sprinkled with holy water and received ashes. On Holy Thursday, they came to the entrance of the church to be readmitted into the Church community. Regino’s collection was a source for the large and influential Decretum of Burchard of Worms (d. 1025), who also drew from the penitentiala of Halitgar and Theodore. He produced his collection with the help of four collaborators and seems to have intended it as a textbook for use in educating clergy. Burchard divided his work into twenty books. It circulated primarily in Italy and Germany. Ivo of Chartres (1040–1115) made use of it, as did Gratian (fl. c. 1140–50). Book 19, on “The Corrector or Physician,” provides the confessors, even less educated ones, with the knowledge of canon law that they need to hear confessions and assign penances, and ends with a detailed list of questions they should ask penitents. Burchard took over Regino’s description of public penance; he also knew a form of secret penance. He says that the former should be used for public sins. Both procedures occur at the beginning of Lent, when people confess their sins to a priest or undertake the public penance before the bishop. The parochial version of penance was probably a simplified version of the episcopal form. 36

Meens, Penance, 141–54; Hamilton, Practice, 25–44, 211–33.

372

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

According to his ordo for paenitentia secreta, which closely follows Regino’s, the priest inquires about the penitent’s orthodoxy and his sins. After the penitent confesses and receives a penance, the priest should recite the eight principal vitia and the corresponding virtues that counter them. Then the penitent and priest prostrate themselves and pray for God’s forgiveness. The ordo concludes with the priest asking God’s forgiveness on behalf of the penitent. Another source of information about the practice of penance are books designed for use in liturgy. The earliest surviving ritual for public penance during Lent occurs in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary (seventh or eighth century). Another liturgical book, the Romano-Germanicum pontifical was produced at Mainz around 950. Hamilton studied this document and its teaching on penance very thoroughly. She found its manuscripts show considerable diversity representing the needs of the churches for which they were copied.37 According to this pontifical, on Ash Wednesday the deacon urges the faithful to enter into penance. The sacerdos (which could mean priest or bishop) accepts the penitent’s entry, then questions him about his sins and tests his knowledge of the faith and his willingness to do penance. The penitent makes a formal confession. The priest says an intercessory prayer on the penitent’s behalf and instructs him on the eight vitia. The priest assigns a specific penance suitable to the penitent’s sex, age, status, and character. After the priest intercedes for the penitent, they enter the church and pray some more. Mass follows, and the penitent is given ashes and sackcloth and expelled from the church. Then the whole congregation receives ashes. On Holy Thursday, penitents are brought to the atrium of the church and dialogue with the archdeacon. The bishop acknowledges his own sinfulness, prostrates himself with the penitents, prays for them and absolves them. The penitents are sprinkled with holy water and invited to stand up. The Romano-Germanicum pontifical also includes a ritual for penance in the usual way (more solito). The priest prays in private, and then receives the penitent with a prayer. He questions the penitent about the articles of faith and his desire to be forgiven, questions him about his sins, gives advice, and assigns a penance suited to the status and disposition of the penitent. The penitent confesses his sins in the vernacular,

37

It appears in 39 mansucripts, 26 of them written in Germany, and most of those in the provinces of Mainz and Salzburg. See Hamilton, Practice, 211–23.

I ntroduction



373

then he and the priest pray to God. The Mass follows. Reconciliation is not mentioned; it was probably reserved for Holy Thursday. The Romano-Germanicum was not the only liturgical document to include rites of penance. A sacramentary produced at the monastery of Fulda contains an ordo for private or yearly confession (ordo privatae seu annualis poenitatiae), which seems to have been intended for lay people confessing to the abbot or a monk. It includes a miniature that illustrates the rite and is accompanied by a formula for confession in the vernacular.38 Other families of sacramentaries were produced in Lotharingia and Northern Italy. Penitential practice was also developing outside of the Empire. During the tenth-century Christian revival in England, penance was shaped by texts brought from the continent, such as that of Halitgar and some originally written in England and Ireland.39 The earliest known Spanish penitential, the Vigilanum (before 976), drew heavily on the Excarpus Cummeani. An eleventh-century penitential from the abbey of Santo Domingo of Silos is related to the Vigilanum but contains more materials. These manuscripts seem connected with royal efforts at Church improvement. In Italy, there was more continuity in penitential practice and more continuous influence from the rest of Europe, both before and during the Carolingian renaissance. Rather (c. 887–974, bishop of Verona sporadically from 931) expected his priests to have a penitential and deal with secret sins, while he reserved penance for public sins to himself, whereas Atto (bishop of Vercelli, 924–60) gave his priests little scope to administer penance. The earliest penitential known to be used in Rome is the Vaticanum, written about 1000. By the early twelfth century, other penitentials were produced in central Italy with links to two collections of canon law, the Collection in Five Books and the Collection in Nine Books. During the early medieval development of penance, ecclesiastical penance and civil reconciliation overlapped. For example, in Ottonian Germany, conflicts between important personages were settled by a 38 39

On the interaction between monastic penance and penance for all Christians, see Hamilton, Practice, 76–103, and for the Fulda sacramentary, 136–50. Hamilton, Practice, 12, refers to Allen Frantzen’s study, The Literature of Penance in AngloSaxon England (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutger’s University Press, 1983), “showing how penitentials were exported to the continent in the eighth century, modified there in the ninth, and re-imported in their modified form in the tenth century as part of the late Anglo-Saxon Church’s own reform movement.”

374

1 – P E NA N C E B E F O R E H U G H O F S T V IC T O R

ritual called deditio, in which one of the contesting parties submitted to the other. Some have argued that this ritual borrowed vocabulary and gestures from ecclesiastical penance. The evidence suggests that, by the ninth century, some rural churches had a penitential and a collection of canons. These are evidence for the effectiveness of reforming bishops’ efforts to educate their clergy through councils and synods, synodal sermons, and episcopal capitula. These enjoin confession from one to four times a year, and distinguish between public and annual confession.40 In the second half of the eleventh century, Europe was entering a period of growth and renewal, two agents of which—legal studies and the rise of cathedral schools—affected the theory and practice of penance. Scholars worked to identify and reconcile authoritative sources; the papacy’s role in fostering and overseeing penitential practice increased. Two immediate predecessors of Hugh of St Victor and Abelard prepare the ground for this work. In the prologue to his Decretum, a canon law collection, Ivo (bishop of Chartres, 1090–1115) distinguished between the rigor of the law and merciful care, which like others before him he compared to the way doctors sometimes use harsh remedies and sometimes gentle ones. He also distinguished between different degrees of authority attaching to various texts, and between immutable and mutable precepts. The latter allow for commutation. The Panormia, which was written slightly later, and is no longer thought to be Ivo’s work, included the prologue from the Decretum but left out its chapter 15 on penitence. The masters of the cathedral school of Laon speculated about the nature of sin and where, in the process that leads from awareness to thinking to decision and action, sin occurs. This helped turn attention to the inward aspects of sin, although the need for true repentance had been emphasized much earlier. Conclusion Theologians of the first half of the twelfth century, Hugh of St Victor, Abelard, Gratian, and Peter Lombard, inherited this rich and varied tradition regarding penance, which included inward and outward, individual and social, and private and public aspects that cannot be neatly separated. In the earlier centuries, sins of a socially disruptive 40

Hamilton, Practice, 51–76.

I ntroduction



375

or manifestly scandalous nature received the most attention. To have entered into the demanding penitential process imposed for such sins need not have been a disgrace; those who completed such a process with humility and genuine contrition could earn high esteem from their fellow believers. Gradually, over the period discussed so far, penance for the laity received more attention. The Carolingian dynasty wanted an observant Christian citizenry whose conduct, along with the prayers of monks, would gain God’s favor for the realm. Penance served this aim by encouraging compliance and providing instruction. From Carolingian times, bishops sought to maintain and extend their control of the penitential process, though by that time confession to one’s local priest and performance of a penance received from him seems to have become the usual mode of penitence. Penance found a place in canon law collections, penitentials, and liturgical books, which shows the importance attached to it. By the beginning of twelfth century, annual confession seems to have been something expected of Christians.

HUGH OF ST VICTOR, DE SACRAMENTIS 2.14: ON CONFESSION, REPENTANCE, AND THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN INTRODUCTION

Hugh of St Victor thought that the sacrament of confession or penitence was important, and what he thought about it is important for the history of the sacrament. At a pivotal moment in the development of the theology of the sacrament, he responded to ideas about penitence and confession put in circulation by Peter Abelard and others. In presenting arguments for positions he thought were correct, regarding issues such as confession to a priest and whether the blame incurred for sins that had once been forgiven recurred when a person relapsed into serious sin, he sought to identify and alleviate the fears or shame that he thought contributed to people’s faulty opinions. Hugh and Abelard differed in the way they did theology and on some theological questions. Hugh’s favorite mode of expression was a cultivated and often rhymed prose. Abelard was more straightforward, less literary. Hugh was capable of minute and careful analysis when necessary, but he was inclined to synthesis and balance more than to detailed logical and grammatical argument. Abelard excelled at analysis. Hugh almost never uses quotations from patristic sources. His method was to read the patristic authorities, then synthesize their thought in his own words. Abelard compiles a vast repertoire of authorities in the Sic and non and, in his other works, sought to interpret and reconcile them. Hugh’s view of theology was sacramental: he tended to hold external signs and inner intention together, rather than to separate them. Abelard concentrated much more on inner intention. Hugh was generally irenic; he did not look for controversy, though in De sacramentis 2.14, he certainly does not run from it. He never mentions his adversaries. Abelard was a knight ready for a battle whenever it presented itself.

378

H ugh of St   V ictor

In spite of these different approaches, Hugh and Abelard shared much in common.1 They both emphasized intention and consent. Hugh’s sacramental approach connected interior and exterior, but to some extent he may have loosened the connection between sign and signified by his emphasis of God’s power to operate apart from the sacraments, by his emphasis on the efficacy of devotion even apart from the sacraments that were designed to nourish devotion (e.g., regarding reception of communion). In three of the nine chapters of his treatment of the sacrament of Penance in De sacramentis 2.14, Hugh formulates a dialogue or debate with his opponents, whose spokesperson in these debates often represents the thought of Peter Abelard: (1) the need for oral confession; (8) the role of the priest; (9) whether one becomes guilty and liable to punishment for sins once forgiven when one falls into sin again. This introduction will consider Hugh’s treatment chapter by chapter, with special attention to Abelard’s thought on the issues in question. 1. Confession and the Command to Confess Whether oral confession was required for the remission of sins was an issue at the beginning of the twelfth century. It was generally agreed that one needed to confess one’s sin in order to obtain pardon. In granting remission of sin, God requires confession to a priest and expiation of the fault. The Scriptural texts regarding the cure of lepers sent to show themselves to the priest (Luke 17:12–14) and the raising of Lazarus, who was untied from his burial cloth by the disciples (John 11:39–44), were invoked, but authorities differed about what these texts implied about the roles of God and man in the forgiveness of sin. Grave sins must be confessed to a priest if there is opportunity. If opportunity is lacking, it was agreed that God nevertheless grants salvation to the contrite. However, if a penitent chooses not to confess or not to do the satisfaction assigned by the priest, God will punish his disobedience. 1

For points of contact between the thought of Hugh and Abelard, see Ralf M. W. Stammberger, “De longe veritas videtur diversa iudicia parit: Hugh of Saint Victor and Peter Abelard,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 58 (2002), 65–92. For surveys of Abelard’s ethical thought that encompass his teaching on sin and repentance, see Constant J. Mews, Abelard and Heloise, Great Medieval Thinkers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 174–203, 219–25; and John Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard (New York: Cambridge, 1997), 251–97. The comparison between the theologies of Hugh and Abelard is drawn from Mews, Abelard, especially 205. For Abelard’s biography, see M. T. Clanchy, Abelard’s Life (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997).

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



379

A general confession obtains pardon for forgotten sins. Light sins can be forgiven in other ways.2 There are several reasons for confession: for example, to counter pride with humility, and to allow the priest to judge the penitent’s sincerity and assign a suitable form of satisfaction. Abelard brought the question of confession to a priest into sharper focus by making clear the need to reconcile seemingly conflicting authorities and by assigning contrition of heart the primary role in the remission of sins. According to Abelard, sin is a consent to evil, by which the sinner exhibits contempt for God, is rendered guilty before God, and merits damnation.3 There are three components in the remittance of sins: repentance, confession, and satisfaction.4 From the moment there is true repentance, eternal punishment is remitted.5 True penitence for sin is motivated by love of God. Such love is incompatible with contempt of God or consent to evil.6 In Abelard’s view, the act of confession enables the priest to assign a suitable remedy, and the penitent to exercise humility and receive the help of others’ prayers.7 However, Abelard thought that sometimes the penitent could dispense with confession. Some excusing reasons are to avoid scandal (that is why Peter did not confess orally) and to avoid ignorant, worldly, or indiscrete prelates.8 Prompted, it seems, by Abelard’s teaching that genuine contrition brings about immediate pardon, Hugh poses two questions: what are the authorities for confession to a priest, and are sins forgiven at the moment of contrition, before confession and satisfaction? He finds a closer connection between contrition and confession than Abelard does: confession and satisfaction are gifts of God’s mercy intrinsic to

2 3

4 5

6 7 8

For Abelard’s thinking on grave and light sins, see Peter Abelard’s Ethics, ed. and tr. D. E. Luscombe (New York: Oxford, 1971), 68–69. “Vitium itaque est quo ad peccandum proni efficimur, hoc est, inclinamur ad consentiendum ei quod non convenit” (Ethics, Luscombe, 4 lines 26–27). “Hoc vero consensum proprie peccatum nominamus” (Ethics, Luscombe, 4 lines 29–30). “Hoc est, culpam animae qua damnationem meretur, vel quod deum rea statuitur. Quod est enim iste consensus nisi Dei contemptus et offensa ipsius?” (Ethics, Luscombe, 4 lines 30–32). Ethics (Luscombe, 76 line 20). Ethics (Luscombe, 88 lines 6–10): “Cum autem gemitu et contritione cordis quam veram penitentiam dicimus, peccatum non permanet, hoc est, contemptus Dei, sive consensus in malum, quia karitas Dei hunc gemitum inspirans non patitur culpam.” Ethics (Luscombe, 76 lines 21–22). Ethics (Luscombe, 98–99). Ethics (Luscombe, 100–11); Sic et non, 151: Whether sins are forgiven without confession (Boyer and McKeon, 510–12).

380

H ugh of St   V ictor

the sacrament9 of repentance. In De sacramentis 2.14.1, Hugh considers the question of whether confession is necessary at all. In 2.14.8, he will take up the question of the role of the priest.10 Hugh lets his adversaries speak first. They say, show me a place in Scripture that says confession to a priest is necessary. Hugh answers, show me a place where it says that it is not necessary. He then offers Scriptural texts indicating the need for confession. The Law ordered one to confess one’s sins.11 Proverbs 28:13 declares, someone who hides his sins shall not prosper; but he who confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy,12 and Psalm 31:3–5 says, because I was silent my bones have been worn down with groaning all day. Your hand weighs upon me day and night. I am twisted in my anguish, while the thorn sticks in me. I have acknowledged my sin to you, and my injustice I have not concealed. I said I will confess my injustice against me to the Lord, and you remitted the impiety of my sin.13 The adversaries ask, why does one need to confess to a human being? Hugh answers, Christ was a human being and he forgave sins as a human being by the power he had from God.14 Christ made human beings sharers in his power to forgive sins.15 They ask, why did Christ not give a command to confess one’s sins? Hugh answers, Jesus invited those who are ill with sin to approach these spiritual physicians on their own volition. Later, the apostles issued a command that people confess their sins.16 They ask, what is the purpose of confessing to a priest? Hugh answers, the purpose is our salvation. As Augustine17 and Bede18 and 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

Abelard does not consider confession from the standpoint of it being a sacrament; see Luscombe, Ethics, 74 n2. Paul Anciaux, La théologie du sacrement de pénitence aux xiie siècle (Louvain: É. Nauwelaerts; Gembloux: J. Ducolot, 1949), 164–96. Lev 5:18; 6:6–7. The Latin reads, “qui abscondit scelera sua non justificabitur; qui confessus fuerit et reliquerit ea misericordiam consequetur.” The Douai-Rheims translation provided the meaning of “dirigetur.” “Quoniam tacui inveteraverunt ossa mea cum clamarem tota die, quoniam die ac nocte gravata est super me manus tua. Conversus sum in aerumna mea; dum configitur mihi spina; delictum meum cognitum tibi feci, et iniustitiam meam non abscondi; dixi confitebor adversus me iniustitiam meam Domino et tu remisisti impietatem peccati mei.” Luke 7:49. John 20:22–23. James 5:15–16. Ambrose, De paradiso 14.71 (C. Schenkl, CSEL 32/1 [Vienna: Tempsky, 1897], 39; PL 14:328B: “Neque enim potest quisquam justificari a peccato nisi fuerit peccator ante confessus”). Bede, In ep. Cath. Iac. 5, CCSL 121 (Hurst, [Turnhout: Brepols, 1984], 221–22 lines 182–83, 185–90; tr. Hurst, Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles, CS 82 [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1985], 61–63).

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



381

current custom declare, we open the guilt of our graver sins to one priest. They quote, “tears wash away a sin that it is shameful to confess by mouth.”19 Hugh asks, does this mean you should be quiet when you most need help? The humility of confession may help the tears of contrition. God does not scold. If tears are powerful where there is no confession of the mouth, how much more powerful will they be when there is also confession of the mouth? However, confession without contrition is useless. Be contrite, then confess. Confession without compunction is not salvific. First weep, then confess. 2. Penance and the Fruit of Penance One of Abelard’s key contentions was that penitence is sorrow of the mind over what one has done to offend God. Penitence shows itself in compunction of heart. Abelard disparages penitence aroused by fear of punishment.20 In Hugh’s understanding, penitence (penitentia) is either interior, contrition of the heart (contritio cordis), or exterior (afflictio carnis). In current English usage, the interior form is repentance, the exterior form is penance. Interior penitence is sorrow over what was done in the past. By satisfaction (penance), you punish and correct evils; this is the fruit of penitence.21 Penance or satisfaction should be commensurate to the sin. 3. Those Who Fail to Complete Their Penance in this Life Abelard taught that although God forgives eternal punishment when a sinner repents, for penitents who are prevented by death from completing the satisfaction assigned them as penance, there are purgatorial, not damnatory punishments after death.22 The penalties of sin that are undergone in this life are the fruits of repentance.23 Hugh does not disagree. The penitent should do the penance that the priest assigns. A lesser satisfaction can accomplish a lot if there is great devotion. If you cannot finish the satisfaction is this life, there 19 20 21 22 23

Ambrose, In Lucam 10.88 (M. Adriaen, CCSL 14 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1957]; PL 15.1825B). See Ethics (Luscombe, 77–91); Kevin A. MacMahon, “Penance and Peter Abelard’s Move Within,” The Saint Anselm Journal 6/2 (Spring 2009) online (accessed March 1, 2019). Mark 3:8; Luke 3:8. Ethics (Luscombe, 88 lines 21–28). Ethics (Luscombe, 108 Lines 13–21).

382

H ugh of St   V ictor

is purgatorial fire after death.24 However, it is safer to begin and end satisfaction in this life. If you cannot finish your penance, you will be saved because the foundation of love of God remained in you. 4. Whether Penance Can Be Repeated One of the major occasions for dealing with this question was Hebrews 6:4–6, which Abelard does not cite in his Ethics or the Sic et non. The question posed in this question does not seem to have been an issue that concerned him. Hugh, however, took it seriously, and considered a number of opinions. Those who think penitence cannot be repeated misinterpret Hebrews 6:4–6. After falling into sin, one cannot rise on one’s own. All penance takes grace; you cannot return from mortal sin to love of God without God’s gift. One should not misinterpret the ambiguous statement Jerome made regarding Amos 5:1–2, when he said that God cannot make a woman who has had sexual relations a virgin again. Of course, God can do that, and those who have been corrupted in faith can rise up, but they would be better off if they had not sinned yet had done whatever other good they have done since they rose from sin. Christ will not die again for sinners, but he can and does bring forgiveness to the truly repentant by his one, once-for-all sacrifice (hostia).25 An interpretation of Hebrews 6 that Hugh likes is that the whole of Christian life is a penance, and there is no penance outside of this life. Others think that Hebrews refers to public sin; it was a lengthy process; penitents were not allowed to undergo it twice because that might bring the sacrament into contempt. Hugh says people can pick whatever true interpretation they think is correct. 5. Those Who Repent When They Are Near Death Some of the authorities from pre-twelfth century studied above were suspicious of deathbed repentances. Hugh seems less skeptical than they. His principle is that one can sin at any time and repent at any time.26 However, one should not count on the possibility of a 24 25 26

1 Cor 3:15. On Hugh’s use of “hostia,” see the introduction to Sacr. 2.8, on the Eucharist. He cites Ezek 33:11–13 as one authority for this.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



383

chance for penance and confession at the last moments of life, when one is sick and weak and confused. Moreover, no one is promised such an opportunity. Nevertheless, “better late than never.”27 God does not want the death of a sinner.28 6. Good Will Alone Suffices, if One Lacks Opportunity to Act Abelard insisted on the primacy of intention. He wrote that action does not add anything to the merit of a good decision; an act is good only because it proceeds from a good intention.29 Hugh does not disagree. He writes, if you have a good will, do not despair. Nothing can take away a good will. External factors can take away the possibility of acting on what one wills, but they cannot take away the willing. These assertions raise questions that Hugh answers. If all merit is in the will, what merit is there in acting and doing the deed? Well, you are not really willing something unless you do it when you can. Nevertheless, why is the act required if it has no effect on merit? Hugh answers that the deed increases or intensifies the willing, so that merit is increased. The deed is rewarded because it is the cause or occasion of the willing. To will is always to will something. The willing is meritorious in itself; the deed is meritorious because of what results from it. Both Zacchaeus30 and the poor widow31 had the same will to give alms, although they could not give the same amount. That did not affect the merit of their giving or loving. 7. Humans Judge the Deed; God Weighs the Will Abelard wrote that human beings judge external actions, not hidden intentions.32 Sometimes, therefore, human judges impose greater punishments on penitents for deeds that God evaluates as less serious.33 27 28 29

30 31 32 33

PL 176.560B: “melior est sera quam nulla.” Ezek 33:11. Ethics (Luscombe, 12 line 20): “nec quicquam ad meritum actio addat”; (Luscombe, 46:11–12): “opus vero bonum non ex se appelatur sed quod ex bona procedit intentione.” See also, Sic et non, 143 (Boyer and McKeon, 492–96). Mark 12:42. Luke 21:2. Ethics (Luscombe, 40 line 7–10): “Non enim homines de occultis, sed de manifestis iudicant.” Ethics (Luscombe, 44–45).

384

H ugh of St   V ictor

Hugh does not disagree, but he is more positive in his estimate of the role of human judges. Men are appointed to judge in God’s place, so that by examining the faults of those who confess to them they may assign punishments. Then when God comes as judge he can save those who have been corrected, because God subjected them to human judgment. The antidotes to sin are written in penitential books34 so the physician of souls can find what to prescribe for healing consciences of their illness of sin. 8. On the Remission of Sin: Whether Priests Who Are Human Beings Can Remit Sins At the beginning of the twelfth century, it was generally taught that bishops and priests had real power in the penitential process. God remitted the sinners’ faults at the moment of their contrition, but the minister reconciled the sinner and assigned a suitable punishment. In the person of Peter and the apostles, Christ had given to priests the two keys of power and knowledge or discernment. This raised questions: how are the powers of the priest and his own moral standing related; how does the judgment of the priest oblige the sinner before God? These were both theoretical and practical issues. The Church was echoing with calls for reform of the clergy, to which the Victorines added their voices.35 Peter Abelard pondered the state of the clergy and their role in the forgiveness of sins in his Ethics.36 He was very critical of bishops who gloried in the power given them to forgive sins, and abused it by doing things like assigning easy penances to gain popularity, or issuing indulgences on the occasion of consecrating a church or altar. He gathered biblical and patristic authorities that offered various views on the role of clergy in penance. Perhaps the power of the keys was given to the Peter and the apostles only and not to be handed on. Or perhaps this power was to be handed on only to bishops who were as holy and wise as the apostles were. Perhaps the power to remit sins was reserved to the apostles, and the power of bishops is limited to binding and loosing in the Church through excommunication.37 Abelard realized that his 34

35 36 37

As the historical surveys preceding and following this section on Sacr. 2.14 explain, penitentials were transformed during the twelfth century from being lists of penances to prescribe for various kinds of sins and sinners into more encompassing manuals for confessors. Anciaux, Sacrement, 275–86. Ethics (Luscombe, 104–27). Anciaux, Sacrement, 286–91.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



385

questions were going to be controversial and said he was simply giving his opinion and did not wish contentiously to resist other opinions. At Sens, in 1140, one of the propositions attributed to Abelard touching on this was condemned. In his Apology, Abelard had to write: “I profess that the power of binding and loosing has been granted to all the successors of the apostles just as it was to the Apostles themselves.”38 Hugh of St  Victor agreed with Abelard that genuine contrition brought remittance of sin, but he had a very strong sense of the corporate nature of the Church and of the importance of the clergy within it. In De sacramentis 2.14.8, he reacted strongly against some of the opinions Abelard presented.39 Hugh begins with the opposing opinion. Some say that God gives human beings no share in his power to remit sins. They cite as evidence the by-then classic and contested Gospel passage about the leper whom Jesus healed before sending him to the priests.40 They argue that priests have no power except to be signs that the one who was earlier absolved by the Lord interiorly through contrition of heart by confession of the mouth is shown to have been absolved. Those who hold this position also cite Ezekiel 33:12–13 (“at whatever hour”), Isaiah 58:9 (“while you were still speaking”), and Psalm 31:5 (“I said, I will confess”) to prove that sins are forgiven at the very hour when the sinner repents with sincere contrition. Hugh responds that when God absolves someone who has become contrite, that person needs to make oral confession to a priest, otherwise he becomes guilty of contempt of a divine ordinance. Those who give the priest no part in the absolution of a sinner agree with the Jews who were shocked that Jesus, a human being, forgave sins.41 Perhaps they should examine this more closely. Formulating a position that was almost uniquely his, and that Richard of St Victor would later modify, Hugh said that the role and power of the priest lay in lifting the debt of eternal punishment. A sinner is bound in two ways: by hardness of his mind, from which a sinner is rescued only by the grace of God moving him to penitence; and by the debt of final damnation, from which sinners are freed by confession to a priest. Those who deny this are taking away the power God has 38 39 40 41

Anciaux, Sacrement, 291–92. For  more on Abelard’s condemnation at Sens, see Mews, ­Abelard, 226–49; Clancy, Abelard, 307–25. For another summary and commentary on Hugh’s text, see Anciaux, Sacrement, 295–302. Luke 17:12–19. Mark 2:5–7.

386

H ugh of St   V ictor

granted to priests.42 God does in a human being what the human being does through him. That God acts through the human being does not mean the human being does nothing.43 Returning to the arguments advanced against the priest’s role, Hugh says that Jesus sent the leper to the priests so they would not have contempt for the spiritual healing of the new priesthood. Those passages which say “sin is forgiven at whatever hour someone repents”44 should be taken to reassure people who do not have time or opportunity to confess to a priest or make satisfaction. When in Isaiah God said, “while you are still speaking, I am here,” that can be taken to mean, first, God is there to move the heart to penitence, then, he is there to grant forgiveness to the one repenting. Finally, when the Psalmist says, “I said, I will confess,” Gregory the Great said that refers to immediate contrition for a sin of thought. If one chooses to extend the psalmist’s statement to all kinds of sins, then one should understand that hardness of heart is first dissolved through compunction, so that afterwards the debt of damnation may be satisfied in confession. In any case, however these authorities are explained, we confess that priests of God in the Church have the power of binding and loosing, granted to them by God when Christ said, “whose sins you bind…” However, someone might object that priests bind many in the Church who are not bound by God, or they loose many who were never bound in God’s eyes. To this Hugh replies, Scripture is speaking about the power of the sacrament, what can happen, not about what will always happen. Again, someone might ask, what need is there for God to seek human cooperators to loose people’s sins, as though God could not do by himself what he wanted done. Hugh explains, in choosing human cooperators, God’s aim was to effect the salvation of the sinner in a more fitting way. The illness of sin is caused by pride, so all penance occurs through humility. The devotion of humility expressed in confession is directed at the swelling pride. Moreover, people will be warier of sin when the path of penitence is difficult. Mother grace and a human intercessor are sent to help the sinner, who has, as it were, angered his father. 42 43 44

Ezek 22:28. Hugh discusses the two classic texts, Matt 16:19 and John 20:22–23, in which Christ gives Peter and the apostles the power of binding and loosing. Abelard, Ethics (Luscombe, 88 lines 12–15).

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



387

Hugh concludes by saying that whether sins that have been forgiven later return when a person falls into sin again is a question that is better feared than addressed. It awaits separate treatment. He sounds like a teacher at the end of a lecture announcing the topic of the next class. 9. Whether Sins Return After They Have Been Once Remitted Twelfth-century thinkers who addressed this question were prompted by earlier interpretations of Matthew 18:23–35, the parable of the unforgiving servant. His master forgave him a large debt. When this servant refused to forgive the debt owed him by a fellow servant, his master turned him over to the torturers to be punished until he had paid the last penny. Thus, the debt that had been forgiven was now exacted. Some interpreted this to mean that if one commits a serious sin, and then it is forgiven, but later one falls back into serious sin, the liability to punishment due the first sin revives.45 The Sententiae Atrebatenses, which drew on Ivo of Chartres’ Decretum, Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres’ Panormia, and sententiae from the school of Laon, lists other opinions: sins forgiven by grace, as for example, by Baptism, do return, but sins forgiven after satisfaction has been made do not return. Others say the guilt of all forgiven sins returns. Still others maintain that no sins return; the parable aimed only to inspire fear of recidivism.46 Abelard gave a list of authorities on this question in his Sic et non, 148.47 In his Commentary on Romans 2.5, Abelard said that when, after personal sins have once been forgiven, someone falls into sin again, there are some who, referring to the parable about the unforgiving servant, say that one is then again liable to punishment for the previously forgiven sin. Abelard denies this is so.48 The Sententiae divinita45

46

47 48

For some examples of patristic and Carolingian interpretation of this parable, see Artur Michael Landgraf, Dogmengeschichte der Frühscholastik 4/1: Die Lehre von der Sünde und irhen Folgen 1 (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1955): 194–95. Landgraf, Lehre, 195–96. Landgraf goes on to consider the development of thinking on this question in Lehre, 196–275. Both Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.22.1 (Quaracchi [1916] 885–88; tr. Silano, 4:132–34), and Gratian, De Penitentia 4 (ed. Larson, 214–38), offer authorities for both sides of the question; the Lombard does not opt for either side; Gratian favors the position that guilt for forgiven post-baptismal sins does revive if the sinner lapses again into sin. See also Anciaux, Sacrement, 271–72. Peter Abelard, Sic et non (Boyer and McKeon, 508–509). In Expositio in Epist. Pauli ad Rom. 2.5 (PL 178.864D). Abelard is speaking of those who were forgiven for Adam’s sin in Baptism, and later became guilty for their own sins. He writes: “Quamvis nonnulli juxta parabolam Domini de duobus conservis dimissa etiam peccata in

388

H ugh of St   V ictor

tis says there are those who agree with Abelard’s position, and others who do not. Those who agree with Abelard interpret the parable of the unforgiving servant to mean that just as he did not wish to forgive his brother, so God will not forgive him the sins he subsequently committed or was going to commit.49 Hugh of St Victor reacts with uncharacteristic vigor against the position that the guilt of sins once forgiven does not return when one sins again. He begins with a rather long reflection on the human impulse to ask questions. Humans should be seeking both truth and goodness, but they are more inclined to seek knowledge than goodness. People want to know whether the guilt and punishment remitted after past sins returns when someone falls into sin again. They want to know this, but they are afraid the answer is yes. They want the answer to be no, and are not inclined to listen to people who do not give them the answer they want. However, there are also people advancing in the Christian life who ask the question. It might be better if they just feared the question rather than inquired into it more deeply, but they deserve an answer. Hugh asks someone who does not think sins once forgiven should be imputed a second time why he thinks that way. The reason is that if sins once forgiven are then imputed again, it seems to make God changeable. He remitted them and now he imputes them. Hugh answers that the change is not in God, but in the sinner. He knew what you were going to be.50 A second objection to the reviviscence of sins is that the sinner returns to the same kind of sin, but not to the very same sin. He should be punished for the new sin in the same way as he was for the old sin, by a new punishment, not by reviviscence of the old punishment. Hugh responds, that is not the question. The question is, if a fault that had been forgiven, has been committed again, is the fault now double?

49 50

damnatis et ingratis redire, et jungi ad penam ita velint, ut quod iam condonationem accepit iterum puniatur. Cum id plane Apostolus sequentibus contradicat…” It is not clear to me that Abelard is talking here about the return of punishment for forgiven personal sins rather than for original sin. Sententiae divinitatis, ed. Bernhard Geyer, BGPTMA 7:2–3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1967), 149*. On whether granting pardon or punishing involves mutability in God, Abelard (Ethics, Luscombe, 60 lines 16–18) writes: “Deus quippe, ut beatus meminit Gregorius, nonnumquam sententiam mutat, consilium vero numquam” (“As St Gregory recalls, God sometimes changes his sentence, but at no time does he ever changes His plan”). Cf. Ethics (Luscombe, 92 lines 7–16).

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



389

Hugh suggests an analogy: penitence and virtue caged the plague of sin and brought good deeds back to life. Why would subsequent sin not bring bad deeds back to life? You raise another objection. When I did penance, God said he would no longer impute my evil deeds to me. Hugh responds, God tells you about what you deserve, he does not tell about his secret counsel about what will happen in the future. If you change who you are and what you do, then your merit changes, and what God has to say of and to you also changes. If someone tosses away the grace given him, it is not just that he still profit from that grace. What about the authority that says no good remains unrewarded? It was rewarded by forgiveness. However, when the repentance that deserved the remittance of sin ceases, so does the reward. You adduce another authority that declares God does not judge the same thing twice. However, the satisfaction done for the wickedness ended when the wickedness was done again, because satisfaction includes correcting the wicked deeds and not repeating them.51 Hugh ends, convinced his arguments have been persuasive. He urges those who have hitherto held the opposite position to pray.

51

On this question, see Landgraf, Lehre, 213–16.

390

H ugh of St   V ictor

TRANSLATION

Andrew Salzmann 1. On Confession Great is human wickedness.1 No one who wants to do evil seeks authority, but when we tell them that they ought to do good and to confess the evil which they have done, they say to us, produce an authority. What passage in Scripture commands that we should confess our sins? Well, if Scripture does not command [us] to confess [our] sins, answer this, do you have a scripture passage that commands you to keep silent about your sins? If, then, you do not wish to confess because you do not have an authority for confessing, why do you wish to keep silent when you have no authority for keeping silent? But since you demand an authority, accept [this] authority: the ancient law commands that [you] confess [your] sins, and sends all (homines) to priests to confess their sins and receive pardon (indulgentia).2 At that time, when the shadow still lingered and when the confession of sin (criminis) ought still to have feared punishment rather than hoped for mercy, transgression of the law was dispelled by confession and the offering [of satisfaction].3 If this authority is not sufficient, listen to another passage of Scripture: whoever hides sins shall not be justified.4 For what is it to hide [one’s sins], if not to keep silent and to refuse to confess [them]? Those who disclose their sins (scelera) through the shamelessness of depraved action, deserve not justification, but damnation. Therefore, insofar as it concerns the shamelessness of depraved action, evils are to be hidden. However, [once committed] they must be revealed through the humility of confession. Do you still want to know the danger of keeping silence and the usefulness of confession? “Because I kept silent,” says the Psalmist, my bones grew old (inveteraverunt) while I cried out all day long.5 And again, I have acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my injustice. I said, against myself I will confess to the Lord my injustice, and you have taken away the wickedness of my sin.6 See, then, and consider: if you keep your sins quiet, they take root (inveterantur); if you confess them, they are forgiven. But you say to me, look, I do tell my sins—not to a man, but to God. I follow Scripture. It tells me to confess my sins to God; it does not send me to a man, in whom there is no salvation. Rather, it draws my confession to that place from which it promises remission. I said, against myself I will confess to the Lord my injustice, and you have taken away the wickedness of my sin.7

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



391

What does a human being (homo) do? Listen. Was he not a human (homo) who said, son, your sins are forgiven you?8 It is true that he was a man who said this. Because they saw that he was a man but did not recognize [that he was] God, they whispered among themselves, saying, who is this who even forgives sins?9 For they knew that it was a divine action (dei erat) to forgive sins, even though they did not know that the man had received from God what was divine. This man [Christ] certainly had what he had [the ability to forgive sins], inasmuch as he was human, because he had received it,10 but insofar as he was God he had it but had not received it. Therefore, at length he willed to receive at a certain time in his humanity what he had eternally in his divinity. To show to humanity what was of God, he drew near to humanity as a neighbor (evicino) in that which was human, in that very thing which belonged to humanity. Because what was human was joined in greater intimacy to his humanity, in him, what was divine acted all the more powerfully in his humanity. For this reason, it says he declared that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, then he said to the paralytic, rise and walk!11 He showed them something they were able to see, so that through it they might believe what they were unable to see. Therefore, God became man so that, in conversing with us, he might show himself to be our neighbor, even a part of our family. Thus, in one and the same person humanity would find one of its own kind, to whom human beings might trustingly reveal their infirmities, but, believing in the God beyond the man, they would also not distrust the forgiveness of their sins received from him. Then, so that the bestowal of grace might be increased more plentifully, the God-Man made those (homines) who were purely human participants in his power to fulfill his work (officium) by receiving the confession of penitents and to exercise his power by forgiving the sins of those who repented and confessed. He says, receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.12 Therefore, Christ the man gave to his disciples acting in his place the power of forgiving sins on earth.13 However, perhaps you ask, why did Christ not similarly give a command to human beings (hominibus) to confess their sins, just as he gave to the disciples the power to forgive the sins of those who confessed? Hear why. Christ wished that your confession would arise from you, and would not seem extorted or forced. Therefore, he commanded that his work (officium), which was his prerogative (ad se pertinuit), was to be completed by the disciples, so that, after the fashion of physicians, they

392

H ugh of St   V ictor

might receive and heal the sick who came to them. He therefore told the physicians to heal, but did not tell the sick to come to the physicians to be healed. He wanted this to be, as it were, certain, that the sick would seek their health (salutem) freely and would present themselves to be healed, should they find physicians.14 For this reason, he admonished only the physicians; sickness itself is sufficient admonition for the sick, and no command is needed, if one is afflicted. However, after the physicians themselves found the sick negligent in their own treatment, they roused them to seek their health through admonition and brought them in by command. Confess, says the apostle James, your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved.15 What does he mean, to one another? To one another, person to person (homo homini), not only humans to God (homo deo), as that true confessor says, I said, I will confess against myself to the Lord my injustice, but also one person to another (homo homini) on account of God.16 One does something greater when one humbles oneself before a servant, on account of the master, than when one humbles oneself directly before the master. On account of this, confess your sins to one another. What does to one another mean? This is not “everyone to everyone,” but “one to another” among yourselves, persons to persons (homines hominibus), sheep to shepherds, subjects to prelates, those who have sins to those who have the power to forgive sins. It was required that you would go to Him who is over you to make your confession. Now, however, as an institution of mercy, it is allowed that you should confess your sins to one another in turn, among yourselves. There, the only One who received confession did not make a confession, because he did not do any sins. Here, those who receive confession of sins and remit the sins of those who confess them, also confess their own sins to Him, so that when they repent and confess, their sins are remitted. On this account, therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for each other. To what end? That you might be saved. What does it mean to confess your sins so that you might be saved? The meaning is this: if you do not confess, you will not be saved. Perhaps you, who seek out hiding places and cover up your sins with the result that you are not justified, did not want to hear this. It does not please you when you are told that those who do not want to confess their sins cannot be saved. Perhaps, therefore, you try to spin the apostle’s statement into something else, so that it certainly would be understood to have promised salvation to those who confess, but not to have denied justification to those who do not confess. Listen,

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



393

then: Augustine says, it is impossible for anyone to be justified from sin unless he first confesses (that) sin.17 Again, Bede, on the Letter of James from which we took the above evidence, says, without confession, sins cannot be forgiven.18 Here, there must be a distinction: we should confess slight or daily sins to one another as equals, so that we might be saved by our prayers for each other. We should go to the priest with outstretched hands on account of the filth of more serious leprosy and take care to be justified according to his judgment. See, then, how the witnesses to truth agree.19 There is a certain common penance which we make to each other each day in church, in which, when we have poured out prayer for each other, we obtain the pardon and remission of daily and slight sins.20 However, we lay bare the guilt of a more serious charge by confession to an individual priest and obtain the pardon of our sins when the work (munere) of satisfaction has been offered according to his advice. However, you say, if a person (homo) cannot be saved unless he confesses his sins, what about what is found written, tears wash away a sin that it is shameful to confess with the mouth?21 People find certain sayings of this kind and grab onto them happily, not because they seek the truth in them, but because they want to defend their position with them. They say, why do you press us, why do you wedge us in [to a narrow view of how sins might be forgiven]? Our deeds are causing us shame; our sense of shame does not allow us to speak. We blush to confess what we have done. What can we do? We offer a contrite and humble heart; we are pained by that which we have done badly; we pour out tears; we punish [our] guilt to the point of wearing down our flesh. Why do you seek words [verbal confession] when there are good works? We have Scripture consoling us and saying, tears wash away a sin which it is shameful to confess with the mouth.22 We do not excuse the malice, but we spare the shame. Therefore, what we blush to say to a man, we say to God, who does not rebuke. With pretexts of this kind, therefore, some (homines) seek an excuse for their laziness (torpori), and they try to twist the Scriptures because they themselves are twisted. What, then? If Scripture says that tears wash away a sin which it is a shame to confess with the mouth, has it told you that if you blush to confess your sin, it will suffice if you only cry tears, even if you do not confess? Is it not much better if you understand that Scripture wanted to say that tears put forward by the inmost contrition of the heart are even able to wash away sins that cannot be brought forward by the mouth without shame (pudore et verecundia)? So, then what?

394

H ugh of St   V ictor

If tears wash away shameful sins, is there to be silence where divine help is more necessary? On the contrary: it is much better to confess, so that the humility of confession might help the tears of contrition. Similarly, when it is said to you, if you blush to tell your sin to a man, then you should tell them to God, who does not rebuke, it is not said to you, if you blush to speak to a man, then you should not tell [your sin] to a man, but to God. Rather, God’s gentleness is shown to you, so that it is not necessary that you fear any bitter reproach from Him, who is so mild and sweet to all who flee to Him23—even should your sins have been such that it happens that you cannot reveal them to a man without blushing. For that about which you blush when you tell it to a man, you need not blush when you tell God, because he does not rebuke when you speak; he absolves when you confess. Speak to a man, then, so that you might be dismayed (confundaris) momentarily and advantageously in his presence, and this blushing (confusio) might afterwards lead to your glory and furnish [you with] trust, so that you do not fear rebuke when you will begin to be revealed in the presence of God.24 However, suppose your thoughts say to you, if it is so serious to reveal my sins to a man and if therefore we should confess before a man, what will we do before God, from whose majesty we cannot turn away and whose judgment we cannot escape? So that you should not despair on account of thinking of God in this way, the gentleness of God towards those who repent and confess is shown to you, because he pardons all the sins of the repentant and does not rebuke the confessing. It is in this way that you should accept what has been said: speak to God, who does not rebuke. It is as if he had said, even if you blush before the man, do not blush before God, because God is gentler, milder, and more compassionate to the miserable, so that he does not rebuke. In this way, therefore, you are not told that you should not tell your sins to a man, but that even in those things which should make you blush in the presence of the man, you should confide in the tenderness of God. Against the foregoing you still put forward those tears of Peter, about which you read [in the Gospel of Luke], but you do not read about his confession.25 His tears washed away his sin, which it was shameful to confess with the mouth. You place these tears in opposition [to confession to a priest], not because you love compunction, but because you flee confession. You say, therefore, that you read about Peter’s tears, but that you do not read about his satisfaction; you heard that he wept, but you did not hear that he said anything. Therefore, tears wash away sin that it is shameful to confess with the mouth.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



395

What, then? I say this to you: you think that, because Peter is said (legitur) to have shed tears, but not to have confessed, that you, if you shed tears, do not confess. Is it not much better that you should understand rather that this shows that, if tears were to such advantage then, when they did not have confession of the mouth, how much more advantageous are tears now, if they are true, when they are shed along with heartfelt contrition and verbal confession? This is shown to you when this is added: first, one must weep; then, one must confess. Accordingly, this looks to the truth of confession: first you should feel compunction and then confess. For there are some who are as shameless in what they say as they are foolish in what they do, who because they do not see the indecency in what they do, have no shame in what they relate. It is about these that it is said through the prophets, you have a harlot’s forehead; you do not know how to blush.26 These sometimes bring themselves, solely for the sake of following convention, without any stirring of compunction and without being drawn by any fear or love of God, to tell their sins, considering themselves to be absolved from the debt of their sins solely on account of uttering words. To them it is rightly said, first, one must weep; then, one must confess. For, in the confession of sins, it is necessary that one (hominem) be ashamed, so that he humbly admits what he has done, but is not so ashamed as to be silent about his sins. That sinful woman [who washed Christ’s feet with her tears] knew this well. She came so that she could make clear that she did not want to conceal her sins, and nevertheless stood behind [Christ], not in front, so that she might show that she was aware of the shame of her indecency.27 For this reason, it is rightly said, first weep then confess. 2. On Penance Penance is both interior and exterior: exterior penance consists in affliction of the flesh; interior penance is in contrition of the heart. Through exterior penance, the fault (culpa) of depraved work is punished; through interior penance, the fault of a depraved will is corrected. The measure of the correction is weighed according to the greatness of the sin. It says, bring forth fruits worthy of penance.28 The fruit of penance is one thing; penance itself is another. Just as a tree is one thing but its fruit another, so penance is one thing but its fruit another. Penance is regret (dolor) about the past, when you grieve for evil that you have done. When you renounce and condemn your evils, you have

396

H ugh of St   V ictor

penance, but when you punish and correct your evil actions by subsequent satisfaction, you have the fruits of penance. If you are displeased with what you have done, you do penance; if you follow through and punish [the evil] you have done, you bring forth the fruits of penance. Penance is the rejection of what has been done; the fruit of penance is correcting the sin. But since the measure of correction is weighed according to the measure of the sin, it is necessary to bring forth fruits worthy of penance. If the affliction in correcting the fault is less than was your delight, the fruit of your penance is not worthy. You say to me, “how can I know if my penance is worthy?” Since you cannot know this, you must repent always. You can make satisfaction; you cannot make too much satisfaction. It is better that you make more rather than less.29 Therefore, be careful; occupy yourself; do enough satisfaction; do work; expend zeal, so that your fault is limited (cum fine), your devotion boundless (sine fine). Nevertheless, so that the sinful conscience might, at last, be consoled, the manner and measure of exterior penance are set, so that once [the penance] has been completed and finished, you can begin to have confidence (fiduciam), and by a certain holy presumption in the hope of divine mercy be confident about the pardon (indulgentiam) and remission of your sins, and all the more truly to the extent that you complete the assigned penance more sincerely.30 3. On Those Who Do not Complete Penance in This Life Perhaps, as you think quietly to yourself, you respond, how, do you say, can I be certain of pardon (venia) on account of the penance and satisfaction imposed by a man, even if I have completed them assiduously, since the man to whom I confess my sins often either through ignorance does not know, or through negligence does not consider, what kind of satisfaction he ought to impose on me in relation to the manner or measure of my sin? Regarding this I respond to you briefly, that while a man may not know, God does. Do what you were instructed to do, obeying what he commanded you. God will see your devotion, even if the man did not measure the punishment as you deserved.31 You cannot perish if you are found to be devout. You say, I am deceived. I thought I had made satisfaction, though I  had not done enough. He  commanded me to do only a certain amount, rather than ordering me to do more. Look, I completed it all,

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



397

but it did not complete the satisfaction. I go to God, as it were, untroubled, thinking that I had made amends (satisfecisse) to Him, although I still have an obligation because I have not done enough. Why then do you say, do I not have a priest who tells me what is necessary? Listen to why. This happened on account of your sins, by which you have merited that bad should happen to you and for which, if you were judged strictly, merited even this: that you would have none.32 Who, asks the Scriptures, makes a man who is a hypocrite reign for the sins of the people?33 And I, it says, will make your tongue stick fast to the roof of your mouth, and you shall not be as a man that reproves: because it is a provoking house.34 That you may know that your malice did this, look at where your devotion was. Indeed, if you had had perfect devotion, you would still not have been able to cease from it even with no one admonishing you.35 Now, however, your sloth and negligence have sought the opportunity for laziness (torporis), not correction. God saw this and gave to you according to your heart, so that you might not find what you had not wanted to receive. I do not say, however, that you should despair even if it happens that the man who applies exteriorly the medicine for the cure of the wounds of sins should use something less than is sufficient. Often, something externally inadequate is prescribed that works more efficaciously internally; in a small work, great love is possible. Man sees on the surface, but the Lord beholds the heart.36 To say the least, it is a great thing if you can begin in this life, even if it happens you do not complete it. For even after death, there is a certain fire—it is called “purgatorial”— in which those who here began to be corrected but did not finish are purged and made clean. Those who do not want to begin in this life are not able to finish it there. For those to whom it was given to begin correction here, even if it was not also given to them to complete it, it is given that the completion of their correction is reserved for them there. Nonetheless, it is altogether safer that you should strive both to begin and to complete [this correction] here, so that nothing remains for you to do or to endure there. It is hard to endure (sentire) even a modicum of those torments. For this reason, it is altogether safer for you both to begin and to complete here what you must do here; but if you cannot finish here, do not despair if you have at least begun. You will be saved as if through fire.37 You will burn until everything combustible which you carry has been consumed. However, you will be saved, because the foundation of love of God has remained in you.

398

H ugh of St   V ictor

4. On the Question Whether a Penance Can Be Repeated Some say that, for those who have fallen back into old sins, there is no place for further pardon (veniae). They say this because of the testimony of certain passages in the Scriptures which seem to deny the opportunity for salvation to those who, after undertaking penance, return to their prior sins. In fact, there are certain statements that do not say this, but which are of such a kind that to those who do not understand well it may seem that this is said. The Apostle Paul, in the epistle which he wrote to the Hebrews, said, it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, who have tasted also the heavenly gift, and who were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, who moreover have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and who now are fallen away, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God and making him a mockery, to be renewed again to penitence.38 And again, for those who sin willfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins.39 And again we find it written elsewhere that there is no place for a second penance.40 However, whether these or other similar writings or statements by Catholic men (virorum) should be found on this matter, for no reason is it to be thought that those who understood (sapuerunt) rightly wanted to affirm that those who have fallen into sin, of whatever sort, either could not repent, if they were assisted through divine mercy, or that they could not have (valerent) obtained forgiveness, if they were pierced by true penitence. The Catholic faith does not accept this at all. He who said, I say to you not seven times, but seventy times seven times, signified that he does not refuse a second, or a third, or any number of such true repentances from sin.41 Therefore, what was said about it being impossible for those who have fallen after the illumination of grace and the tasting of the celestial gift and the participation in the Holy Spirit to be renewed again in penance, actually must be understood like this: that they were able to fall through their own power, but that they are not able to rise again by their own power.42 What is impossible for them is not impossible for God. As it is written, a wind that goes and does not return.43 It is said about the way of perdition that none that pass through it shall return again.44 A human being certainly can go to evil by his own power, but he is not able to return by his own power, unless he is helped by grace and by that help is renewed unto penitence.45 In this way one must understand what has been written: it is impossible for those who have fallen to be renewed unto penitence.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



399

This is true also for that prophetic statement: the virgin of Israel is cast down; there is none to raise her up, in which in a similar way some have wandered away from a correct understanding about the virgin Israel. Let someone say what is expressed by these words. Because St Jerome offered some ambiguous words expositing this passage, some who more readily take material from the Scriptures for error than for edification try to construe (astruere) that the fallen cannot be revived.46 For he says that although God can do all things, God cannot restore virginity to those whose virginity has been corrupted.47 He knew what he meant to say, but I will not depart from the purity of the Christian faith.48 The truth is one. I hear the Apostle saying, even if an angel should preach to you another Gospel, let him be anathema.49 Of course, I think that he meant to say something, even if I do not know what he meant to say. It is reverent for me to think that he spoke the truth, even if he could perhaps have spoken more properly or clearly than he did, and accordingly I try to interpret the sayings of a catholic according to Catholic truth. However, if this is understood about the corruption of the flesh, it would be stupid to think that a human being could damage her flesh, but God could not heal it. If this is understood about the corruption of the heart, then similarly it is also stupid to say that a human being can sin but God cannot justify him, or even that God can justify him only to the extent they can sin. Now if it cannot be said that God cannot do that, because it has been done and what has been done cannot be undone, since what is true cannot be false, and therefore God cannot be against truth, because if God were against truth, then God would be against himself, for God is truth. Does this statement have more weight than if it were said about anything else, that what has been done cannot be undone, even if what has been done could be corrected so that what has been done does not cause harm?50 It is certain that one who falls can rise again and not only rise again but even rise better than he was when he fell. Many have fallen and risen better than they were before they fell, better even than they would have been if they had not fallen, because they were permitted to fall for this very purpose, that from their fall and their ruin they would be instructed and made better. Nevertheless, no one has risen or could rise from a fall better than he would have been if he had not fallen and if all these good things that he achieved by rising he had achieved while standing. About this, it can be said to some extent that anyone who falls cannot recover everything, because whatever he may have added afterward, for the sake of correction or recovery, cannot bring it about that he would not

400

H ugh of St   V ictor

have been better off if he had all these without having fallen. For this reason, no one should sin in the hope of correction, because what we once let slip cannot be recovered any more. Whatever is added later, for the sake of restoring what was lost, is not what was lost but something else in place of what was lost; certainly, it would be better to have both [what was lost and what was done to replace it] simultaneously. That, however, cannot be done because, just as past times cannot return, so too things once done cannot be undone. If, therefore, you are a virgin, keep diligent watch over what you have. Never hope in sin; never fall as though you will be the better for rising up. Anything you do afterwards you cannot do in such a way that you would not have been better if you had done it but were still a virgin. Perhaps, therefore, it can be suitably understood in this way: virgin Israel fell, and not add so that she should rise up again, and where there were a thousand, there will be left a hundred; and where there were a hundred, there will be left ten in the house of Israel.51 If we speak about how the fallen cannot be renewed to penitence in this way, perhaps we say nothing unsuitable, and neither do we close off the way to pardon for the penitent, while showing the danger of falling. If sometimes it is a great thing that someone should rise, it is greater never to have fallen. If it is good to be healed, it is better never to have been infected. There is another sense in which we can understand the aforesaid statement with the same truth. Whether it is as fitting, I do not know. It is impossible, Paul says, for those who are illumined and who have tasted the gifts of God, and the rest that he added, after they have fallen to ruin, to be renewed again to penitence. He added what appears to be the reason why it is they cannot be renewed to penitence. He speaks of them crucifying the Son of God again and making a mockery of his death. They cannot be renewed again, because they cannot have another cross and another death of the Son of God, not because pardon is denied to penitents, but because Christ will not die again for sinners. Therefore, guard your salvation, for which Christ died once. If you let that salvation slip away, you cannot have another Christ to die for you, or another death of the same Christ.52 Christ says to you: protect your salvation; I died for it once.53 Should you lose it, I cannot die again. However, by the same death I can restore again what was lost. I do not want you to insult me because if, in voluntarily returning to sin, you lose the salvation won for you by my death, you compel me to die again. I offered my flesh as a victim (hostia), so

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



401

that penitents might again seek pardon (veniam), not so that people might be justified while sinning voluntarily and persisting in their sin.54 Therefore, whoever repents from sin has in it an expiating victim, but those who continue voluntarily in sin do not have in my flesh a cause of salvation. This victim was given to them so that the penitent might have atonement for sins; but now the sacrifice does not remain for them that through it they might be justified while persisting in sin. Let them not think, then, that the sacrifice (hostia) extends to them while they are voluntarily sinning because no offering (que oblata est) for sin extends to those who are voluntarily sinning. They cannot usurp for themselves what was offered to profit those who repent their sins, not for those who remain in their sin. Thus, one truth is manifested, and another has also come to light. Some want to understand the statement that there is no place for a second penance to mean that the whole of this life is, for sinful humanity, a place of penance.55 Those who want to do penance have a place here, because this place was given to humanity for repenting. Those who do not want to do penance here will not be able to do fruitful penance in another life, even if they should want to, because it has no place. The first penance in this life has a place; a second penance after this life has no place, nor does it bear fruit even if it causes pain. Some understand this saying to be about public penance, which they say cannot be repeated on account of its strictness and punishment, lest people have contempt for the sacraments of God. Let everyone think according to the truth, as much as each is able. I favor the one who said that there is no place for second penance because there ought to be a single penance for as long as one lives, so that one always grieves past deeds and stays on guard against future ones, and never returns to sins he once set aside. Whoever does this, does what ought to be done. Whoever does otherwise, that is, returns to past sins, so that when he has sinned as long as he wants, and returns to penance and, as it were, after a first penance does a second, does what he should not do, in that he again returns to penitence, so that after a first penance he does a second, does what he should not do, not that he acts badly in that he repents, but in that in failing to persevere, he does penance badly. I think that someone who said that there is no place for second penance (because this life is single act of penitence), has found a rather easy way out and has dodged this troublesome question without much anxiety.

402

H ugh of St   V ictor

5. On Those Who Repent in Their Final Moments (in extremis) Some ask what we are to think of those who persevere in their sins all the way to the end of life, but who, terrified at the very end by their imminent death, are pierced by regret and repent, and with their whole hearts seek mercy and pardon, even though they lack the time to make (persolvere) satisfaction, for the point of the time of death has arrived. I answer briefly, what seems best to me. I think that as long someone is living in this life, just as he can do evil, so he can also correct it, if he will do it. Never at any moment, even at the end of life, even at the point of death, is someone’s penance fruitless, provided it is genuine. I hear Scripture saying that at whatever hour the sinner shall grieve, he will be saved.56 It did not say, if he shall grieve two days or two years before death, but, at whatever hour he shall grieve, he will be saved. Therefore, you must not limit God’s mercy to a season, for fear that by chance your verdict might be turned against you. Do not lay down a law that is not expedient for you. You are a sinner; love mercy, because if you do not love it, you will not merit it. However, you are not to sin in the hope that you can sin safely because salvation is promised to you as long as you convert at the end. If you have truly repented, pardon (venia) is promised to you even then, but you are not promised that it has to happen that you will truly repent at that time. It is intensely difficult for penitence to be true when it comes so late. When torment binds his limbs and pain overwhelms his awareness (sensus), a person (homo) is hardly able to think about anything else. Therefore, if you want to be sure, do penance while you are healthy; while your mind can concentrate, exercise it in its proper work. Penance which seems to be forced ought to be highly suspect. It is easy for someone (homo) to think he does not want to, when he cannot. Possibility is the best proof of the will. If you do not act when you are able, you show clearly that you do not want to. Although penitence is safer in the time of health, nevertheless it is better late than never. Fear before the end, so that you do not put off repenting; at the end, be assured that even then you may come to your senses. If perhaps you do not see sufficient time for doing good works, nevertheless go forth with a firm hope and with the earnest money (arrha) of good devotion.57 The thief ’s penitence was quite late, but pardon was not slow in coming. Then how quickly he received what for a long time he put off asking. A contrite and humbled heart our God will never despise,

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14

 403

because he does not will the death of sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live.58 6. That a Good Will Alone Suffices, If There Is No Opportunity to Act Therefore, if you have a good will, do not despair. The angels proclaim from heaven, peace on earth to those (hominibus) of good will!59 They did not say, peace on earth to the rich, or the noble, or the powerful, or those able to do many things. If they had said that, you should be afraid, because you can lack all those things against your will and, similarly, they can be present in those who do not love. Willing can be lacking only in those who will it so. The will is the kind of thing that cannot be either given or taken away involuntarily. Therefore, the human will is the power of God. Willing belongs to human beings, because to will is in their human power, and no external violence that might befall them can take their will from them; neither sickness, nor any kind of adversity, nor poverty is able to take from them their will, unless they choose it. Doing can be taken from them, even when they do not will it; but willing cannot be.60 Therefore, something is not in someone when he can do it, but rather when he wants to do it. However, when he wills, his willing is not from himself, because to will the good is from God; nevertheless, when he wills, it is said to be in him because it is not possible to hinder the human will from outside. For the purpose of willing, nothing external need be sought; everything needed for doing that is within the human being, and he does not look to anything external to him to have the power of willing within him. Therefore, willing is in oneself, but doing is not, unless something from outside is provided to his will. Whether that something is present or absent is not in his power. Therefore, when he does not will the good, it is no one’s fault but his own; but when he is not able to act when he wills to do so, that impossibility is not imputed to his will’s account. If, however he does not will, then his will is not excused by its impossibility.61 Therefore, all merit is in the will. As much as you will, so much do you merit.62 But you say, if merit is from the willing alone, and if for human beings merit exists only in the will, then why act? I have the will and that will suffice for me. Why is it necessary to act if the work does nothing? You cannot have the will without the doing, if you do not act when you can. It is not willing if one does not do what one can. If one is not able to perform the work, willing suffices in itself, and it has its merit on account of itself, in that it is pleased only by what is good.

404

H ugh of St   V ictor

But again you say, if all merit is in the will, then nothing more is added by doing, even when the doing is joined to willing; why is action required, if it neither adds anything to, nor subtracts anything from, human merit? Hear why. After willing, action is also required, so that the will itself can be increased by the action. The human heart is such that it burns more intensely, either to love of goodness if it is just, or of wickedness if it is perverse. Either affect is nourished through doing, to grow and intensify, so that it is hardly possible for the will not to grow through action. Merit increases, then, to the extent that willing increases. Action either profits the will in goodness or harms it in wickedness to the extent that it exercises the will by inflaming it to love (affected) of goodness or malice. If it should perhaps turn out that the willing is as great in one who does not act as it is in one who does act, then where the will is the same, the merit cannot be different. But, you say again, if all merit is in the will, then doing is not rewarded, but only a good will. Consider how you may want to understand this. In some sense, it is said truly that only the will alone of a person is rewarded, either for good or evil. Then again, it is fittingly said that work and will, and even the person who works and wills, are rewarded for the willing and the doing. The will is said to be rewarded because upon it merit depends. The work is said to be rewarded because in it exists the cause or occasion of meriting. The willing is rewarded for the doing; the doing is rewarded for the willing. The will is rewarded for the work, because by the work it merits to be pleasing; the work is rewarded for the will, because it receives from it what is pleasing. The will is pleasing because it is good, and in it is justice, which pleases. A work is pleasing because it is from a good will, and is a sign of justice and of the goodness that is in the will, and is also pleasing. The will pleases on account of what is in it; work pleases on account of that from which it is. Therefore, as justice alone is that by which both the will and the work of the will are pleasing, so the recompense by which both the will and the work of the will are rewarded is not two, but one. One, then, is the recompense by which someone (homo) is said to be rewarded, because it is given to him; and the will is said to be rewarded, because it is given on account of the will; and the work is said to be rewarded because in it the will itself merits (meretur) to please. Even when it does not act, the will is pleasing because it wanted to act and pleases because of the work even when it is not able to do it.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14

 405

The will, then, is always pleasing on account of acting, and a person (homo) is never pleasing unless because of his willing. However, when someone (homo) is pleasing on account of his will, he is pleasing because the will itself is pleasing. When, moreover, the will is pleasing on account of doing, it is not pleasing (placet) as though the doing was pleasing on its own account, and the will pleasing on account of its doing. Instead, the will pleases on account of itself, and the works on account of the will. Nevertheless, it is said that the will is pleasing on account of the work because the willing itself is of the work, and that it pleases is from the work. Indeed, to will is always to will something, and a person (homo) is pleasing because he wills something according to a just will that is of something. So, it is just because it is about what it ought to be about, and it is such as it ought to be. In this way, then, all merit is in the will, even if it be with respect to work. Whether there is a deed or not, there is nothing less in the will, unless perhaps the willing itself would be greater if the work were done. If, then, you want to have great merit, have great willing with great confidence (fiducia). As much as you will, you will merit. People, who are unequal in resources, can be equal in willing. Zacchaeus gave much because he was rich and had much to give; the widow who cast in two small coins had little and gave little.63 More correctly, she gave as much as Zacchaeus. She brought fewer resources, but she had equal will. If you consider what they gave, you will find it unequal; if you consider from what they gave, you will find it the same. God does not weigh how much is given, but from what it is given. If, therefore, the merit is not different where more or less is given, provided there is equal will, then where something is given and where nothing is given, the merit cannot be different if the will is equal in both. For this reason, I have told you that you should not despair if you lack resources. Let a good will be present, and you will merit to the extent that you will. Therefore, if you want to have great merit, make your willing great. That sinner knew this well who, because she had much forgiven, brought not great wealth, but great love (dilectionem). Much against much. If much iniquity was atoned for by much money rather than much love (caritate), the rich would be better off (feliciores) than the poor. Untroubled, they would be able to sin as much as they wanted and for as long as they wanted, for redemption from their sins would lie with them. When they wanted, they would give money and they would have righteousness. Now, however, God has done well, because he has placed our redemption where no one can be without it, except

406

H ugh of St   V ictor

who wants to be. The rich and poor can love equally, even if they are not able to give money equally. Love much, if you want much to be forgiven you.64 Many sins are forgiven her, He says, because she loved much.65 One to whom more is forgiven, loves more. There seems to be something contradictory here. Indeed, if many sins are forgiven her because she loved much, love seems to come before forgiveness; on the other hand, if one to whom more is forgiven loves more, forgiveness seems to come before love. For, indeed, thus is it said: there were two debtors to one creditor. One owed much, the other little. One more, the other less. Since they did not have the means to repay, he forgave (donavit) them both. Which, then, loves him more? And he responded, I suppose he to whom he forgave the most.66 Here, forgiveness seems to be first and love after. For he loved much, because much was forgiven. Afterwards, He adds why he gave this narration (propositionem): do you see, he says, this woman? I entered your house; you did not give me water for my feet, but after she entered; she washed my feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair.67 And afterwards, he says, therefore, I say to you, many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much. But one to whom less is forgiven loves less. One to whom more is forgiven loves more.68 These do not seem to hold together, since he said that he who loves more is forgiven more, and that she has been forgiven much because she loved much. In this, therefore, the comparison does not seem to be consistent. Unless, perhaps, one should say that, in this case, it seems that much is forgiven her because she loves (diligit) much, because the one to whom more is forgiven loves more. Many sins are forgiven her, He says, because she loved much. Many sins, it is said, are forgiven her. On what basis do I prove this, or in what way do I show that many sins are forgiven her? In this, He says, because she loved much. Immense love (dilectio) is an indication of immense forgiveness (remissionis). For the one to whom more is forgiven loves more. Indeed, a debtor (debitor) is someone to whom more is forgiven so he loves more, and if he loves more, he does what he ought to do and shows himself to have received much by doing much in return. This is a way to understand this: this most dutiful, most attentive, most faithful woman loves much, because she knows that she has received much. Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much. If, then, anyone wants to understand in this way the statement, many sins are forgiven her because she loved much, it will not be inappropriate. But perhaps to someone it would be truer if one understood here that

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14

 407

love by which the woman, aroused by longing for health (sanitatis), began to love the savior from whom she believed herself to have health (salutem), and to recognize that there was much that she hoped would be forgiven her by him, and so she loved much. At this point, she had not yet heard, your sins are forgiven you; at this point, she requested what she desired to obtain. As if she already had received it, she loved her benefactor, from whom she did not doubt that she would receive what she desired. For this reason, he says: your faith has saved you.69 Because she believed, she loved; and because she loved, she merited. Therefore, your faith has saved you. From the moment faith began, salvation began. You did not know that I had attracted you to me through faith and love (dilectionem), so that I might pardon the many sins of one who believed and loved. Perhaps you were not thinking of this. So that you may know and take comfort, I now tell you that your sins are forgiven. The one to whom more is forgiven loves more.70 Some love after they receive. You loved before you had received, because you believed that you would receive. For this reason, your faith has saved you; go in peace.71 See how much immense devotion can do, how much love (caritas) does, how much a good will does. Therefore, do not be afraid. If a good will is not slow, pardon will not be late. 7. That Man Judges Deeds, but God Considers the Will There are two things: the will and the works of the will. God considers the will; human beings judge works. Some works are hidden and therefore unknown; others are doubtful because not discerned; still others are obvious (manifesta), that is, either so evil that they cannot be hidden or so good that there can be no doubt about them. Hidden and dubious ones are reserved to divine judgment. Those that are manifest, if good, are judged through approval, but not through retribution because their recompense (premium) and reward are reserved for the hereafter. God willed that evil works be judged and punished here lest, if their punishment were kept till later, all judgment in the hereafter would be exercised for damnation and not correction. For this reason, men have been set as judges in God’s stead so that, by examining the faults of their subjects, they punish them so that, when God the Judge comes on the last day, he can save the corrected whom he subjected to a human judge. Therefore, judgments are given and the manner and

408

H ugh of St   V ictor

measure of corrections and satisfactions against various faults in need of expiation are set down ahead of time within reasonable limits, and a penitential book has been written, in which antidotes, as it were, of spiritual medicine are proposed, where doctors (medici) of souls might take what could be applied to the diseases of sins for the cure of infirm minds (mentibus).72 8. On the Forgiveness of Sins and Whether Priests, Who Are Human, Can Forgive Sins Some try to assign the power of forgiving sin to God alone, so that they would in no way allow that a man (hominem) can be made a participant in it. In confirmation of this claim, they point to the cleansing of that leper whom the Lord first restored to health himself then sent to the priests, not so that his cleansing would be completed by their power (virtute), but only so that it might be confirmed by their testimony.73 Similarly now, in the present Church, they say that the services (ministeria) of priests have no more power than to be mere signs, so that one who is first absolved by the Lord through inner contrition of the heart might then be shown by confession of the mouth to be absolved. They want to show, moreover, that sins are forgiven before oracular confession, by the heart’s contrition alone, by appealing to that prophetic testimony in which it is said, at whatever hour the sinner shall begin to grieve, he shall be saved.74 And, elsewhere, while you are still speaking, I say to you, behold, am I here.75 And the psalmist says, I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord, and you have forgiven the wickedness of my sin.76 After contrition of the heart, however, oral confession is also necessary. If anyone shall, like one who despises divine instructions, neglect to confess the sins for which he obtained pardon through prayer, though not held guilty for the sins which are now forgiven, he nevertheless will be guilty for contempt.77 Or, perhaps confession is necessary because the very sins pardoned, to the person humbled by compunction, now return because of his arrogance. By this reasoning, then, they would show that human beings in no way have the power of forgiving sins, which belongs to God alone, just as the Jews whispered against the Lord because he said to the paralytic, your sins are forgiven you, and they said that only God is able to forgive sins.78 Perhaps those who say this about the forgiveness of sins do not pay close enough attention. Every sinner (peccator) is bound in two ways: by stubbornness of mind, and by the debt of a future damnation. As long as the grace

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14

 409

of God is with someone, he is unbound and unimpeded from acting well. When the grace of God is taken away through sin, the mind itself is immediately bound from within by its own stubbornness. This stubbornness or total blindness of the mind is an interior darkness in which he is held bound in the present by his own sin, and unless he is freed from it in this life, he will later, with bound hands and feet, be cast down into the outer darkness.79 Since, after the fall of sin, no one is strong enough to rise up by his own strength (virtute) unless divine mercy coming gratuitously in advance (preveniens) should rouse him, it is necessary that God should return his grace, which he justly had taken away from us because of our sin. We are to be brought back to life unto repentance through God’s mercy alone, apart from any previous merits of ours. Thus, grace comes first to rouse our hearts from the torpor of infidelity and from the death of sin so that, when we become contrite by the working of grace, we are freed (absolvimur) from the bonds that make us inert. Then, with the help of cooperating grace, we are freed (absolvi) from the debt of damnation. This is signified well by the resuscitation of Lazarus, whom the Lord himself through his own power had earlier freed internally from the bond of death, but whom, once returned to life, he ordered to be unbound externally by the ministry of his apostles.80 In this way, in the holy Church, he now, through his grace alone, internally stirs to compunction those dead on account of sins, returning them to life interiorly, and, once they have been returned to life through confession, he orders them to come out. Thus, when they confessed, through the ministry of the priests he unbound them from the exterior bond, that is, from the debt of damnation. The debt of damnation is well spoken of as an exterior bond, because it has to do with the exterior darkness from which anyone who in this life does not first merit to be unbound from interior darkness is unworthy to be loosed. But they say, “you wrong God concerning the priest, to whom you assign the power of forgiving sins, of which God alone is capable.” I do not make priests gods. The divine word, which is not able to lie, calls priests gods.81 You shall not speak ill of the gods, it says, and the prince of your people you shall not curse.82 Truly, these people speak ill of the gods contrary to the precept of the law, because they want to take away a divinely-bestowed power. I did not assign to priests the power of forgiving sins. He who made gods from men (hominibus) assigned to men divine power. But, nevertheless, just as he is God of himself, so also, when he wills, through himself he can forgive sins without human coopera-

410

H ugh of St   V ictor

tion. Truly, these who of themselves are not gods are not able to forgive sins, unless he by whom they are what they are is in them and working through them, cooperating with them. Because God alone is good, it does not follow that those who serve God are not also good, and just as God alone works miracles, it is said that the just man has done miraculous things in his life, so too God alone forgives sins, whenever the priest forgives by him and through him.83 Indeed, God does in the man what the man does through Him. Nor for this reason must it be said that, because God acts through him, the man does nothing here; rather, for this reason truly the man acts much better and much more truly because through him God acts. Hence it is that He says to Peter, the prince of the apostles, I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven. And whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.84 He did not say whatever you shall loose—that is, as they say, declare loose—was [already] loosed, but will be loosed, because the verdict of heaven does not precede, but follows, Peter’s verdict. But so that you will not think this was given to Peter alone, hear what he says to all the apostles and, through this, to all the successors of the apostles and to those acting in the place of the apostles. Receive, he says, the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.85 Where did he say, if you declare it, it [already] was? He never said this; but he did say, if you do it, it shall be. Therefore, let them hear and understand: whose sins you will forgive, these shall be forgiven them was said to those to whom receive the Holy Spirit had been said so that what was given them would not be believed to be contemptible, and also so that when they received it and used it, it would not be judged to come from human power. It is no surprise, therefore, if men forgive sins, because that they can do this they receive not from their own, but from divine power. For God to give this to men is nothing other than God doing this through men. What they take from the cleansing of the leper to set up in opposition hardly lends support to their opinion. If that leper was sent to the priests not to receive health, but to show his health, if a sinner is believed to be unbound (absolvi) before confession, by the same reasoning when he goes to a priest after being moved to compunction he should not lament his sin, but call attention to his justice, which the Christian faith entirely abhors. Therefore, if the miracle which the Lord performed is shown to the priests not on account of reverence for

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



411

their office but as a taunt, what else is produced but scorn for the new priesthood in spiritual healing?86 They also say, at whatever hour the sinner shall begin to grieve, he shall be saved.87 I think this was said chiefly about those who, having spent their whole lives in sin, repent at the end, and forsake sins when now in this life they cannot have time for making satisfaction. Such people are told this so that in no way do they do despair about pardon. Even then, if they have truly repented, they can attain mercy. At whatever hour means when they are at the point of death (in extremis), even at the moment (articulo) of death. If a sinner grieves, that is, if he feels contrition with all his heart, he shall be saved from eternal damnation. In other words, it is as if it were said that at whatever hour in the present life a sinner truly repents, he shall not perish in the life to come. If someone should dispute the statement he shall be saved, saying that it was not said about the salvation which is allotted in the future but, rather, about what is pardoned in the present through the loosening (absolution) of sins, it is not necessary that we should say that the sinner is freed (absolvatur) from all debt as soon as he begins to grieve, pending the time when he will have acquired the whole cure which God has established for obtaining pardon. This, moreover, is the remedy: the sinner should repent with his heart and confess his sins with his lips (ore). When he has done that, there will be no more condemnation over his debt, even if there remains satisfaction for him to do to pay for his sin. If a sinner should truly repent, but death comes quickly and he is not able to come to confession, I confidently announce that the High Priest completes for this person what a mortal could not, and now the deed stands completed before God, which that person truly wanted to do but could not carry out. Scorn did not prevent his confession; necessity thwarted it. Therefore, the statement, at whatever hour he shall grieve, he will be saved, is taken with respect to salvation in the present. It ought to be understood like this: “the salvation of the sinner (peccatoris) begins when he truly begins to grieve for his sins.” That salvation, however, is fully completed when he also confesses with his lips (ore) what he grieves. Again, the statement, while you are yet speaking, I will say, here I am, can appropriately be taken to mean that God is first present through grace, to prick the heart to repentance; then he is present to bestow forgiveness of sins to those who confess.88 Here, finally, is what they use from the psalmist in opposition: I said, I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord, and you have taken

412

H ugh of St   V ictor

away the wickedness of my sin.89 St Gregory states that these words were said only about sins of thought: often the merciful God cleanses (abluit) the sins of the heart so readily that he does not allow them to issue forth into deeds. Rightly, then, the psalmist says, I said, I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord, and you have taken away the wickedness of my sin.90 And, a little later, the psalmist shows how easy pardon is in the case of those who, while they were still promising to ask, obtained that for which they had promised to ask. The fault had not advanced to the point of action, and the penance did not reach the point of torment, but the thought of affliction cleansed a mind, which nothing more than pondering wickedness had defiled.91 If anyone should want to apply this to any sin whatever, let that person know that sin is one thing, the impiety of sin another. The impiety of sin is quite rightly taken to be the hardness of heart, which is first loosened by the sting of conscience (compunctione), so that afterwards the sin itself, that is, the debt of damnation, can be loosened (absoluatur) by confession. Whether the preceding authorities are explained in this manner or in some other, we confess most truly that the priests of God have power in the Church of binding and loosening, a power not signified carelessly or by some unknown manner of speaking, but truly bestowed by God. To them it was said, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.92 Perhaps someone will say in opposition to this that priests bind many in the church who are not bound before God, and likewise, they loosen many who remain bound before God, because often they both bind the innocent and loosen (absolvit) those remaining in guilt. Thus, it will not be true, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.93 It should be known that often Sacred Scripture speaks of something in such a way that seems to announce in advance what is to happen, but actually expresses God’s power (virtute) rather than the outcome, because it shows, not what must happen, but what could happen. For example, in a certain place Scriptures says, whoever will believe and be baptized will be saved, yet we know that many, believing, receive baptism who afterwards are condemned as their faults deserve and do not reach eternal salvation.94 Again, in another place, whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and will not come to judgment, but will cross from death into life. Yet Paul says, whoever eats the body of the Lord unworthily and presumes to drink the chalice, eats and

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



413

drinks judgment upon himself.95 Everywhere, therefore, it is the power (virtus) of the sacraments that is expressed;96 it is not said that any particular participants are saved by these sacraments, but that they could be saved. It is as if it were said, so great is the power of baptism that anyone who receives it faithfully and sincerely (devote) can reach eternal salvation through it. Again, so great is the power in the reception of my body and blood, that through it anyone who receives worthily can gain eternal life. I interpret this saying, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, in a similar way. As if to put it more clearly: so much power (potestate) do I bestow upon you in binding and loosening sins that anyone who deserves to be bound by you will not be loosed before me; and anyone who deserves to be loosed by you will no longer be bound before me. Let all (homines) hear, and let sinners understand, that protection is granted to them by God, that judgment is again prepared. Perhaps they do not presume to entreat God; they have human priests serving in God’s stead with whom they may meanwhile make their case without risk. Let them love the intercessors, and let them fear the judges. But perhaps someone might again ask why, for the loosing of human sins, it is necessary to seek human assistance, as if God were not strong enough to carry out what he wished on his own. We ought to know with greatest certainty that, in destroying sin, human assistance in no way lends support to God. Rather, man is made God’s assistant for this reason: because in this way the salvation of the sinner is brought about more fittingly. For what are sins, if not various kinds of wounds, and what is penance, if not medicine? We know that in the healing of wounds of the flesh, unless an appropriate treatment is applied to the pain, in no way does the effect of the cure follow. Because, therefore, all sin is carried out through pride, it is necessary that all repentance should be preserved through humility, so that obedience shatters disobedience and the devotion of humility overwhelms the swelling of vainglory. It is very fitting, then, that we, who by sinning were insubordinate toward God, should in repentance be suppliants of God’s servants. Humanity (homo), which had not needed a mediator to preserve the grace of God, is now unable to regain it, except through human mediation. It is very beneficial for the sinner (peccatori) to learn how far he had withdrawn from God by sinning, when in penance he returns to God with such difficulty, since he is made even more wary [of sin] because access to forgiveness is not opened without the serious work of doing penance.

414

H ugh of St   V ictor

Let the sinner, then, sigh and lament, and anxiously fear for his sins; let him become frightened; concerned, let him run here and there; let him seek intercessors and people to help; let him, who was not willing to stand in humble attendance before the Creator, humbly prostrate himself before a man, so that even in this act he may in some way cry out to God and say, see, Lord, and look, and examine what I do. Certainly I know, Lord, and I admit, that to be unwilling to be subject to you was damnable self-glorification, but now I ask that my being laid low before man on your account should not be a contemptable fealty. What I stole is great, but what I return is not small! How pleasant and delightful is the compassion of our God! He himself works all our good in us, and like a father playing with his children he does everything in such a way that it seems as if he were doing nothing.97 Behold, the contrite laments; he sighs; he weeps; he confesses his guilt; he prays for pardon; he begs for mercy. It is thought that all of this is, as it were, from a human being, but who, I ask, does this, if not he who inwardly governs and who moves the human heart to act? I pray that it will not be burdensome if I offer a quick example of this. A certain father cast out an arrogant son, as if with great anger, so that, chastened in this way, he might learn humility, but, because he continued in his arrogance, by a secret arrangement the father sent the mother, so that, as if coming out of tenderness, she might mollify the stubborn son with feminine kindness, bend the arrogant one towards humility, and emphatically convey the father’s anger. She pledges that she herself will intervene, promises pardon, suggests advice for salvation, recommends that he seek mediators, and says that the father cannot be placated except by extensive prayers. Nevertheless, she declares that she will support the defendant’s case and promises that she will bring the whole thing to a good end. See, I ask, if our cause is not fought (agitur) in this way? God the Father, as if angered, casts out the sinning child, with whom, however, in the disposition of his good will, he was perhaps never angry. But because human weakness was not strong enough to rise from the fall on its own, Mother Grace is sent to the sinner’s heart. A priest is sought to be an intercessor, so that God, who was never angry, might be placated. What can I say? Who is wise, and will keep these things; and will understand the mercies of the Lord?98 Can it be that what was done was therefore done needlessly, because God, who is never not well-disposed to his own, was not changed from being angered to well-disposed? Far from it! It is necessary that it be done

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



415

this way, because otherwise the guilt of our crime cannot be atoned for; it is necessary that it be done this way because God desires to be asked for what he desires to give; it was necessary that it be done this way because, even if according to God’s disposition there was no anger towards us, nevertheless anger remained in us according to guilt, that, when it was loosed by due satisfaction, then, so to speak, God is not reconciled to humanity (homo), but humanity to God. However, whether sins return or not after the moment when they are forgiven is a question, I think, that we should not so much address as fear. If this is or is not true, by what justice it would or would not happen, awaits the work of a different treatise. This is chiefly because one reads certain witnesses of Sacred Scripture that are brought forth ambiguously about this. They are certainly not to be discussed with superficial or passing consideration, lest something absurd seem to arise from them. 9. Whether Sins Return After They Once Have Been Remitted Human beings raise many questions. As long as there is life, there is always questioning. The one who questions has not yet found what he has sought. Perhaps he seeks because he has lost what he seeks. If he has not lost it, that is because he never had it. In any case, as long as he is seeking, he does not have what he seeks.99 Moreover, as long as we live we must always seek, because we do not yet have all that we should have. What is it we should seek, if not truth and goodness? If we had these perfectly, we would not need to seek them because, if there were still something more, it would be added, even if it was not sought. He says, seek first the Kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things will be added for you.100 The Kingdom of God is truth; its justice is goodness. If you have sought these, as you should, all else will be given to you gratis. Why, then, do you labor to seek the things that you can have for free? If you seek the latter without the former, you either do not have or, if you have, you do not have in a useful way. If you seek the former without the latter, you have those for salvation and these for utility. He says all will be added to you.101 These are many; those are few. There are two things there; many things are found here, but those two are worth more than all these. Do not be gazing at what is bigger, but look at what is better. Do not focus on the heap, but weigh the value. Seek few things, and you will find many.102 These, truth and goodness, are the only things that human beings should seek. Would

416

H ugh of St   V ictor

that they were as zealous in seeking goodness as they are moved by curiosity to find the truth. I do not know why people always seek the truth, even those who do not love the good. So much do all want to know the truth, that no one can be found who wants to be deceived. Many seek the truth without goodness, but goodness is the companion of truth. Truth does not come gladly without goodness or, if it comes, it does not come from the places and region where salvation is. People ask, whether their sins return to people after they have been remitted. They want to know this, and they do not want to fear it. Why do they wish to know what they do not wish to fear, if not because inquisitiveness drives them although goodness does not delight them? They raise the question, in case it may be told them that it is not so. They depend on a messenger of their torpor, if perhaps someone will come to tell them what they want to hear. In a way, they seek the truth, not because they love the truth, because they do not love goodness, but they want what they want to be true. If it should happen that a witness of the truth has come who speaks the truth against what they want, they are not stirred, but upset. Their mind is cast down, because they did not hear what they wanted to hear. Therefore, truth answers them according to their wickedness, either as they wish, so that they err still more, or as they do not wish, so that they despair all the more. However, because this is also to be sought for those who are roused and advancing regarding the truth, it is not absurd if we inquire regarding the truth. Because even on this point, the human conscience is as usual pushed to thinking, it needs to answer for itself. If someone asks whether sins that have once been forgiven a penitent are again imputed, perhaps the safest answer will be that this is not to be asserted but to be feared.103 Sometimes in these hidden matters, about which one can be ignorant without danger to one’s salvation, it is better to fear than to define. Let someone say that this is to be feared, not answered. I say to someone who can restrain his thinking, that this is sufficient for him. I think this is enough, and it is expedient not to inquire more deeply into weighty matters. However, I think that one who is urged and invited by his mind, and who cannot stop with this but must go on to inquire further, should be satisfied as much as can be done while maintaining reverence for secret things. Therefore, you, whoever you are, wish to be certain whether your sins will return again after they have been remitted. Let us see and discuss what you are asking.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



417

You say, my sins have been remitted. I want to know if they must be imputed again. What does it seem to you? You tell me that it does not seem to you that sins once forgiven should be imputed a second time. Otherwise, God seems changeable, since he does not hold fast to his decree and so easily changes his judgment. How does this change occur? You say the change occurs because when he first remitted my sins for me, he said that he would not make demands on me because of them. He would not have remitted them unless he said this. Now, however, he again makes demands about them and requires from me a penalty that he first remitted. Therefore, I say that if it is said that God imputes the sins that he had once remitted, he is proclaimed mutable and his word, that should remain steadfast forever, is changeable. Therefore, because this cannot be, it seems to me that sins that have once been remitted by God ought not for any reason to be imputed anymore. If perhaps it seems thus to you, for this reason you will assure yourself that you will not fear that you are in danger. However, tell me what you understand when you say your sins are forgiven you. If you do not understand how they return, you do not understand how they went away. Indeed, if you do not understand how they are present, you do not understand how they went away or how they return. What does it mean to say, God imputes sins? If one says that when he imputes sins to a sinner, he is angry, then, when he remits sins for a penitent, he is mollified. If, therefore, we say that God who was once angry has afterwards been mollified, how can you deny that in this he changed? When he imputes and when he remits, it is not by a change in him but by a change in you that he imputes and remits them. He imputes sin when he sees that a sinner deserves punishment. He remits sins when he judges that the penitent is deserving of pardon. He is the same in both. You change from one to the other, now a sinner through fault (culpa),104 and then a just person through penitence. He does not change but remains always the same. Remaining what he is immutably, he sees and discerns what changes in you, whether from good to bad or from bad to good. When he sees that you are a sinner, he imputes your sins to you because he discerns that you are such; he punishes you as you deserve. When he sees that you are penitent, he remits your sins for you, because he sees that you are such that he can justly spare you. He does all these things while remaining immutable because, although through penitence you cease to be a sinner, he does not cease to know

418

H ugh of St   V ictor

what kind of a person you are. When you begin to be just, he does not begin to know what you are beginning to be. Before you began, he knew what you were going to be, and when you ceased to be what you were, he was not ignorant of how you were. Do not understand this in such a way that, as it were, God changes when you change. Rather think that God is said to impute your sins to you because he discerns you to be worthy of his anger and indignation, and afterwards he remits the same sins when he recognizes that you are worthy of pardon and mercy. If to have sins imputed is to be guilty through fault, and to have sins remitted is to become just through penitence, why can sins not be said to return to a person when that person returns to his sins? However, you say to me, when I return to my sins, I so return that I do something like what I did before, but not the very thing I did before. If I do the same thing, it is the same by likeness, not in truth; one similar way of acting, but not one action. If it is said I should be punished for the past acts because after they were remitted I returned to perpetrate similar acts, I confess that is just if, in this way, I am said to be punished for these in the way I am said to perpetrate them. If, for this reason alone, I am said to do the earlier evils again when I am said to be liable to punishment for them because I do other things similar to them and in the same way, reason says this is to be understood in this way: I am to be punished for these that are similar to the ones for which I was punished after I perpetrated them. This was not the question. It was whether, after forgiveness for an earlier sin, if the same sin is repeated, the fault which had been remitted is doubled for the one returning to it again. For example, someone did penance with all his heart for a homicide that he committed and for which he received pardon. It happened that afterwards he committed homicide again. Notice, this man committed two homicides, or rather he committed homicide twice, to put it more fittingly and expressly in proper speech. Homicide is one specific evil, just as adultery, theft, and fornication are each one evil, and as charity, patience, and chastity are each a virtue. One who loves two people does not love with two loves, but with one charity and love. So, if this man committed homicide twice: he obtained pardon for the first by doing penance, and he perpetrated homicide again after he had received that pardon. This man died afterward without repentance and was damned for his sins. The question is whether this man ought to be punished for that homicide for which he did penance and received pardon.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



419

If it is put this way, it is not apparent by what justice this could happen. However, if he is punished for the sin he committed and for which he did not make amends, the justice of that is clear. If, however, punishment is again required for what was pardoned, it is either true injustice or hidden justice. Regarding this, it is necessary to demonstrate that it is just that a man be punished again for what had been forgiven. So, this is perhaps what seems objectionable to you. So tell me now, does it seem just to you that, because of subsequent penance, the preceding sin that was imputed is pardoned, but it does not seem just that, because of the subsequent fault, the earlier fault that was remitted is imputed again? If a subsequent virtue closes the open wound of sin, does the added fault not open up the fault that was sealed? If living good works die through fault and, through justice, what were dead are brought again to life, why likewise are evil deeds that were pardoned through virtue not imputed again through fault? You want that repentance alone is able to pardon the things that were imputed, but you do not want that fault alone be able to impute the things that were pardoned. Subsequent penance could excuse the preceding fault so that what was at one time imputed does no harm, but a subsequent fault cannot void the preceding penitence so that what was at one time praised becomes unprofitable.105 If the decision could conform to your judgment, you would seek what was convenient rather than what was just. Cursed is the man who enacts his worst inclination.106 Therefore, you do your good inclination; you judge well on behalf of your side. Perhaps it would be good for you if the sentence of truth followed your judgment. When you are judged, you would never be condemned. However, I am afraid that when you want something besides the truth, truth will do something other than what you want. It is important that truth, rather than your will, be realized. You say that what was pardoned must not be imputed again. Then, likewise, what was imputed ought not to be pardoned, if what was pardoned ought not to be imputed again. If penitence, because it pleases, brings it about that imputed wickedness is pardoned, does contempt, because it displeases, not likewise bring it about that what was pardoned is imputed?107 If the humility of penitence makes you worthy so that you are not punished even for those things that were imputed, does not the contempt and transgression of fault make you also worthy of blame for those things that were pardoned? Do you not consider that when grace is given more frequently, ingratitude is judged to be all the more wicked?

420

H ugh of St   V ictor

Behold, there are two people. One offends often and, when he prays and entreats often, pardon is granted; the other who lives innocently, always humbly obeying the will and rule of the sovereign God, has nothing for which to entreat. However, later it happens, as it can happen, that both offend by the same fault. Say which of these will be judged guiltier, if not the one who after so great grace proves to be ungrateful. Laws punish subsequent sins more seriously, and repeated wounds are more difficult to heal. Nevertheless, you say that the kind or magnitude of earlier sins has no bearing on the guilt of subsequent sins. If prior evils that had been forgiven through later good actions are not revived in regard to guilt through subsequent repeated evils, then are prior good deeds that had been killed through subsequent evils not revived for merit by subsequent good deeds? Judge rightly, sons of men.108 If you judge one way in your favor, and in another against yourself, you are not a just judge. You must love justice so much that you never love yourself contrary to it. Those who reshape cases and change the truth for convenience are merely glib. Justice does not approve of them. One hears, Lord, I knew not learning. I will enter into the Lord’s power. Lord, I will be mindful only of your justice.109 Just judgment is this: attention is paid to justice alone, so that nothing is preferred to justice. So, pronounce a just judgment110 if you want your good deeds, that now are dead through fault, to be given life again through justice. Do not be angry or think that injury has been done to you, if your evil deeds, which had been forgiven earlier through repentance, are again imputed to you because of your wickedness. However, you say, when I did penance, God said that he would no longer impute my evil deeds to me. When you sinned, God also said that he would no longer reward your good deeds. If, therefore, because of what God said, it must stand that the former will no longer be imputed, why does the word of God not likewise stand that the latter will no longer be rewarded?111 For your convenience, you want God to lie. However, where you feel yourself injured, you work at maintaining his truth. Why do you do this, if not because you love yourself perversely and you do not love God? He, however, rightly loves his truth and justly condemns your perversity. However, because you think to start arguing on the basis of something God has said, you make his promise a pretense in order to defend your evil. He answers you, how confident should you be when you act wickedly in regard to what, when you repented, he promised you pardon? Likewise, if you are acting well,

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



421

should you despair over what, when earlier you acted badly, pointed you toward death and perdition? The Lord speaks through the prophet, saying, you, son of man, say to the children of your people, the justice of the just person shall not free him on the day on which he sins, and the wickedness of the wicked will not harm him on the day he has turned from his wickedness. The just will not able to live in his justice on the day he sins. Also, if I say to the just man that he will live, and then, trusting in his justice he commits evil, all his justice will be forgotten and he will die in the wickedness that he has done. If, however, I say to the wicked you will die, and he does penance for his sin and does judgment and justice, and he restores what was given him as a pledge and makes restitution for what he has stolen and walks in the commandments of life and does nothing unjust, he will live and not die. The sins he committed will not be imputed to him. He has done judgment and justice, and he will live. And the sons of your people said, the way of the Lord is not fair, and their way is unjust.112 So, take note. If you have sinned, you should not presume on the fact that, when you earlier repented, forgiveness was promised you. Nor, if you have done good, should you despair because death and damnation are the destiny of the sinner. God responds to you regarding what is yours, not about what is his. He indicates your merit to you; he does not reveal his counsel. To someone doing evil, he says, you will die. To one doing good, he says, you will live. What does you will die mean, if not you will be damned? What does you will live mean, if not you will be saved? What does you will be damned mean, if not to judge someone worthy of damnation? What does you will be saved mean, if not to discern that someone is worthy of salvation? He tells you about what is yours and what you deserve; what is going to happen regarding your merit, not what concerns his counsel. It is just, therefore, that he respond to you about what is yours and set before you what seems to pertain to you. Thus, he commanded the Ninevites about their merits, not about his counsel, saying, in forty days Nineveh will be destroyed.113 He was taking account of their merit: it was going to happen thus according to their merit. What was said to Hezekiah also pertains to this: arrange your household affairs, because you will die and not live.114 It was going to happen thus, as far as he was concerned, and what was in him required that it would be thus. His illness was such that he could not live any longer, unless he was helped from elsewhere, and he accepted this outside help so that he could be helped. Therefore, as pertained to them, what was said was going to happen, although it was delayed

422

H ugh of St   V ictor

and otherwise arranged by the one who said it. Therefore, when you are sinning, and you are told you will die, it is your merit that is expressed, just as when you are doing good, and you are told you will live, that expresses what you deserve. If, then, it seems that there is a change regarding what was said, the change does not regard the one who speaks, but regards you to whom it is spoken. Because you change and do not remain the same, you do not deserve that the same things always be said to you. If you are acting badly, do not be confident because of God’s statement, because when you change in regard to him, his statement to you changes. He also says, if I said to the just man that he will live, and trusting in his justice he does evil, all his justice is consigned to oblivion.115 If all his justice is consigned to oblivion, his penitence and his humility and other good things that he has done are handed over to oblivion. However, if his penitence is consigned to oblivion, whence is his fault excused? If, therefore, his penitence is wiped out, the fault that had been remitted because of that penitence must again be reborn. Rightly, when someone, after having received grace, is very ungrateful, grace no longer remains for him, but withdraws from him because he does not want to stay the same in regard to it. See what the gospel says to you regarding the wicked and ungrateful servant whose debt had been completely remitted when he asked that from his lord. Because he did not want to have mercy on his fellow servant, what had been remitted through the gentleness of grace was again required of him by the strictness of justice.116 Therefore, it is rightly said that when we do not want to remit the debts of those sinning against us, it is just that what was remitted on our behalf, and was cause for us to rejoice, is again required of us. Deservedly so. When a fault was remitted for a sinner, it was grace, not something due. If someone casts aside the grace freely given him, it is certainly just that he not profit from the grace he received. However, you say to me, after he has done penance, his earlier sins are again imputed to him. What of the statement, “no good remains unrewarded?”117 Look, there is a specific good here, namely, the penitence of this man was good as long as it was genuine. This good has no remuneration because his sins are imputed to this man as if he had never done penance. His penitence was not good, or, if it is good, show me his remuneration. What then? Does the remitting of sin not seem to you to be a great remuneration? When this person did penance, his sin was remitted him. As long as he was repentant, his sin was not imputed to him.

DE   S AC R A M E N T I S 2 . 14



423

As long as his merit remained, his reward remained. Did you want to give people the liberty that when they were given merit and received reward, when it pleased them to take away the merit, they would retain the reward? This would not be a fair exchange. You would act wickedly toward God, if in this way you gave what is yours and accepted what is his, then again took back what is yours and kept what is his. If you gave what is yours and received what is his, if you then receive back what is yours he wants to have back what is his. Does it not seem this way to you? Perhaps you say that God’s way is not fair.118 If you do, you will be thinking contrary to piety, and for that reason you do not understand the truth. You say, how, if what had been remitted again requires punishment, will what is written stand, namely, that God will not judge the same things twice?119 Hear how. God does not judge the same thing twice because the sin, which is shown to have been removed through fitting satisfaction, is in a way imputed by him for punishment. But, you say, punishment is again required for what was removed by satisfaction. It is indeed required, because the satisfaction is no longer something that is set up to pardon it. As long as the satisfaction remained, the forgiving remained, and what once had been remitted was not punished. That satisfaction ceased when the wickedness was repeated, because it also pertains to satisfaction that the deeds were corrected and, once corrected, were not repeated. After the fault returned, then in a way it was no longer the same thing, because one sin began to be two in guilt. Because the fault returned, the penalty returned. If it had not been repeated, the fault would not have returned. When fault comes, penalty follows. When the fault is corrected, the penalty is removed. When the fault returns, the penalty returns.120 One against one, and two against two, not one against two or two against one.121 This is justice. What is put down is matched. What do you think? Answer if you can. If you cannot answer, do not argue, but pray. It is not beneficial for you to enter into judgment with God.122 Seek mercy so that you can bear justice.

424

H ugh of St   V ictor

NOTES 1

2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17

18

19 20

Cf. Gen 6:5. This translation follows the edition by Rainer Berndt, SJ. I have also consulted the English translation by Roy Deferrari, which was based on Migne. The Latin has been provided in brackets when an English translation required choosing a word somewhat removed from the Latin original, or when it was necessary to make clear a play on words from the Latin, or when, in the judgment of the translator, it seemed that having immediate reference to the Latin would prove helpful. At times, I have also included in brackets English words or phrases that made Hugh’s intended meaning more clear than the original Latin itself was. References to Hugh’s Biblical and patristic allusions and sources have been drawn primarily from Berndt. Quotes from Scripture have been rendered with an eye to the Douay-Rheims translation, for the sake of consistency, though they have been modernized in style and modified to reflect Hugh’s Latin. In the judgment of the editor, to attempt to translate Hugh’s Latin into gender-neutral English results in convoluted prose and/or liberties with person or number, so the attempt has not been made. Occasionally, pronouns referring to Christ and God are capitalized in order to specify their antecedents. Lev 6:6–7, speaking of any who sin against their neighbors and are convicted, instructs that they shall restore all ill-gotten gains, and, moreover, “shall offer (offeret) a ram without blemish out of the flock: and shall give it to the priest, according to the estimation and measure of the offence (delicti)” (Vulgate and Douay-Rheims). Cf. Lev 5:17–19. Richard of St Victor, Serm. cent. 53 (PL 177.1050–51). Cf. Prov 28:13. Ps 31[32]:3. Ps 31[32]:5. Ps 31[32]:5. Cf. Mark 2:5 (Vetus Latina). Luke 7:49. Cf. Mark 2:7. Matt 9:6. John 20:22–23. For  Hugh’s treatment on apostolic succession, see: Sacr.  2.3.11–12 (PL  176.426B–430A). Cf. Sacr. 2.2.1–2 (PL 176:415A–417B). The construction “quasi certum esse” initially seems oxymoronic; however, Hugh is arguing that it ought to be as certain that sinners would want to confess their sins as it is that the sick would want a physician. James 5:16. “Salvemini” can mean either “healed” or “saved.” Cf. Ps 31[32]:5. Cf. Ambrose, De paradiso 14.71 (ed. Carolus Shenkl, CSEL 32/1 [Vienna: Tempsky, 1897], 329; PL 14:32B: “Neque enim potest quicquam justificari a peccato nisi fuerit peccator ante confessus”). This passage is cited by Peter Abelard: Sic et non 151.1 (ed. Boyer and McKeon, 510): “that without confession sins cannot be forgiven, and the contrary.” Abelard attributes the quote to De vera et falsa penitentia, a work long misattributed to Augustine. Bede the Venerable, In epistulas catholicas, In Jac. 5.14–15 (ed. David Hurst, CCSL  121 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1984], 221–22 lines 182–83, 185–90; tr.  Hurst, Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles, CS 82 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1985), 61–63. When Hugh speaks of how “the witnesses to truth agree,” he means the dual witness of ­attesting sayings from the Fathers and the received penitential practice of the church. For more, see “Communal Forms of Penance” in James Dallen, The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance (New York: Pueblo, 1986), pp. 118–28, esp. 125–27.

N otes 21

22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

32 33

34

35

36 37 38 39 40



425

Ambrose, In Lucam 10.22 (M. Adriaen, CCSL 14 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1957]; PL 15.1823B). In the pardon of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36–50), a woman bathes Christ’s feet with tears of repentance, yet without enumerating her sins, but her sins are forgiven. Here, however, Ambrose is exegeting the passage in which Peter denies Christ three times, then repents with bitter weeping. In Lucam 10.88–90 discusses Luke 22:62. In 10.88, Ambrose writes: “Non invenio quid dixerit, invenio quod fleverit… Lavant lacrymae delictum quod voce pudor est confiteri.” In 10.89, Ambrose adds that when after Peter’s third betrayal Jesus looked at him, then Peter wept. Why does Hugh refer to Ambrose’s words with the phrase, “scripture consoling us”? In the first place, Ambrose was exegeting Luke, and so perhaps his summary of Luke is consoling. In the second place, however, Hugh does view the writings of the Church fathers as Scripture, grouping them after the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles (e.g., the epistles), as a third (vastly larger) category of New Testament writings; see: Didasc. 4.1–2 (Buttimer, 70–72; tr. Harkins, VTT 3:133–36). However, for Hugh taking a more moderate position on this topic, see Script. 6 (PL 175.15C–16B; tr. Van Liere, VTT 3:219). Cf. Ps 85[86]:5. Hugh seems to be thinking of the Last Judgment. Cf. Luke 22:6. Jer 3:3. For the Biblical account of the woman who anoints Christ’s feet, see: Luke 7:36–50 (the text Hugh is engaging); Matt 26:6–13; and Mark 14:3–9. Cf. Matt 3:8 and Luke 3:8. Abelard makes a similar point in his Ethica (Luscombe, 106–09); see McMahon, “Penance.” In speaking of the enumeration of the manner and measure of penance, Hugh seems to be referring to the penitentials. “Suffering” (afflictionem) here refers to the work of satisfaction: Even if no human confessor assigns the penance most appropriate to your particular sins, God sees the good will with which you accept the satisfaction you are assigned. That is, no priest. Job 34:30. This question comes from Elihu’s discourse to Job; its answer is given a few verses prior: God knows their works: and therefore he shall bring night on them, and they shall be destroyed (34:25). Ezek 3:26. Hugh’s text represents a variant from the standard text of the Vulgate, which reads: “and I will make your tongue stick fast to the roof of your mouth, and you shall be dumb, and not as a man that reproves: because they are a provoking house.” (Variant in italics.) The sense of this sentence makes the “non” surprising; the reader expects Hugh to say that someone with perfect devotion would have been able to be free of sin. Indeed, in Migne’s edition, the “non” is not present; however, I have followed the edition by Rainer Berndt, SJ, in which the “non” is presented without any textual commentary. One could argue that, with the negative of “nullo,” Hugh’s “tamen non” means only “tamen,” which would allow us to translate the sentence in a way which seems to fit the implied sense of the passage: “if you had had perfect devotion, you would have been able to be free (of sin), with no one admonishing you.” 1 Sam 16:7; in the Vulgate, 1 Kings 16:7. Hugh has slightly modified the original. 1 Cor 3:15. Heb 6:4–6. Heb 10:26. Although not recognized as a citation of Augustine in Berndt’s edition, this phrase became associated with Augustine. This precise phrase (locus non est secunde penitentie) is repeated by Gratian (Decretum 1 D. 50 d.p. c. 61–62), who mentions it in connection to Augustine with reference to one of his epistles [see the next pargraph] to Macedonius (1 D. 50 d.p. c. 62). Perhaps because of the proximity of these two lines, by the mid-twelfth century the phrase

426

41 42

43

44 45 46 47

48 49 50

51 52 53 54

55 56 57

H ugh of St   V ictor

itself becomes associated with Augustine’s epistles to Macedonius; see Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.14.1–4[5] (Quaracchi [1916], 819–28; tr. Silano, 4:69–77); Gratian, De poen. D. 3, c. 49 (ed. Lawson, 212); Chrysopolitanus, De concordia evangelistarum (PL 186.318D). In 413 or 414, Augustine wrote a no longer extant letter to Macedonius, the vicar of Africa, interceding on behalf of a condemned man. Macedonius agreed to present the petition but wondered if such intercession is rooted in the Christian religion: if the Lord so forbids sins that after a first penance no opportunity for a second penance is allowed, how can we claim in the name of religion that we should forgive any sort of crime (“si a Domino ideo prohibeatur, ut ne penitendi quidem copia post primum tribuatur, quemadmodum nos possumus ut nobis qualecumque illud crimen fuerit, dimittitur”: Ep. 152.2; PL 33.653; tr. Roland Teske, Letters 100–155, WSA 2/2 [Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1990], 388). Augustine replied with a long letter (Ep. 153, WSA 2/2, 407–15), explaining that he makes intercession for the guilty so that they will have an opportunity to amend. It  is true that public penance is allowed only once. However, God remains merciful. In spite of Augustine’s careful explanation to Macedonius, the latter’s statement (“ne penitendi quidem copia post primum tribuatur”) had a long life as an authority against forgiveness to those who fall into sin after having once been forgiven. Matt 18:22. Cf. Hugh of St Victor, Ep. 2 ad Ranulphum de Mauriaco (PL 176.1013B–1014B, here 1013C). Hugh wrote this letter in answer to four questions sent him. The fourth question concerned Hebrews 6:4–6. Hugh says the passage raises a serious issue, because it seems to take away the remedy of penance and lead sinners to despair. There are other interpretations: it either means a human being can sin on his own, but he cannot rise on his own, but needs the help of grace; or it means that a human being cannot be restored to what he would have been had he not sinned; or it means one cannot have a new redemption through a new death of Christ. Ps 77[78]:39b. The fuller context of this verse reads, but [God] is merciful, and will forgive their sins: and will not destroy them. And many a time did he turn away his anger: and did not kindle all his wrath. And he remembered that they are flesh: a wind that goes and does not return (Ps 77[78]:38–39). Prov 2:19. Cf. Hugh of St Victor, Ep. 2 (PL 176.1013C). Cf. Hugh of St Victor, Sent. div. (Piazzoni, 935 lines 265–66). Jerome, Ep. 22 ad Eustochium 5 (ed. and tr. F. A. Wright, Select Letters of St Jerome, Lob 22 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975], 62–63; see Jerome, Com. in prophetas minores, In Osee 1.1.2 (ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 76 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1969], 8). For this line and the preceding, see Hugh of St Victor, Ep. 2 (PL 176.1013CD). Cf. Gal 1:8; Hugh’s Latin varies from the standard Vulgate text. Hugh’s Latin is obtuse. Hugh seems to be saying that God can heal the “done deed” of the sinner’s spiritual wounds just as easily as God can heal the “done deed” of physical wounds. If one does not argue that miraculous physical healings cause God to contradict himself, why should that argument bear any weight when applied to the question of forgiving sin? Cf. Amos 5:1–2. Hugh of St Victor, Ep. 2 (PL 176.1013D–1014B). “Salutem,” meaning “health” or “salvation.” Hugh speaks of those who sin after receiving God’s grace as sinning “voluntarily” because, having received grace, they no longer sin necessarily, as do all those who do not have the aid of God’s grace. This opinion is offered, for example, by Gratian. See note 40. Ezek 33:12d–13 (Vetus Latina). St Paul speaks about the gift of the Holy Spirit as an arrha or pledge or downpayment on the future gift of salvation; see 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5, as well as Eph 1:14. For Hugh’s extensive

N otes

58 59 60

61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86



427

treatment of the arrha (God’s gifts) as the soul’s betrothal gift or earnest money, see De arrha animae (VTT 2:183–232). Cf. Ps 50[51]:19; Ezek 33:11b. Luke 2:14. In what follows, Hugh is arguing that moral responsibility and merit depend upon what one wills, not on whether one is able to do or act upon what one wills. This idea is simple, but his argument is lengthy and his language difficult to translate. There are two key terms. Voluntas means the power to will and choose, or the act of willing, or even desire. The first two meanings are interwoven in Hugh’s argument; the translation tries to pick the most appropriate rendering from the context. The other key term is opus, which means a work, deed, or action. This word is translated in a number of different ways here depending on the context. For example, in discussing those things which might impede the act of studying, Hugh lists faults of the intellect (such as carelessness) and of the will (such as imprudence), which would be internal faults, and then he lists faults of external circumstance, such as the lack of opportunity due to problems of money, health, talent, or teacher, which are faults of circumstances or history. While faults of the will exist voluntarily, and therefore the potential student is morally responsible for them, faults of circumstance do not, and therefore the would-be student is not. See Didasc. 5.5 (Buttimer, 102–04; tr. Harkins, VTT 3:155–57). Odo of Tournai, De peccato originali 3.17–20 (PL 160.1089). Cf. Mark 12:42 and Luke 21:2. Luke 7:47, cf. 1 Pet. 4:8. Luke 7:47. Luke 7:41–43. Luke 7:47. Luke 7:47. Luke 7:50. Cf. Luke 7:47. Luke 7:50. As is explained elsewhere, the liber penitentialis or penitential was a book which suggested specific acts of penance for specific sins. For an introduction to these penitentials and translations of primary Insular and Frankish examples, cf. John McNeill and Helena Gamer, ­Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990). Cf. Luke 17:12. Ezek 33:12–13 (Vetus Latina). Isa 52:6. Ps 31[32]:5. Impetratam, meaning “having obtained,” implies the act of obtaining through request, which is reflected in this translation. Mark 2:5–7. Cf. Matt. 22:13. Cf. John 11:43. After Jesus resuscitates Lazarus, he commands his disciples to untie Lazarus’ burial clothes. Gregory the Great, In Hiezechihelem 1.8.3 (ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 142 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1971], 102). Exod 22:28. For “God alone is good,” see Luke 18:19; for “God alone works miracles,” see Ps 71[72]:18; for “he has done miraculous things in his life,” see Sir 31:9. Matt 16:19. John 20:22–23. While lepers showed themselves to the Jewish priests in order to be declared clean, Hugh sees Christ’s command to the leper to show himself to the priests as implying a kind of taunt: Christ has worked a healing which the priests were powerless to effect. If this taunt is

428

87 88

89 90

91 92 93 94 95 96

97

98 99

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

H ugh of St   V ictor implied when the Jewish priests are reduced to the role of merely confirming physical healings and that reduced role deserves a kind of scorn, then that same scorn would befall the priests of the New Covenant if their role in spiritual healing were similarly nothing more than bearing witness to a work they themselves could not effect. Ezek 33:12–13 (Vetus Latina). The Patrologia Latina identifies this verse as Isa 58:9, while Berndt identifies it as Isa 65:24; perhaps the best attribution would be Isa 65:24a (“while yet they are still speaking”) for the first part, joined with Isa 58:9a for the second part (“I will say, ‘here I am’”). Ps 31[32]:5. Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis 3.29 (ed. Bruno Judic, Floribert Rommel, and Charles Morel, Règle pastorale 2, SC 382 [Paris: Cerf, 1992)], 474–75 lines 101–06, quoting Ps 31[32]:5). Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis 3.29 (Judic, Rommel, Morel, SC 382, 474–77 lines 109– 115. John 20:23. John 20:23. Mark 16:16. For “whoever eats my flesh,” see John 6:55; for “will not come to judgment,” see John 5:24; and for “for whoever eats,” see 1 Cor 11:29. As has been shown above, in the Augustinian tradition, sacraments are comprised of the physical sign (sacramentum), the thing symbolized by the physical sign (res sacramenti), and the power of the sacrament to effect a change in the recipient (virtus sacramenti). In  speaking about the virtus sacramenti to explain the possibility of a valid but fruitless reception of a sacrament, Hugh is using a technical term. Hugh’s appropriation of this ­Augustinian structure can be found at Sacr. 1.9.2. This formulation in the first clause echoes the tenth strophe of Lux iocunda, lux insignis, the sequence for Pentecost sung at the Abbey of St Victor: “You who are giver and gift, you are all that is good in our hearts, render the heart ready for praise… purge us from sins, and give the full joys of complete newness to us renewed in Christ.” Cf. Margot Fassler, Gothic Song (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 275–76. Ps 106[107]:43. Hugh has used the word “quaerere” and its derivatives seven times thus far in Sacr. 2.14.9. The first two occurrences are translated as “question”; the next five as “seek” or “sought.” Hugh will return to the word again at the very end of Sacr. 2.14.9. Matt 6:13; Luke 12:31. Matt 6:33. For  the passage from “these, truth and goodness” to “where salvation is,” see Richard of St Victor, Serm. centum 49 (PL 177.635). Here the translation follows Berndt’s edition which has Si rather than Sic and asserendum rather than afferendum. I try to translate “culpa” consistently as “fault,” though sometimes it could also be translated as “guilt.” The Latin is troublesome, but this seems to be its meaning. Bernard of Clairvaux, Consid. 5.6 (SBO 3:400 lines  13–14); Serm. de diversis 23.1 (SBO 6.1:179 lines 3–4). The Latin is also puzzling here. Ps 57:2. Ps 70:15–16. John 7:24. The forensic context of this argument, in which Hugh argues that one should use the same logic to make judgments about whether both merits and sins can be revivified, lends a legal coloring to Hugh’s Latin (stare), suggestive of the legal principle of stare decisis.

N otes 112 113 114 115 116

117 118 119

120

121

122

 429

Ezek 33:12–17. Jonah 3:4. Isa 38:1. Ezek 33:13. Matt 18:23–35. This passage was originally used by Augustine to argue for the return of sins in his argument with the Donatists about the valid, but fruitless, reception of baptism by those who, through the sin of pride, commit schism against the unity of the Church; see De baptismo contra Donatistas 1.12.20 (PL 43.120). Bernard of Clairvaux, Ep. 360 (SBO 8:306 line 8); Robert Pullen, Sententiae 5.34 (PL 186.857A). Ezek 18:25, 29. Nah 1:9. Hugh is quoting the Vetus Latina. In the Vulgate, this passage describes the impossibility of a second trial on account of the totality of God’s first judgment: “What do ye devise against the Lord? He will make an utter end: there shall not rise a double affliction.” In his discussion of whether baptism received by a schismatic can save, Augustine argued that the reception of baptism always infuses a charity by which sins are forgiven, but that the prideful schismatic immediately vitiates that charity by the refusal of participation in the universal communion of the church. Augustine’s formulation is similar to Hugh’s: “So the grace of baptism is not prevented from giving remission of all sins, even if he to whom they are forgiven continues to cherish hatred towards his brother in his heart. For the guilt of yesterday is remitted, and all that was before it, nay, even the guilt of the very hour and moment previous to baptism, and during baptim itself. But then he immediately begins again to be responsible, not only for the days, hours, moments which ensue, but also for the past—the guilt of all the sins which were remitted returning on him…” (De bapt. c. Donatistas 1.12.20 (PL 43.120; NPNF 4.420). The  argument Hugh presents seems to be that a first penalty matches a first fault, until that fault is removed through a first repentance, and a second penalty matches a second fault, until that second lapse (or relapse) is matched anew with repentance; thus, a first fault cannot be matched to two punishments (punishment prior to repentance and renewed punishment when that repentance lapses) nor two faults matched to one punishment (the first fault of committing a sin and the second fault of returning to wickedness cannot be matched to the single initial repentance for the first sin). The brevity of his prose, however, requires interpretation. See Ps 142[143]:2.

HISTORICAL SETTING 2: PENANCE FROM GRATIAN TO RICHARD OF ST VICTOR INTRODUCTION

Gratian’s Concordia discordantium canonum (Decretum) and Peter Lombard’s Liber sententiarum were written within twenty years of Hugh of St Victor’s death in 1141. From the twelfth to the sixteenth century and beyond, Gratian’s Decretum was the standard textbook of canon law, and Lombard’s Sentences was the textbook for theology students. The questions raised by these two textbooks were the grist for theologians’ mills, as scholars worked to formulate a coherent theology for the practice of penance as it had evolved up to their time.1 Gratian Gratian’s discussion of penance in the Decretum “was the most influential discussion of penance throughout the rest of the Middle Ages.”2 Gratian wrote the Decretum, including De  poenitentia, for teaching purposes. He wanted to train clerical students how to apply the arts of the trivium to the study of Scripture, the Fathers, and the canons. His goal was to produce educated, pastorally effective priests. Very little is known of his life. He was a teacher of canon law in Bologna. The recently identified first recension of the Decretum was probably completed by 1133, and the second recension, which subsequently 1

2

Giulio Silano, introduction to his translation, Peter Lombard, The Sentences, 4 vols, Mediaeval Sources in Translation 42, 43, 45, 48 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2007–10), 1:vii–viii, 4:xxi–xxii. What follows is based mainly on Atria Larson, Master of Penance: Gratian and the Development of Penitential Thought and Law in the Twelfth Century, Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law 11 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University Press of America, 2014); John U. Wei, Gratian the Theologian, Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law 13 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2016); and Atria Larson, Gratian’s Tractatus de penitentia: A New Latin Edition with English Translation, Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law 14 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2016). Joseph Goering, “The Scholastic Turn (1100–1500): Penitential Theology and Law in the Schools,” in Firey, New History, 221.

432

2 – PENANCE FROM GRATION TO RICHARD OF ST VICTOR

received many additions (paleae), was completed around 1140.3 There is no evidence that Gratian knew the writings of either Hugh of St Victor or Abelard. It is thought likely that he was a monk and priest, who later became a bishop (probably of Chiusi). His education brought him into touch with the scholarly methods and outlook of Anselm of Laon (d. 1117) and his school. Like Alger of Liège in his Liber de misericordia et iustitia (c. 1095–1121), and Abelard in Sic et non (1121–32), Gratian collected authorities on various issues in canon law and theology, but more than his predecessors he succeeded through careful analyses (dicta) in bringing them into harmony. Gratian was able to draw on three earlier canonical collections, two of which, by Regino of Prüm and Burchard of Worms, were discussed earlier. The third was the Collectio canonum by Anselm of Lucca (d. 1086), who compiled it during the last years of his life. Gratian’s Decretum has three parts. In the first part, he intersperses auctoritates with his own commentary (dicta). This first part is divided into 101 distinctiones. Distinctiones 1–20 discuss the nature and types of law; the rest deal with Holy Orders. The second part is divided into 36 cases (causae). Each case is followed by questions and answers. The third part of the Decretum deals mainly with liturgical issues and consists mostly of auctoritates.4 Gratian’s treatise on penance occurs in the second part, which like the first contains auctoritates and dicta, and is probably the oldest part of the Decretum. Gratian attaches his discussion of penance as quaestio 3 to a causa or case about impotency in marriage, in which the husband needs to reconcile himself with God. It contains seven distinctions that were not numbered in Gratian’s original text but that, helpfully, later were. The last three distinctions are much shorter than the first four. 1. Is a person “able to make satisfaction to God by contrition of the heart alone and secret satisfaction without oral confession?”5 3

4

5

The first recension of Gratian’s treatise on penance is edited by Larson, Gratian’s Tractatus. The standard edition of the second recension of the entire Decretum is Emil Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici 1 (Leipzig: B. Tauchnitz, 1879). Some scholars think that there was a still earlier recension. Gratian’s treatise on penance will be cited here from Larson’s edition. Wei, Gratian the Theologian, 229–96, cautions against thinking of Gratian as a sacramental theologian or liturgist, partially because the third part of the Decretum, De consecratione, may be a later addition, but also because Gratian concentrated his interest on the nature and rite of penance, at a time when the other sacraments were not subject to urgent debate. Much of the liturgy was a matter of local custom, and Gratian did not think such customs were a matter for law. De poenitentia, prol. (Larson, Tractatus, 2.5–7): “utrum sola cordis contritione, et secreta satisfactione, absque oris confessione quis que possit Deo satisfacere.”

I ntroduction



433

2. Can love (caritas) be lost? 3. Can one be truly repentant and later fall into sin? 4. If someone repents his sins and performs penance, and then sins again and dies before further penance, will he be punished not just for the later sins, but also for the earlier sins that he repented? 5. What attitude should a penitent have and what actions should he perform? 6. What are the proper attitude and procedures for a confessor? 7. Deathbed repentance.6

A summary of these seven distinctions will lay the groundwork for a study of the works on penance by Richard of St Victor and Peter of Poitiers, and will show how the questions that Hugh’s predecessors and contemporaries asked about penance continued to be discussed after him. Distinction 1: Is a Person “able to make satisfaction to God” by Contrition of Heart Alone and Secret Satisfaction without Oral Confession?7 It is important to define the scope of the question, which like most of Gratian’s discussion of penance is concerned with serious sins (crimina). Does “without” mean “before”? Scholars are not agreed on the answer to this question. Larson argues that the question here is when does forgiveness occur and presupposes that one reconciled to God through contrition will still go to confession to a priest, so Gratian is posing a very specific question about forgiveness through contrition. Wei, by contrast, thinks that Gratian is asking whether one can be reconciled to God and not need or intend to confess afterward to a priest. In the former interpretation, one might die before having a opportunity to confess to a priest, or in the absence of a priest confess to a lay person, but sincere contrition requires that one intend to confess to a priest. In the latter interpretation, interior confession makes confession to a priest unnecessary.8 Gratian offers many arguments in support of both answers to the question, but ends by saying both positions “have wise and religious supporters,” and so he leaves it to the reader to decide. Because they are very often cited and appear in the Victorine texts on penance, two arguments that pertain to the ­allegorical interpretation of 6 7 8

Larson, Tractatus, xv–xxx; Larson, Master, 1–28. De penitatentia, prol. (Larson, 2.5–7), cited in footnote 5. Larson, Master, 35–40; Wei, Gratian the Theologian, 103–19.

434

2 – PENANCE FROM GRATION TO RICHARD OF ST VICTOR

New Testament miracle stories will serve as examples of the arguments Gratian considers.9 On the one hand, some say, “anyone can merit mercy for an evil deed without confession to the church and the judgment of a priest.”10 They argue that lepers “whom the Lord ordered to show themselves to the priests were cleansed before they came to the priests.” To “show that the sinner is cleaned not by sacerdotal judgment but by the greatness of God’s grace, he cleansed the leper by his touch and afterward ordered him to offer a sacrifice to the priest according to the law.”11 So also, Lazarus came out of the tomb alive; he did not come out and then receive resuscitation. Referring to Psalm 87:11 and Sirach 17:26, Gratian continues: “before each one confesses his sin, through the grace of internal compunction he is absolved from the guilt of his eternal damnation by which eternal punishments were owed him.”12 On the other hand, “others testify to the contrary, saying that no one is able to be cleansed without oral confession and a work of satisfaction.”13 Christ cleansed some from leprosy, but the pleading of their voice or that of their friends preceded the healing in every case.14 Before they reached the priests, the ten lepers were cleaned. “For this reason it is clear that the Lord looks at their hearts when, by necessity, men are hindered from reaching priests.” Otherwise, they need to confess to a priest to be forgiven.15 “Martha and Mary wept, making supplication for their brother. The crowd that had followed Mary also 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

For these two passages, Larson, Master of Penance, 47 n35, refers to Jerome, In Matt. 3.16 (PL 26.118) and Gregory, Hom. ev. 2.26.5–6 (Étaix, Blanc, Judic, SC 522, 144–48). Paul Anciaux, La théologie du sacrement de pénitence au xiie siècle (Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1949), 38–39, 168–74, cites patristic texts and gives many references to later authors who refer back to them. Larson, Tractatus, 2–3. Larson, Tractatus, 18–19. The account of the healing of the ten lepers is found in Luke 10:10– 19. Accounts of healing a single leper are found in Matt 8:1–4; Luke 5:12–14. Larson, Tractatus, 20–21. Larson, Tractatus, 24–25. Larson, Tractatus, 48–49. De penitentia, D.1, c. 88, citing De vera et falsa penitentia 10 (PL 40.1122–23; Larson, Tractatus, 84–85). Gratian, like his contemporaries, qualifies the need to confess to a priest with phrases such as “si tempus satisfaciendi habuerit” (“if he has time to make satisfaction”). In her 1995 University of Toronto PhD dissertation, Karen Wagner dated the De vera et falsa penitentia between 1000 and 1140. Alessandra Castanzo, “Una nuova datazione del De vera et falsa penitentia,” Christianismo nella storia, 31:3 (2010): 809–40, thinks that chapters 2–7 of the work are from the seventh or eighth centuries, chapters 9–18 from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, and chapters 1, 8, 19, and 20 from the early twelfth-century before Gratian. On this, see Larson, Tractatus, 207 n5.

I ntroduction



435

wept, having been incited by her tears. In these examples, we are taught that not one’s own merit, but that of the Church, suffices for those sinning publicly.” The Lord “presented Lazarus to his disciples to be loosed after he had already been raised from the grave, showing through this occurrence that the power to loose had been granted to priests.”16 Distinction 2: Can Someone Possess Caritas and then Lose It by Sin? Gratian deals with this question in preparation for the next one about whether penance can be repeated? If a person cannot lose love once he has it, and if genuine contrition requires love, then a true penitent will not sin again. Gratian presents a few authorities who say that love once possessed cannot be lost, but most of the authorities he cites support his position that love once possessed can then be lost. In formulating the argument that charity cannot be lost, Gratian looks to predestination. In divine foreknowledge, the elect have love eternally and so cannot lose it.17 However, his opinion is that while perfect love cannot be lost, in this life love is a seed that can grow if it is properly cultivated. Love’s growth or decline or loss correlate with the performance or non-performance of good works. The Old Testament provides many examples, such as Adam, Moses, and David. Satan is an example of one who once had love but fell. The reprobate can love for a time, then cease loving. God’s perfect love is unchangeable. In comparison to divine love, other loves seem bogus, but they are true in their own way.18 Distinction 3: Can a Person Truly Repent if He then Falls Back into Sin and so Must Repent Again? If it were true that love once had could never be lost, then neither would penance need to be repeated. However, penance can be genuine even if a person later sins again and has to repeat penance. Penance and sin cannot coexist, but one can follow the other more than once. 16 17

18

De penitentia, D.1, c. 88, citing De vera et falsa penitentia 10 (PL 40.1122–23; Larson, Gratian’s Tractatus, 82–85). Larson, Master, 105–07, notes that in Sacr. 2.13.11, “On virtues and vices” (PL 176.540D–541B), Hugh of St Victor asked, “Utrum caritas semel habita amittatur?” He said it is important to distinguish time and eternity, the realms of change and unchangeableness, when considering it. An anonymous treatise from northern Italy, Ut autem hoc evidenter, asks the same question and answers it in the affirmative, as Hugh and Gratian do. Larson, Master, 100–35.

436

2 – PENANCE FROM GRATION TO RICHARD OF ST VICTOR

To justify his position, Gratian had to explain certain auctoritates, including one from Pseudo-Ambrose via Gregory mentioned above, in which penance is defined as “lamenting past evils and not committing again the evils to be lamented.”19 Gratian interprets this and similar authorities to mean either that one cannot be penitent for one’s sin and at the same time commit another sin of the same or a different kind, or that they referred to the ancient solemn form of penance, which could only be performed once. Otherwise, penance admits of varying degrees that can be genuine. If someone makes satisfaction for one sin, but not for another, when she repents the second sin she does not need to make satisfaction again for the first sin. Like the sacramentum of an ineffective baptism, the satisfaction for the first sin remains in place and becomes effective when the second sin is repented, because then the virtus of the sacrament becomes operative.20 Moreover, Gratian thought that although false penance does not bring salvation, it may bring temporal benefit or lessen eternal punishment. For these reasons, Gratian thought priests should admit false penitents to penance.21 Distinction 4: Whether Forgiven Sins Return? Because it has now been shown “that penance is fully celebrated and sins are truly forgiven for the person who at some time will fall back into a wicked deed, it is asked whether forgiven sins return.”22 There are two aspects to this question. Would someone who repented, then relapsed, and never again repented for the later sins, be punished for the former sins after his death? Secondly, are sons punished for the sins of their fathers? Gratian, like Hugh of St Victor,23 opted for the opinion that the punishment for sins once forgiven is applied to a recidivist who did not repent. Those who argued that punishment was reinstated cited the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:21–35). Those who took 19

20 21 22 23

Ps.-Ambrose, Sermo 25 (PL 17.655AB); Gregory, Hom. ev. 2.34.15 (Étaix, Blanc, Judic, SC 52, 354; tr. Hurst, CS123, 284); Sententiae Anselmi 17.2–3 (Bliemetzrieder, 123); Abelard, Ethica (Luscombe, 90.4–8). Larson, Master, 136–57, 165–67. Larson, Master, 157–65. On fictive baptism, see, Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.11.11 (PL 176.498AD); Abelard, Sic et non 111 (Boyer and MeKeon, 363–66). Larson, Tractatus, 214–15. Sacr. 2.14.9 (PL  176.571D–578A; translation above). The  Summa sententiarum 6.13.1 (PL 176.150C–151D) took the opposite view. Peter Lombard (Sent. 4.21.1; tr. Silano, 4:132–34) left the question open.

I ntroduction



437

the opposite view argued that it would not be fair to punish a sinner twice for the same sin. Those who thought that the sins of parents brought punishment on their children cited Psalm 108:14, where David asks that the sins of his enemies’ parents be remembered. Gratian’s discussion of this question takes him to a distinction between forgiveness according to righteousness and forgiveness according to prescience. A penitent’s sins are forgiven according to righteousness, even if God knows through foreknowledge that the sinner will not persevere in his repentance.24 Gratian’s solution to the question itself is that the sins of fathers return when their sons also incur guilt (culpa) through their own iniquity.25 Thus far, Gratian has dealt with some of the major issues raised by theologians of his time regarding penance. In the process, he has considered many related theological issues. He has assembled authorities from Scripture, the Fathers, especially Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory, and the writings emanating from Anselm of Laon and his school. In the remaining three questions of De penitentia, he quotes almost exclusively from Pseudo-Augustine, De vera et falsa penitentia. Distinction 5: What Things Should a Penitent Confess? In considering his sins, the penitent should specify what, where, when, how voluntarily, and how often he sinned. In the next distinction, Gratian will say the priest should consider these things also. The existence of this question is evidence of a growing emphasis in penance on self-reflection, as the penitent ponders her lack of virtue, the possible loss of glory, the bad example she has given, the pain she has caused others, and the offense she has given to God, all of which should lead to genuine contrition. The penitent should withdraw from occasions of sin, confess all her sins to one priest, give alms, and abstain from the Eucharist if she is not truly penitent.

24

25

This distinction was formulated by Ambrosiaster and came to Gratian through Anselm of Laon’s gloss on Romans 9. On this, see Larson, Master, 176–80. A sentence of Anselm’s carried the distinction to Peter Abelard, Sic et non 26 (Boyer and McKeon, 169.6–16) and Peter Lombard, Collectanea in ep. ad Rom. 9 (PL 191.1467C–1468B). Hugh of St Victor, Adnot. in Exod. 32 (PL 175.73B; Berndt, CV 3, 244) also seems to have known this distinction through the school of Laon. In Decretum C.1, q. 4 and C.24, q. 3, Gratian dealt with related questions and concluded that a person cannot be punished for another’s sin unless he imitates the sin and becomes guilty himself.

438

2 – PENANCE FROM GRATION TO RICHARD OF ST VICTOR

Distinction 6: To what Sort of Person Should One Confess? One should confess to a wise and conscientious priest. If there is no priest available one should confess to a layperson, even though such a person lacks the power to loose. Such a confession will still receive mercy. The priest to whom one confesses should be united to the Church, have removed his own sins, be kind and compassionate, and offer prayers and alms and other good works for the penitent. Gratian recognized that the canons required that one confess to one’s own parish priest. One cannot go to another priest just because one does not like one’s own. However, if one’s parish priest is incompetent, one can look elsewhere. Distinction 7: Deathbed Repentance One can do penance at any time, but it is dangerous to put it off until one is dying. Gratian cites a sermon that was attributed to St Augustine, “Penitentes, penitentes”: If anyone placed in the last necessity of his illness wants to accept penance, accepts it and is immediately reconciled, and departs hence, I confess to you we do not deny him what he seeks, but we do not presume that he is leaving here well. For if you want to do penance when you can no longer sin, then it is your sins that are sending you away rather than you that are sending them away.26

In other parts of the Decretum, Gratian deals with three practical issues about penance.27 If a cleric falls into serious sin and is sincerely repentant, he may be restored to his former rank, but he may not be advanced to a higher one. Secondly, Gratian sided with those who said a monk could be a priest and so have the power to administer penance. He could exercise that power only when he had been assigned the cura animarum. However, when the salvation of souls was at stake, Gratian said a penitent is allowed to confess to a worthy priest who was not his pastor (sacerdos proprius), and that the priest could be a monk. The third question was whether an excommunicated person needed to be absolved by his bishop. Gratian answered that ordinarily a priest 26

27

The sermon is included as Sermo 63 in Germain Morin’s edition of Caesarius of Arles’ Sermones, CCSL 103, 272–74; it is cited in Latin and English in Larson, Master, 215. She discusses the complex development of Distinctions 5–7 in Master, 218–36, and of Distinction 7, cc. 2–4 in Master, Appendix A, 501–05. Larson discusses these in Master, 237–70.

I ntroduction



439

could absolve such a person only if he had permission from the bishop. However, if the excommunicated person was dying, any priest could absolve him, even if it was not possible to consult the bishop. Moreover, if no priest was available, a dying person could confess to a layperson. In his treatment of these three issues, Gratian applies the principles that guided his theology of penance. Once a sin was forgiven by penance, it was abolished, and the penitent was reinstated in his previous state. In the administration of penance, ordination and episcopal authority were extremely important. True penitence was the determining factor in penance. Such penance was the gift of a merciful God. Peter Lombard Gratian influence on later twelfth-century thought was pervasive. Peter Lombard bequeathed his copy of Gratian’s Decretum to the chapter of Notre-Dame in 1160. He used it, or another copy, extensively in his Sententiae in quatuor libros distinctae (final recension 1155–57). Peter’s theology of penance was influenced much more by Gratian than by Abelard or Hugh of St Victor. He used Gratian flexibly, selecting among his auctoritates and dicta, shortening some, correcting others, sometimes using them in a way different from Gratian’s use of them.28 In what follows, it will be enough to summarize Peter Lombard’s discussion of penance briefly, giving his conclusions rather than his arguments.29 In Distinctions 1–26 of the fourth book of the Sentences, Peter Lombard considers the sacraments, which he identifies as seven in number. He begins in distinction 1 with the definition of a sacrament, their purpose, and the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision. Then he discusses baptism (d. 2–6), confirmation (d. 7), Eucharist (d. 8–13), penance (d. 14–22), anointing (d. 23), orders (d. 24–25), and marriage (d. 26). Each distinction is divided into chapters. The space he devotes 28

29

Larson, Master, 315–42. The Latin text of Peter Lombard’s sentences is edited in Libri IV Sententiarum, 2nd ed. (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1916), and Sententiae in IV libros disttinctae, ed. Ignatius Brady, 3rd ed. (Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1971). There are English translations of his treatment of penance by Elizabeth Frances Rogers, Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System (PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York, 1917) and Giulio Silano, The Sentences 4, Mediaeval Sources in Translation 48 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010). For other summaries and brief commentaries on Sent. 4:14–22, see Silano, Sentences, 4: xxii–xxxvi; Philipp Rosemann, Peter Lombard, Great Medieval Thinkers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 158–68.

440

2 – PENANCE FROM GRATION TO RICHARD OF ST VICTOR

to penance indicates its importance for Peter Lombard and the complexity of the theoretical and pastoral tradition he inherited.30 Distinction 14 Peter begins by stating the importance of penance. “Penance is necessary for those who are far away, so that they may draw near.” It is a second plank after shipwreck, a restoration of the garment of innocence, and a return to newness of life. The baptismal reference of these metaphors is clear. Unlike baptism, penance can be repeated. Penance is a sacrament and a virtue (c. 1). By the virtue of penance, “we bewail and hate with the purpose of amendments the evils we have committed, and we will not to commit again the things we have bewailed” (c. 3).31 Nevertheless, even if penance is sincere, one may still fall into sin again. Solemn penance may be performed only once, but in other cases it is clear “that through penance it is possible to rise from sins, not only once but frequently, and to do true penance many times” (c. 5).32 Distinction 15 The one who is bound by several sins cannot truly repent and be forgiven unless he repents all of them (cc. 1–3). Similarly, one cannot be unrepentant for one mortal sin and make satisfaction for that sin by almsgiving. Good works done without charity may lessen punishment but they do not obtain eternal life (cc. 4–6). Likewise, one cannot truly repent having stolen something that can be returned if one does not return it (c. 9).33 Distinction 16 There are three components of penance: compunction of heart, confession of the mouth, and satisfaction in deed (c. 1). The penitent needs to consider all the circumstances of his sin. He should confess all his sins to one priest (c. 2). Satisfaction for grave sins is different from the satisfaction made for daily sins, for which the Our Father, and 30 31 32

33

Silano, Sentences, 4: xxii. D.14, c3 (Silano, Sentences, 4:71–72). Peter is citing Gregory the Great. See note 19 above. Silano, Sentences, 4:69–77. Throughout this section, references to the Sentences will be to Silano’s English translation. Chapter numbers will be inserted in the text. It does not seem necessary to give references to the Latin version, since Silano’s translation makes reference by distinction and chapter very easy. Silano, Sentences, 77–88.

I ntroduction



441

some fasting or almsgiving, suffice as long as there is contrition and, if possible, confession (c. 6).34 Distinction 17 What is the relationship between confession to God and confession to a priest or layman? As was noted above, this is a question that Gratian dealt with at length in the first distinction of De penitentia. Peter argues that contrition of the heart brings forgiveness, but confession to a priest is necessary, unless there is no opportunity for such a confession (c. 1). Peter distinguishes and answers three questions. Sin is remitted by confession of the heart, if one intends to confess. Both contrition and confession to a priest are from God, so it is not sufficient to confess to God alone if there is time to confess to a priest. Someone who does not desire and respect the priest’s judgment is not truly contrite (c. 3). Only priests have the power of binding and loosing and so, if they remit someone’s sins, God remits them. However, if no priest is available, one should confess to a neighbor or a friend. One should confess to a priest who knows how to bind and loose (c. 4).35 If sins are forgiven when the sinner is contrite in his heart, what is the purpose of confession? For one thing, confession of the mouth and satisfaction in deed are forms of punishment. For another, confession makes the sinner more humble and careful (c. 5).36 Distinction 18 The question still remains, what does the priest remit (c. 1)? Some say God absolves from sin, but the priest absolves from the debt of eternal punishment. Peter says that a better opinion is that God absolves from both (cc. 2–4). God gave priests the power of binding and loosing, that is, of showing or declaring that people are bound or loosed (c. 5). Priests also bind when they impose or partially remit satisfaction required of those who come to them for confession, or when they reconcile someone to sacramental communion (c. 6).37 34 35

36 37

Silano, Sentences, 88–93. In conjunction with this, Peter cites De vera et falsa penitentia 10 to the effect that the healing of the lepers on their way to show themselves to the priest indicates that God looks to the heart when penitents are prevented from confessing to a priest, and the raising of Lazarus shows that for public sinners it is not their own merit but the Church’s that suffices. Silano, Sentences, 4:94–105. See also the commentary of Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 162–67. Silano, Sentences, 4:105–14.

442

2 – PENANCE FROM GRATION TO RICHARD OF ST VICTOR

Distinction 19 The bishop gives the keys to someone promoted to the priesthood (c. 1). Some priests have discernment before ordination; others lack it even after they are ordained. Some think only wise and worthy, discrete and just priests receive the power, but Peter thinks that all priests do, but only wise and worthy priests exercise it knowledgeably and worthily. No priests should judge in others sins from which they are not free themselves (cc. 2–4).38 Distinction 20 The time for repentance lasts until the final moment of life. However, not all deathbed penances are accompanied by charity; without charity, no one can be saved (c. 1). Further, deathbed repentance allows no time for satisfaction. However, if a dying person’s contrition is very great, it can suffice for penance; otherwise, those dying with their penance uncompleted will be punished in purgatorial fire, which is more severe than earthly penance. For making penance, the extent of sorrow is more important than the duration of the penance (cc. 2–3). The priest should not impose a satisfaction on a dying man, but he should tell him what it is so that, if he should recover, he can do the penance (c. 4). In time of necessity, penance and reconciliation should never be denied (c. 5). Apart from such necessity, a priest should consult his bishop before reconciling an excommunicated person (c. 6). If someone dies without completing his penance, his relatives can make an offering on his behalf (c. 7).39 Distinction 21 Some venial sins are burned away by correcting fire after this life (c. 1). If someone forgets a serious sin, but confesses the sins he can remember, the forgotten sin is forgiven. Forgotten sins and venial sins are confessed daily in church (c. 7). No one should confess a sin he has not committed (c. 8). If a priest betrays the sins of penitents to others, he should be deposed. One should confess to one’s own priest40 unless he is ignorant (c. 9). 38 39 40

Silano, Sentences, 4:114–20. Silano, Sentences, 4:120–26. Silano, Sentences, 4:126–32.

I ntroduction

 443

Distinction 22.c. 1 Whether sins remitted in a true confession return, if the penitent refused to make confession or satisfaction, or fell into the same sin is a complex and disputed question. Peter leaves the judgment about this to the judicious reader.41 Distinction 22.c. 2 Some say that the sacramentum is the outward penance that is the sign of inner penance. Others say that outward penance is the sacrament alone, inward penance is the sacramentum et res, and remission of sins is the res tantum. Thus, it will frequently happen that the res et sacramentum precedes the sacramentum tantum.42 Gratian’s Decretum and Peter Lombard’s Sentences to 1170 It was indicated above how indebted Peter Lombard was to Gratian’s Decretum. He used it as a source of sententiae, theological ideas, and questions. That also was how other theologians used the Decretum for the half century following its publication. The Decretists, who succeeded Gratian in teaching canon law in Bologna, either glossed or annotated Gratian’s De penitentia or referred to him in their own summae of canon law, agreeing or disagreeing with what he had written. The treatise on penance was usually not a major focus of these early summae of canon law; insofar as they dealt with penance, they concentrated on the first distinction. When by the 1170s canon law was distinguished from theology, Gratian’s De penitentia was seen as a theological treatise, which did not need detailed discussion by canonists. In their theological books, masters did give Gratian’s De penitentia considerable attention. They used it, as they did the Summa sententiarum of Odo of Lucca,43 as a source of authorities on penance, a guide on how to interpret them, and as a source of ideas. The Sententiae divinitatis44 from the mid-1140s used Gratian, as well as Abelard and the writings of the circle of Gilbert de la Porrée. The Sententiae Rolandi45 41 42 43 44 45

Silano, Sentences, 4:132–34. Silano, Sentences, 4:134–35. Odo (bishop of Lucca from 1137), Summa sententiarum (PL 176.41C–174A). Sententiae divinitatis, ed. Berhard Geyer, BGPTMA 7.2–3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1909; repr. 1967). Die Sentenzen Rolands, ed. Fr. Ambrosius Gietl (Freiberg: Herder, 1891; repr. Amersterdam: Rodopi, 1969).

444

2 – PENANCE FROM GRATION TO RICHARD OF ST VICTOR

(c. 1155) made more extensive use of Gratian’s De penitentia, and for the most part adhered to Gratian’s positions.46 Peter Lombard taught his sentences twice between 1156 and 1158. His work was first used by abbreviators and glossators, who provided study aids in the form of synopses, charts, glossaries, and continuous glosses, some of which referred to other masters’ opinions. The first full commentaries on the Sentences are those of Stephen Langton († 1228) and Alexander of Hales, who was the first master known to use the Lombard’s Sententiae as a classroom text (1223).47

46 47

Larson, Master, 343–81. Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 201–04; see Odon Lottin, “Le premier commentaire connu des Sentences de Pierre Lombard,” RTAM 12 (1939): 64–71.

RICHARD OF ST VICTOR: ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PUNISHMENT OF MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN INTRODUCTION

Someone had asked Richard about the difference between mortal and venial sin.1 He is not satisfied with the answer he gave and so he is writing a letter with a more carefully thought out response. If the recipient is the Bernard to whom some of the other opuscula that were copied with it were addressed, he must have lived close to Paris.2 The text was probably without a title originally. The interlocutor’s magistri have distinguished mortal and venial sins by the punishment they receive. This raises the question: what if any punishments do venial sins add to the eternal punishment that mortal sins receive? Richard answers that venial sins receive temporal punishment, mortal sins eternal punishment. Gregory the Great wrote that the punishment of the damned is eternal for both kinds of sins, but with different severity.3 Robert of Melun thought that the damned are punished for their venial sins not by an eternal punishment but in an eternal punishment.4 In a quaestio, Odo of Ourscamp suggested that the damned in hell receive a temporal punishment for their venial sins, or they are punished for them at the moment of death. Simon of Tournai cites an axiom found in this text of Richard’s, “in hell there is no redemption,” and concludes that the damned are punished in every moment of eternity for their venial sins, but not with an eternal punishment.5 At the end of this letter, Richard attempts to define the two kinds of sin by their essence rather than by the punishments they deserve. 1 2 3 4 5

What follows is based on Ribaillier, Opuscules théologiques, 283–86. On this Bernard, see VTT 6:215–16. Mor. 34.19.36 (Adriaen, CCSL 143B, 1759). Quest. de div. pag. 41 (Martin, 1:24). J. Warichez, Les Disputationes de Simon de Tournai, Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense 12 (1932), 77, 119, 173.

446

R IC HA R D D E ST V IC T O R

He writes that mortal sin is distinguished by three characteristics: it greatly harms the sinner, it greatly harms a neighbor, or it involves contempt of God (contemptus Dei). Abelard had said something similar, but held that every sin, by being contempt of God, was mortal unless it was merely an imperfection or the result of negligence.6 Richard’s opinion is more nuanced. He thinks there can be slight contempt of God that is venial. He adds an objective element: mortal sin is a grave offense against God, neighbor, or self. Here, he is close to Hugh of St Victor, who taught that venial sins are those that are not easily avoided, cause no grave harm, and do not involve great haughtiness. Venial sins are not premeditated.7 Richard considers the distinction between mortal and venial sin at greater length in De statu interioris hominis.8

6 7 8

Ethica 15 (PL 178.658B). Sacr. 2.13.1 (PL 176.526BC). Statu 40 (Ribaillier, 111–12; tr. Evans, VTT 6:290–91).

O N T H E P U N I SH M E N T O F M O RTA L A N D V E N IA L SI N

 447

TRANSLATION

Because I was not able to give a satisfying answer to your question verbally, I will try to do so in writing, if it can be done.1 You say that you have learned from your masters2 that venial sin is punished by temporal punishment, but mortal sin merits everlasting punishment. You proceed to ask concerning those who, Job says, pass their days in prosperity and in an instant descend to the netherworld.3 If with mortal and venial sin they were seized and surprised by death, did venial sin add something to the punishment they underwent for mortal sin? I did not dare to deny this because it is believed that no sin goes unpunished. However, you continue, asking whether that additional punishment is eternal. I also do not presume to deny this, since I read and believe that there is no redemption in hell.4 What, then, you say, of that opinion of our masters by which the two are distinguished, if both are punished by an eternal punishment? How can it be called venial, if it merits no pardon in eternity?5 If it does deserve pardon, why does the just Judge extend no pardon to it for all eternity? Would it not seem that the one handed over to this kind of eternal death, even if the penalty for all serious sins were removed, would suffer eternally only the punishment inflicted on him for venial sin? Therefore, by this reasoning, would not then such a sin more rightly be called mortal rather than venial? If it is called venial by comparison to grave sin, then fornication can be called a venial sin by comparison to adultery, and adultery a venial sin by comparison to obscene acts. These are the things you set out and wonder about. However, if you try by a single argument to show that both of these kinds of sin are mortal, I am surprised that you do not likewise turn your attention to another way of looking at this and argue that both are venial. Just as in some people both are punished by an eternal punishment, so in certain ones both are punished by a temporal punishment. Just as in the unrepentant and disdainful both are punished by eternal punishment, so in those who confess and are truly penitent both are cleansed by temporal punishment. So, then, will a sin be both venial and not venial, mortal and not mortal? If you wish to differentiate the two properly, you must turn your attention to what each does independently of the other. Think if someone rich in many merits departs this life with one venial sin. He is prevented by death from having a space in which he can confess or repent. For that, will he incur eternal death rather than receive pardon

448

R IC HA R D D E ST V IC T O R

by a temporal cleansing punishment? Think of another person well exercised in good works who happens suddenly to fall into one mortal sin and, prevented by sudden death, has no opportunity to confess or repent. Do you think he can escape eternal punishment by a temporal punishment? Who would say that or presume to say it? From these examples, I think one can understand what at least those who believe in Christ think that each of these does in itself, and how rightly one is called venial and the other mortal. Notice that I think my position is not very different from the opinion of your teachers, if we think about the meaning rather than the words. In order to say what I think about what you ask and briefly distinguish between venial and mortal sin, it seems to me that a venial sin, committed by those reborn in Christ, by itself never leads to eternal punishment, even if a penitential remedy is lacking, but a mortal sin, even if it is only one, if the remedy of penitence is lacking, leads to eternal death. For those reborn in Christ, a venial sin taken by itself always pertains to pardon, but a mortal sin taken by itself always pertains to eternal death. It seems to me that mortal sin is rightly distinguished by three things.6 A sin is mortal if one cannot commit it without grave corruption to oneself. Likewise, a sin is mortal if it cannot be committed without grave harm to one’s neighbor. Finally, a sin is mortal if it cannot be committed without great contempt of God.7 All other sins seem to me to be venial. Someone is guilty of venial sin insofar as, taken in itself alone, by the mediation of faith, it never makes him deserving of eternal damnation. Someone is guilty of mortal sin for whom, insofar as it is taken in itself, it always merits eternal damnation.8

N otes

 449

NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

This translation is based on the edition De differentia peccati mortalis et venialis by J. Ribaillier, in Richard de Saint-Victor, Opuscules théologiques, 290–96. See, for example, Peter Lombard, Sent. 2.42.3 (Quaracchi [1916], 529; tr. Silano, 2:208–09). Job 2:13. Simon of Tournai, Disputationes (Warichez, 77, 119, 173). “Venial” (venialis) comes from “venia,” “pardon.” On  this threefold division of mortal sins, see Richard of St  Victor, De  spiritu blasph.  2 ­(Ribaillier, 123); Statu 43 (Ribaillier, 115–16; tr. Evans, VTT 4:294); De pot. lig. 23 ­(Ribaillier 105–06; tr.  Feiss, in this volume); Peter Lombard, Sent. 2.42.4 (Quaracchi [1916], 530; ­tr. ­Silano, 2:209). On contempt for God, see Abelard, Ethica 3 (PL 178.636AB); Pseudo-Richard of St Victor, In Cant. 25 (PL 196.481D). For this question, see Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.13.1 (PL 176.526); Robert of Melun, Quest. de div. pag. (Martin, Oeuvres 1:24); Peter Lombard, Sent. 2.24.9–12 (Quaracchi [1916], 424– 25; tr. Silano, 2:112–15); Simon of Tournai, Disputationes (Warichez, 173); Pseudo-Richard of St Victor, In Cant. 25 (480AC).

MASTER RICHARD [OF ST VICTOR]: ON THE POWER OF BINDING AND LOOSING INTRODUCTION

Who, What, When, and Why As  the verbs in the first paragraph of the text indicate, Richard wrote this work in response to the request of a group of people, probably students, who wanted Richard’s opinion about the role of priestly absolution in the remission of sins, a hotly debated topic at the time. However, this is a treatise, not a letter. It was copied and read for three centuries after Richard wrote it and printed in three early editions.1 Richard twice cites a passage from Peter Lombard.2 Thus, the treatise was written after the Sentences were finished (c. 1157). As the notes to the translation indicate, Richard and Robert of Melun held similar positions on several questions. They seem to have known each other personally; Robert was connected with St Victor before he left Paris about 1160.3 Like Robert, Richard seeks a middle way between the teachings of Abelard and Hugh of St Victor on the question posed to him. Richard seems to have written the work while he was prior, and so in the last decade of his life. Although they are found in many manuscripts, the chapter divisions do not seem to have been present from the beginning.

1

2 3

On the manuscripts and editions, see Ribaillier, Opuscules théologiques, 25–52, 74–76. This introduction is based on Ribaillier’s, 60–73. For an example of the treatise’s continued presence, see Thomas Aquinas, Sum. theo. III. Suppl. 4.1 (Caramello, 10; tr. Fathers, 3:2583). In chapter 12, in a text introduced by “they say,” and in chapter 19, “No one who has love…”. Cf. Richard of St Victor, Ep. 1 to Robert of Melun (PL 196.1225–26); Ott, Untersuchungen, BGPTMA 34, 550–53. Robert of Melun (1100–67) studied under both Abelard and Hugh of St Victor. He taught for a while in Melun. He was bishop of Hereford from 1163. Three of his works, most of which were written while he was still in Paris, survive, all of them edited by ­R.-M. Martin in the Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense series (13, 18, 21, 25, 1932–52), as Oeuvres 1: Questiones de divina pagina; translated in VTT 6:289–345; 2: Questiones theologice de Epistolis Pauli; and 3: Sententie, parts 1 and 2 (with R. M. Gallet); Sententie 42–67, and 92–204, on Christology, are translated in VTT 7.

452

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

Contents According to Ribaillier, and as we have seen, theologians of the twelfth century struggled with two related questions. Regarding the role of repentance in the remission of sins and justification, they asked, if God grants forgiveness at the moment of genuine repentance, what purpose does oral confession serve? Regarding the absolution of the priest, they asked, is it declarative or performative? Is it necessary? Abelard, the followers of Gilbert de la Porrée, and Peter Lombard thought priestly absolution was only declarative. According to Hugh of St Victor, God remits guilt at the moment of repentance, but eternal punishment is remitted by priestly absolution. Richard defends Hugh’s position but tries to find points of convergence with the other view. In chapters 1 through 11, Richard expounds his own point of view and, in the remaining chapters, he answers objections. Ribaillier singles out three key questions. Question 1: Is what Jesus says in Matthew 16:19 to Peter, regarding the power to forgive sins, equivalent to John 20:23 that is addressed to all the apostles? Bede,4 the school of Laon, and Hugh of St Victor answered yes. Abelard, however, taught that Christ confided the power of absolution only to priests and bishops who were worthy of it in the way that Peter was. According to Richard, there is a double binding and loosing; one concerns the debt of damnation, and the other the debt of future purification. The priest binds the truly penitent to make satisfaction and looses them from the debt of future purification. Question 2: What is the power of priests in the remission of sin? Richard defends the position of Hugh and others that priests do have the power to forgive eternal punishment.5 In doing so, he opposes the teaching of Abelard, Peter Lombard,6 and others who held that true repentance instantly reconciles the sinner with God and obtains remission of eternal punishment. In the light of their criticism, Richard altered Hugh’s view somewhat. Hugh distinguished a twofold 4 5 6

Bede, Hom. ev. 26.4 (Étaix, Blanc, Judic, SC 522, 142–44); In Matt. 3.16 (PL 92.79). Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL 176.566); Robert of Melun, Quest. de div. pag. 26 (Martin, Oeuvres 1:16–17); Sent. div. (Geyer, 147*). Sent. 4.18.4 (Quaracchi [1916], 859f; tr. Silano, 107–09); 4.5.3 (Quaracchi [1916], 775; tr. Silano, 30–33).

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing



453

effect of sin in the sinner: God absolves from the penalty of guilt (vinculium obdurationis), and the priest usually absolves the penalty of eternal punishment (vinculum damnationis).7 Richard went further and distinguished three bonds, of captivity, servitude, and damnation or expiation. Because of the first, someone guilty of serous sin cannot recover grace on his own; because of the second (Hugh’s obduratio cordis), the sinner tends to be drawn from one sin to another, and so the sinner’s debt daily grows. The third bond is, as the case may be, eternal damnation or in a repentant soul either satisfaction on earth or purifying fire after death. Like Abelard and Peter Lombard, Richard acknowledges that only God can deliver the sinner from this threefold bond.8 True penitence was traditionally defined as regret for the sins one has done and wanting not to do what one regrets.9 Richard refined this definition in chapter 5 by saying it contains four elements: abhorrence of sin, with a promise to avoid sin, confess, and make satisfaction.10 With these matters taken care of, Richard comes to the central problem: what is the role of the priest, if God remits the bond of fault and the bond of punishment? In chapter 6, Richard makes an important distinction: God does remit the bond of eternal punishment at the moment someone sincerely repents, but God remits it only on the condition that the penitent confess to a priest, who then remits the bond of eternal damnation without any further condition. This punishment is commuted into a purifying punishment, provided the priest imposes a satisfaction proportionate to the sin. When the satisfaction is made (if there is an opportunity), the punishment owed is then fully remitted. Thus, Richard asserts the power of the priest with Hugh of St Victor, and the efficacy of true repentance with Abelard and Peter Lombard. In chapter 7, Richard distinguishes three ways in which God and the human minister act: God alone (removing the chain of obduratio cordis), God and the minister (removing the bond of eternal punishment), and the minister alone (removing the debt of future cleansing). 7 8 9

10

Hugh of St  Victor, Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL  176.565); Robert of Melun, Quest. theo. de ep. Pauli, Rom 3:20 (Martin, Oeuvres 2:54–55); Sent. div. (Geyer, 147*). Abelard, Ethica 19 (PL 178.664–65); Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.17.1 (Quaracchi [1916], 845f; Silano, 94–97); Sent. div. (Geyer, 145*). Gregory, Hom. ev. 2:34.15 (Étaix, Blanc, Judic, SC 522, 354: “Paenitentiam quippe est et perpetrata mala plangere, et plangenda non perpetrare”); Gratian Decretum, De poen. 3.6 (Friedberg, 1:1212; Larson, 162–63); Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.14.2 (Quaracchi [1916], 820; Silano 4:70). Here, Richard could draw on earlier lists, such as Abelard, Ethica, 17 (PL 178.661A): “poenitentia, confessio, satisfactio.”

454

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

Question 3: Are all priests capable of hearing confessions? Who are the successors of the apostles? With many of his contemporaries, Richard thought that in necessity when no priest is available, laity can hear confessions.11 Richard does not directly address the contested issue of whether unworthy priests can act as confessors. He does say that the satisfaction enjoined should be in keeping with the tenor of the sin confessed. The sentence given by the priest ought not to be arbitrary; it is valid if it is just, but not if it is unjust. A confessor should have the cura animarum. The power of the keys rests on two foundations: power given at ordination and knowledge or discretion, which may be present before ordination in some and absent even after ordination in others. Discretion comes from learning (eruditio). In the second half of his treatise Richard responds to three objections. Objection 1: The priest’s power of absolution is merely declarative Peter Lombard12 and others claimed on the basis of Leviticus 13 and John 11 that the power of the priest is merely declarative. Hugh of St Victor had criticized this opinion.13 Richard counters with a new symbolic interpretation of Matthew 8:4: Go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the sacrifice prescribed by Moses, that is, change your way of life, disclose your sins in confession, and make satisfaction. In chapter 15, Richard cites Luke 17:14, seeing different categories of remittance of sin: some of the lepers are healed before they are sent to the priest; some are healed on the way, if they are ready to confess but not to make satisfaction; sorrow will gradually lead them to desire expiation. Lazarus of Bethany represents another category of sinner, the desperate. The exhortation of the priest calls the obdurate into the light, and absolution frees him of his bandages. This last case shows the utility of confession. Objection 2: How can a truly penitent person, who is already reconciled to God, be held conditionally under a bond of damnation? Peter Lombard14 asked this question. In chapters 19 and 20, Richard replies by drawing on Robert of Melun to say that the patriarchs and 11 12 13 14

See chapter 4. For the topic, see A. Teetaert, La confession aux laïques dans l’Église latine (Bruges: Wetteren, 1926); De vera et falsa poen. 10.25 (PL 40.1122–23). Sent. 4.18.6 (Quaracchi [1916], 862–64; Silano, 4:110–11). Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL 176.564–65). Sent. 4.18.4 (Quaracchi [1916], 860; tr. Silano, 4:107–09).

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing



455

prophets of the Old Testament had charity, but they were still bound by a bond of damnation.15 Perhaps also drawing on Robert of Melun, Richard distinguishes three ways of being a member of Christ: by predestination, by preparation, and by incorporation, which correspond to selecting a tree, cutting it into boards, and fitting the boards into a building.16 Objection 3: Why is satisfaction necessary? The passion of Christ was enough to redeem us17 This objection says that a sinner who repents does not need to make satisfaction. Evidence for this is found in Ezekiel 18:21–22; 35:12. Richard replies that a baptized Christian who has sinned must add some personal satisfaction. Christ’s passion was all that was needed for expiation of sins through baptism; after baptism, the sinner must add his own expiation.18 Richard also argues that the sin of a Christian is much graver than the sin of a pagan; the statement in Ezekiel refers to the moment when a sinner groans over his fault, which puts him in a position to receive absolution.19 In chapter 23, Richard also shows that for the sinner to make satisfaction has medicinal value. In chapter 24, he explains that God remits sins and does not simply dismiss them, and in doing so acts with both mercy and justice.20 Theologians of Richard’s era wondered how penitence could be a sacrament if in some cases the effect precedes the sign. Peter Lombard thought that penitence was not a sacrament of the Christian era, but one that went back to the beginning of the human race.21 The Victorines distinguished fault (culpa) and penalty (pena): fault is remitted by God at the moment of true repentance; penalty, by the priestly absolution. In baptism, the reality (res) is that Christ expiates a sin. In penitence, Christ does not expiate sin for the sinner again; hence the importance of the sinner’s satisfaction.

15 16 17 18

19 20 21

Robert of Melun, Quest. theo. de ep. Pauli ad Rom 3 (Martin, Oeuvres 2:69). Robert of Melun, Quest. de div. pag. 73 (Martin, Oeuvres 1:36–39). See Hervé of Bourgdieu, Sermon = Pseudo-Anselm 13 (PL 158.662). Richard may have been influenced here by Abelard, Exp. in ep. ad Rom. 2 (PL 179.838), which says that if an adult who is already a believer receives baptism, he is just before he receives baptism, which remits the punishment due to sin. See Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL 176.567B). Jerome, Ep. 120 ad Demetriadem 9 (PL 22.1115); Sent. div. (Geyer, 142*); Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.4.1–2 (Quaracchi [1916], 849; tr. Silano, 18–20). Sent. 4.22.2 (Quaracchi [1916], 888; tr. Silano, 134–35).

456

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

Vocabulary A translator is required to make some difficult decisions in rendering the Latin of this treatise, which was written when technical theological vocabulary was developing and theological terms often had non-technical meanings. No two translators will make the same decisions, but it will be good to indicate some that have been made in what follows. Ligare (to bind up, bind fast) suggests metaphors of chains, ropes, fetters, and cords (vincula and funiculi). Ligare is translated as “to bind”; vinculum, usually as “chain.” From ligare comes obligare (to be bound, morally bound, obligated). Solvere (to loose, untie, release, dissolve) is almost always translated as “to loose.” Solvere appears in some compound verbs, the most important of which is absolvere (to loose from, absolve, free, acquit, complete), which is usually translated as “absolve,” and resolvere (unbind, free, release, pay). Remittere has a field of meanings (send back, return, let go back, restore, dismiss) that make it akin to solvere. Because Richard makes a careful distinction between remittere and dimittere (to send apart, separate, discharge, dismiss, release), the two words are consistently translated as “remit” and “dismiss.” The two verbs appear in some key New Testament texts that Richard often cites (Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23). Purgatorius (from the noun purgatio, cleansing) is almost always used regarding spiritual cleansing after death. It is usually translated as “cleansing” or “purifying” to emphasize its root meaning, rather than “purgatorial,” which is suggests a more technical term that for modern readers may not have the connotation of cleansing. Richard seems to be thinking of a process, not a place or state. Debitum (debt, from the past participle of debere, to owe, be obliged, have to) means debt, duty, obligation. In this text, the term means liability to punishment or purgation or restitution. It is translated in several ways. Criminosus/crimen (seriously sinful/grave sin) is almost a synonym for mortal(ly) sin(ful), but perhaps hints at something the falls under the juridical determination of the Church. It is usually translated as serious sin(ner).

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing



457

TRANSLATION

1. Whatever you have bound on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you have loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.1 You ask whether this power of binding and loosing, which is given to the Apostle Peter in these words, is the same as that granted elsewhere generally to the apostles, and in them to all their successors, when it says, The sins of those you have remitted are remitted them, and the sins of those you retain are retained.2 You state that different people have different opinions about the power of binding and loosing, of remitting and retaining sins, and also about the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Some explain them in one way and others in another. You therefore ask whether the apostles and their vicars receive in these words of the Lord the power to absolve people from the debt of eternal damnation. You assert that there are those who say yes and likewise that there are others who deny this. Therefore, you still ask by opposing and oppose by asking: if the power to absolve people from the debt of eternal salvation is given to priests, whether they have the power to bind others by the same debt? Behold, two people come to the priest, one of whom is obdurate in sin and therefore bound, and another truly just and therefore loosed. Can he loose the bound and bind the loosed? There is no loosing except of someone who was first bound, nor is there binding except of someone who was first loosed. Likewise, two deeply sinful3 people come to the priest. One is repentant; the other, utterly unrepentant. I ask, can he at will remit the sins of the unrepentant person and retain those of the truly repentant? 2. First of all, it is to be noted that the binding of sinners can be considered in two ways. One is that binding by which a person is bound to a fault; the other is that binding by which he is obligated to punishment. In the one, he is bound by the chain of captivity; in the other, he is bound by the debt of damnation. When someone falls into some grave sin, it is then not in his power to be able to rise up on his own. He can go away from the Lord on his own, but he cannot return to him on his own. He is, then, as the Psalmist says, a spirit going and not returning.4 Hence, what the same Psalmist says, blessed is the man who has not gone away in the council of the wicked.5 So the binding of guilt is called the death of the soul, because as external death restrains the external body from the works for this life, so by the binding of guilt the soul is put to death regarding the works for eternal life. Once a person is bound and captured, would that he were just held in captivity! What

458

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

is far worse, he is also kept in servitude to sin, because whoever sins is a slave to sin.6 Hence, he pays his daily debts, but the debt of his guilt increases daily. Thus, the promises you have in the psalm: he will redeem their souls from debts and evil.7 Thus, the obligation of guilt concerns two things: one, the bond of captivity; the other, the bond of servitude. So much for the bond of guilt. 3. Now let us see about the bond of punishment. Because of what his sin deserves, the sinner is held to an accumulation of misery, not only by being bound to guilt but also by being bound over to punishment. By the fact that he has something that as far as in him lies he cannot correct in eternity, and it injures him who lives in eternity, by that fact, I say, he incurs the debt of eternal damnation. Sacred Scripture calls eternal damnation the second death.8 As the soul is drawn away from divine favor, so by the infliction of eternal damnation the soul is alienated from every favor of its own. Only someone omnipotent and all-powerful can loose a person bound by this sort of chain. Things impossible for men are possible for God.9 There is no heart so strong, so hard, and so obdurate that the Lord, if he chooses, cannot suddenly soften it to true repentance. Hence, John the Baptist said, the Lord can raise up sons of Abraham from these stones.10 When, therefore, he who is almighty arouses the compunction of true repentance in the sinner, what does he do, I ask, but bring an end to perpetual guilt and therefore to perpetual punishment? Thus, one penalty turns into another, an eternal one into a temporal one. Someone who was bound by the debt of damnation is now bond by the debt of expiation.11 Thus you have how the binding of punishment concerns two things. One is the debt of damnation, and the other is the far different debt of expiation. Thus we have it clearly that, as we learned from the above, there are two things to consider regarding the binding of guilt, and likewise two things regarding the binding of punishment. As we said above,12 you find in the binding of guilt the bond of captivity and the bond of servitude. The chain of captivity ensnares a person so that he cannot return to doing good, and the chain of servitude holds him so that he is forced to increase evil. Both result in an increase of damnation. Similarly, in the bond of punishment there is without doubt a twofold bond, the chain of damnation and the chain of expiation. By the former, a person is held to eternal punishment and by the latter to temporal punishment, to the former to his own harm, to the latter to his good. By the former a person is tormented and not cleansed; by the latter, he is tortured, but cleansed.

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing



459

It is to be noted that at one and the same time the same person is held by the bond of captivity and the bond of servitude, but one and the same person is never held at the same time by the bond of damnation and the bond of expiation. By the very fact that one is held by the bond of expiation, he is freed from the bond of damnation. 4. Just are there is a twofold binding, so without a doubt there is a twofold loosening. The Lord always does the first loosing by himself; he does the second sometimes by himself alone, and sometimes by his minister. Only the Lord can and does loose the bond of guilt. He does so sometimes without any co-working of his ministers. This co-working is not only by priests, but also by others. Some people have this grace of co-working in their power, but now these and now those receive it or don’t receive it according to the divine dispensation. However, only priests have in their power this authorization, which they received from God to bind and loose, and can exercise it as reason dictates at any time. Note, however, that at the same moment that the one consenting gives consent to a serious sin (criminis), the soul is bound by a threefold binding: the chain of captivity, the chain of servitude, and the chain of damnation. As far as it lies in him alone, he is bound without any possibility of loosing. We know that a triple binding is difficult to break.13 Certainly, there is no doubt that it is difficult to break if it cannot be broken except by him who is three and one. This triple rope, difficult to break, is broken by the very one who can do all things, who pricks the sinful soul with compunction to be truly penitent. Therefore, the sinner at one and the same time is loosed from the bond of guilt and from the debt of eternal damnation. By the fact that his guilt was circumscribed, at the same time he was granted to have his punishment circumscribed. His eternal punishment was changed into a temporal punishment. Thus it was that the prophet David, who was truly repentant, said, I have sinned, and immediately there was a response from the divine oracle, the Lord has also taken away your sin.14 At the moment of true repentance, the punishment turns into another punishment, the eternal into the transitory, the non-cleansing into the cleansing. Hence, that statement, as true as it is familiar, at whatever hour the sinner cries out, he will be saved.15 At the same time that he laments in a salutary way, his cause through which he can be saved is really successful if at the same moment he is lifted up.16 Another saying of the Psalmist seems to concur, I said, Lord, I will confess against myself any injustice, and you have remitted the impiety of my sin.17 From this

460

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

prophetic statement, we are given to understand that at true contrition and conversion of heart, the wickedness of the truly repentant is forgiven. Note carefully that it does not say you have remitted my sin, but the impiety of my sin.18 What in the wickedness and impiety doubtless deserved eternal punishment is remitted as soon as there is true contrition in the repentant soul, although what remains of the impurity in that sin is afterward cleansed by temporal punishment. What should we understand by “impiety” if not a special injury to the Creator? We are from him; from him, we have every good. What is more impious, then, what can be more unjust, than to commit against the Lord of such loving-kindness, who lives in eternity, something vile that you cannot, on your own, correct in eternity. The impiety of sin is truly remitted when at true repentance in the sinful soul the injury to the Creator is forgiven and the eternal punishment owed to him is changed into a punishment that is only cleansing and temporal. Note here that unbelievers and sinners who receive baptism with faith are absolved from the debt of damnation in such a way that they are not held to the debt of expiation. However, believers and sinners who are truly repentant after falling are absolved from the debt of damnation in such a way that they are held to the debt of expiation. 5. True repentance is abhorrence of sin, with a promise to avoid, confess, and make satisfaction. True repentance must have these four things. One’s own conscience teaches two of them, authentic doctrine teaches the other two. Who is there whose conscience does not teach him that, when an injury has been inflicted, one person cannot be reconciled to other unless he is assured that the other repents the injury inflicted and does not want to do it again. Regarding the remedy of confessing, there is the statement of Blessed James, confess your sins to one another.19 Regarding providing worthy satisfaction, you have that statement of John the Baptist, perform worthy fruits of repentance.20 The sinner who is repentant is obliged by the duty of confessing and making satisfaction, as long as God grants him the time and opportunity to do it. The only one not held to this condition is someone to whom God denies the capacity to fulfill it. What we have said thus far we have spoken first, so that we may more fully understand what God does through himself alone in the liberation and absolution for sinners, what he does himself and does at the same time through his minister, and what at times he does through his minister alone. Now let us delve more deeply into the topic that is the reason we have taken up this whole business.

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing



461

6. One should know that this priestly power of binding and loosing especially concerns a twofold manner of expiation, since the manner of expiation consists in two things. Since no sin goes unpunished,21 it is necessary that expiation be made either in this life according to the judgment of a priest through the worthy fruit of penance, or in the future life according to the judgment of God through cleansing fire. The sinful soul, freed from the one debt of damnation, but still liable to the debt of expiation, has to be mercifully absolved, I say, and can be in some way. The truly penitent person willingly submits to human judgment so that she may deservedly escape the divine judgment. Therefore, she is bound through the priest to a debt of worthy satisfaction and absolved from the future cleansing fire that the debt merits. By the fact that she devoutly receives the human sentence, she deserves to escape the divine sentence. See, you have how, at one and the same time, she is loosed and bound. Understand what the Lord says to you about the power of binding and loosing: Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed also in heaven.22 Notice that, just as in the divine loosing, one punishment is replaced by another, the eternal by the temporal, so in the priestly absolution one sentence is replaced by another, the divine by the human. In both instances, the sinner is absolved, in both he is bound but, in the former, the absolution is the cause of the binding and, in the latter by contrast, the binding is the cause of the absolution. Hence, what Peter is told, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed also in heaven, is preceded by whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.23 As we already said, by the fact that in what follows he is absolved from the debt of divine chastisement, he is meanwhile also bound by a human being to the debt of present satisfaction.24 What the Lord said to all the apostles, and in them to all who fulfill their office, seems to pertain to this power of loosing: Whose sins you have remitted, are remitted for them.25 What is remitting sins if not to absolve by relaxing and relax by absolving the strict sentence that is due sins? What is it to retain sins if not to absolve those who are not truly penitent? Many of those confessing seek absolution, but they do not want to desert their sins completely. Many promise to be careful in the future, but do not want to make satisfaction. Because all of these are not truly repentant, doubtless they should not be absolved. To be truly repentant is to be sorry for past sin with a firm purpose of confessing, making satisfaction, and taking every precaution to guard oneself against that sin. Those who are repentant in this way are deserving

462

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

and must be absolved; others should be sent away without absolution, which is to retain sins. 7. Now, from the things that have been said so far, we can understand clearly what God does by himself in the absolution of sins, and what he does through his minister, and what he does by himself and at the same time through the office of ministers. By himself, he loosens the debt of eternal damnation and, through his minister, the debt of future purgation. He reserved the power of the first loosing to himself alone; he effects the second loosing through himself and at the same time through his minister. The Lord usually does the third loosing not so much by himself as through his minister. It is rightly said that the Lord loosens the truly penitent from the chain of damnation, and nevertheless it is rightly said that the priest does this, the Lord at the confession of the heart, the priest at the confession of the mouth. The confession of the heart alone suffices for the truly repentant for the salvation of his soul, when the press of necessity excludes verbal confession and priestly absolution. Hence, we rightly say that God absolves. However, since confession of the mouth and priestly absolution are required of the truly repentant, as long as God grants one power for this, the absolution of deserved damnation is also rightly ascribed to the priest.26 Thus we have it, this sort of absolution is ascribed both to the Lord and to the minister. 8. Now it seems that a further subject is worthy of consideration. Why is the loosing of the debt of future cleansing specifically attributed to the priest? We know that a truly penitent person can avoid eternal damnation without the absolution of a priest, if he cannot obtain it.27 However, we do not say that, without the absolution of a priest and the penance joined to it, the truly penitent person could avoid the debt of future cleansing, as long as the force of circumstances excluded them. Note that the Lord looses the chain of damnation conditionally, but the minister of the Lord does so simply, and so to speak, integrally. The Lord absolves the penitent from the debt of damnation with the condition that he must, insofar as he can, seek absolution of the priest and, in accord with his judgment, make satisfaction in the way required (debito more). If he neglects to do that, he does not avoid eternal danger. However, once he has received absolution and fulfilled the conditions imposed, even if he should suddenly die, he would avoid damnation. As the Lord conditionally looses the debt of eternal damnation so, to be sure, his servant looses the debt of future cleaning conditionally. A priest holds a sinner absolved on condition of making satisfaction, so that he can avoid the fire of future cleansing. Therefore, the priest

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing

 463

absolves from the debt of eternal damnation integrally and absolutely, but from the debt of future cleansing conditionally. The absolution of the priest frees from the debt of damnation someone who has made a firm decision to make satisfaction, whether he has time to carry it out or not, but it does not equally free from the debt of future cleansing. 9. One should also note that a twofold binding and a twofold loosing pertain to the priestly office. The loosing by which they loose penitents from the debt of damnation is one thing, that by which they absolve them from the debt of future purgation is another. So also, the binding they impose by which they bind the truly repentant by the debt of satisfaction is one thing, and another thing is the binding by which they bind by the chain of anathema people who commit intolerable things but are not repentant. They bind the former to absolve them from a more dangerous bond, but the latter to lead them to penitence. When the Lord says, those whose sins you remit are remitted them and those who sins you retain are retained,28 this is understood to refer to that absolution by which the sinner is absolved from the debt of damnation. Priests can and should remit the sins and absolve from the debt of damnation the truly repentant who accept due satisfaction. For what was said to Peter, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,29 should be specifically understood to refer to that absolution by which the sinner is absolved from the debt of damnation. For priests do and should absolve by binding and bind by absolving. By binding penitents to the debt of present satisfaction, they loose them from the debt of future cleansing. 10. What we said above is established: only the Lord can and does by himself loose the chain that pertains to the debt of fault. However, the chain that pertains to the obligation of punishment he breaks, sometimes by himself and sometimes through his minister. In the resurrection of Lazarus, you will find that both are prefigured. The Lord both resuscitated him by himself and loosed him through the ministry of his servants. Although the Lord himself loosed him from interior chains, he was loosed from exterior chains by the office of subordinates. Who does not know that death binds the members of someone dying so inextricably that none of them can do its job or move itself even a little? The Lord loosed Lazarus from these chains, when he brought him back to life. When Lazarus had been loosed from the chains of death, the Lord said, Lazarus, come out!30 What is the coming forth of a person who was earlier buried if not that someone bound by a mortal guilt

464

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

willingly deserts the darkness of his stony obstinacy? What is it for the bystanders to lead a bound person outside, to enter the field of sight of those assisting the Lord, if not to confess by one’s mouth to those who have received the power of loosing the chains of sins that bind the one to the sentence of divine retribution?31 He says, loose him and let him go.32 It is well said regarding the one resuscitated but bound: loose him and let him go. If he had not been loosed first, he could not have been able to go freely and enter his house. We have no doubt that, insofar as a sinner and penitent is held by a debt of damnation and purification and not loosed from it, he will not be able to enter the house that Paul describes when he says, we know if our earthly dwelling place is destroyed (disolvatur), we have a building from God, a house not made by hands, an eternal one in heaven.33 After the destruction of this earthly home, whoever had not contracted anything in this life that must be cleansed in the future life will freely enter that house. Otherwise, he will first have to dissolve (exsolvat) his debt of purgation. If someone contracted what is worthy of a bitter and lengthy cleansing, if he has deserved to be absolved from it in this life through a satisfaction enjoined and completed in this life, when this dwelling is destroyed, he will enter happily and immediately into that dwelling of eternal rest. Hence, one can weigh how, in pastoral ministry, the power of binding and loosing given by God opens the entrance of paradise and the gate of heaven, which divine severity closed to those acting in a seriously sinful way. The power of binding and loosing seems to be those keys about which Jesus spoke to Peter, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.34 Notice how we now have what we proposed to seek, namely, what is that power of binding and loosing given to priests, and how and for whom they can and should remit or retain sins. 11. However, you persist and say, if they cannot bind and loose just anyone, remit the sins of just anyone, and retain those of just anyone, what is it that is said in a general way to Peter, whatever you bind, whatever you loose?35 There is a similar general statement to all the apostles jointly: whose sins you remit are remitted, and those you retain are retained.36 Rightly this question would move you if the Lord had said to Peter, whatever you wish to bind will be bound, and whatever you wish to loose will be loosed, but he did not say this, nor did he wish to be understood in this way. If someone wishes to bind what cannot be bound, will it therefore be bound? Who would say so? He does not say, whatever things you wish to bind, but whatever you bind will be bound in heaven.37 Someone is truly bound who, according to the tenor of his

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing

 465

conversion, is obligated by a just debt of satisfaction. The priestly office truly absolves someone whose sin is justly remitted by the satisfaction that it deserves (condignam). Therefore, the just sentence of a priest binds and absolves, but the unjust sentence of a priest does neither. So, it is reasonable that the sins of those who justly merit it are certainly absolved. Doubtless, the sins of those who are denied absolution, not unjustly but justly, are retained. What the Lord says to Peter is also valid, even if he used different words: what has been bound or loosed by you will also be bound or loosed for me. Whoever you bind with the imposition of a deserved satisfaction, I hold to the same debt of satisfaction, and whoever deserves of you a deserved absolution for their sins cannot be pressed farther by a judgment from me. This is the way we must understand what is said to all the apostles: whose sins you remit are remitted them, and those whose sins you have retained are retained.38 The sins of offenders that have been justly remitted or retained by his ministers will be remitted or retained by the Lord. Therefore, both things occur by them, but in a canonical order. They can do neither by their own choice, but only according to merit and the instituted order. 12. There exists an opinion regarding the power of binding and loosing that is so frivolous that it is rather to be mocked than refuted. They think and preach that priests do not have the power of binding and loosing, but only of showing that people are loosed or bound.39 However, did the Lord say, whatever you have shown as bound will be bound, and whatever you have shown to be loosed will be loosed? They say that apostolic men do not have the power to remit or retain sins, although the Lord says that. They say they have only the power of showing both, although the Lord does not say this. He says, whose sins you shall remit, not whose remitted sin you will show, are remitted them.40 They say that, in remitting or retaining faults, priests in the era of the gospel have the same law41 and office that the legal officials (legales) once had under the law in regard to the cure of lepers.42 These officials of the law did not have the power to cure, but rather the power to judge and show whether those who were thought to be lepers were so or not. Notice, we grant that the latter and the former have the same office, the former of discerning one leper from another, the latter of discerning between one fault and another. And would that, just as they truly have the office, so they would exercise it worthily!43 13. However, I ask whether it is from ordination or from training that they have the ability of discerning between one leper or another

466

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

and between one fault and another, and I make bold to say that if they approach ordination without the knowledge to discern, they go from ordination without it, and if they go to and from ordination with it, they have it from another source. It is clear that the consequence of this is that if they do not receive another power in ordination, they do not receive any power. However, they respond, what is fault if not leprosy? What is it to cleanse leprosy if not to cut away fault? The Lord sent the leper to the priest, not so he would cleanse him, but so that the priest would show that he was cleansed. Actually, there is no doubt that the Lord ordered neither, he did not say for him to go for either reason. Go, he says, and show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded.44 Just as he did not say, go to the priest so that he may make you clean, so he did not say, go to the priest so that he may show you are clean. The Lord did one thing and commanded three: he cleansed the leper and at the same time commanded him to go and show and offer. What is it for a leper to be cleansed, if not that a sinner detests the stains of his sins? What is it for a cleansed leper to go, if not that he abandons the state of his earlier life and deserts the sins he previously committed. To show himself to the priest is to declare openly in confession how he used to be and what he resolves to be now. He offers the gift that Moses established when he subjects himself to all the canonically instituted satisfaction, according to the judgment of the priest. In the first, consider the hatred of sin, in the second, a promise to be selfcontrolled, and in the third, a resolution to confess, and in the fourth, zeal to make satisfaction. The promise of self-control is here to be taken in a broad sense, not only self-control in regard to sexual desire, but also in regard to any sin. Certainly, in true repentance these four are required. Where one of them is lacking, there is no true penitence, and without that the leprosy of sinners cannot be cleansed. When God grants a sinful soul to hate what he formally loved, to detest what he formerly desired, together with a promise of self-restraint, confession, and making satisfaction, immediately a complete and full cleansing of the leper is brought about. Therefore, what is it to command these three things of a leper at the healing of his leprosy, if not to persuade the soul to be cleansed through interior inspiration, to promise self-restraint, confession, and satisfaction? 14. However, do you say that the Lord does all these things by himself? What, then, is required of the priest? What is required is much in every way, truly great, even exceedingly great. As it is one thing to

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing

 467

resuscitate the dead and another to loose the bonds, so it is one thing to cleanse a leper and another to loose his chains. You say, had the leper been bound? Are you a teacher in Israel and you do not know this?45 He was truly bound by the knot of a double necessity by which Moses bound him. He says, for as long as he is a leper and unclean, he will live alone outside the camp.46 What a hard and exceedingly abominable chain, since as long as someone is bound by it, he is bound and cannot be untied so he is not allowed to enter the camp of those fighting for Christ nor to return to his own. Does not the priest bind and loose the leper and not the cleansed? He binds him to rendering the sacrifice of due satisfaction and cleansing; he looses him with a permission that allows him to return. If you are willing to accept it, the cleansing of the leper is not just one but threefold. One of these the Lord does himself, the other two the Lord does through his minister. However, what the threefold cleaning of the leper is I leave for the time being to the judgment of the reader. 15. Notice that in curing of lepers, some are instantly cleansed and so sent to the priests; some are sent and are healed as they go. There are some who at the moment of the compunction of their penitence have a soul prepared and ready for loosing every debt of true penitence. In these, there is no delay in the cleansing. In their compunction, they receive the grace of having a soul ready for the three things mentioned above, for self-restraint, confession, and satisfaction. Some, moved by compunction to repentance, resolve to be self-controlled and to confess, but they are lukewarm about fitting satisfaction. Hence, it is in regard to the ten lepers that only two of them are commanded and no mention is made of a third. He says, go and show yourselves to the priests.47 He does not command them to offer any gift. They receive from God as much as they are capable of. In order to show us that all our goods that we have are from him, the Lord sometimes manifests his grace in one person and withdraws it in another. You see, I think, how rightly different is the cleansing of those who lack the fullness of true repentance. It says, while they went they were cleansed.48 What is going, if not advancing? Therefore, those who go from what they already have received advance to the capacity to do what hitherto they could not do. Those who go by grieving more and more over the evil they have previously committed advance through a promise of self-restraint and confession to a promise of satisfaction. They add promise to promise. Because they already have perfect and true penitence, they, as it were, put off the leprosy of sin as they go. Notice that there are many ways

468

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

in which the cleansing of these occurs, by contrast to those who are cleansed without delay, because those who are reluctant about satisfaction are more abundant than those who are ready for it. 16. From what has already been said, we have it that many are healed in the absence of a priest. Likewise, there are some who are healed in the presence of a priest. At the resuscitation of Lazarus, there were also people present by whom he had been loosed. Some are cured while they are being sent, others as they are going away, and others at their arrival. Among those who come to the priest, there are many who have only the will to confess, but lack the promise of self-restraint and also of making thorough satisfaction. They are so corrupt from depraved habit that they are completely uncertain whether they can control themselves or are capable of making satisfaction. After much exhortation by the priest or even after long argument, some people of this kind, when they are taught to rely not on their own effort but only on the mercy of God, through the visitation of grace are moved by compunction to true repentance and are divinely motivated in newness of life. You can ponder in these things, I think, how useful it is for many people like this to hasten to confession. 17. However, there are some who have none of these three things discussed above and lie dead under a stone monument and rock, in the way Lazarus did. Someone who is obdurate in his sin with great obstinacy of mind is dead, held fast by a stone monument. A heap of stones is placed above this dead person because of his sins when, because of the extent of his hesitation, he is blocked from the hope he should have had in God. What is it to take away the rock if not to remove completely, through the grace of divinely given exhortation, the mound of hesitation and open the way to the light radiating above? As Isaiah says, prepare the ways of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.49 So pastoral care is not exercised in vain in this case, since God can arrange and command that this happen. What is it for God to command this if not to urge this person (animum) by the pastor’s voice and to give grace? Then the minister usefully does his part as pastor, while the Lord deigns to do what is his to do as Savior. Lazarus, come forth.50 Three things are to be understood in this calling. Someone who goes out, leaves the place where he was before. To go outside, is to put oneself under the gazes of the onlookers. To come, is the same thing as to approach the one calling. What is it to come back to life where one lay dead, if not to abandon one’s sin completely and forever? What is it for someone bound to present himself to the gaze of the onlookers

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing

 469

who were able to loose him, if not for some guilty person to show by his own accusation what knots of sin entangle him? When at the call of the Lord someone approaches God with worthy fruits of repentance, he pleases God from one day to the next. The first pertains to the promise of self-restraint, the second to the promise to confess, the third to the promise to make satisfaction. Notice how some accept this threefold promise in the presence of a pastor, although previously they did not have it at all.51 18. Now let us return to what we laid out about all these things.52 Let us distinguish carefully what the Lord does himself, and what he does through his minister. By himself, he resuscitates the dead; by his ministers, he takes off the bindings. By himself, he cleanses the leper; by the ministry of the priest, he leads back the one who was ejected. To resuscitate the dead and to cleanse a leper seem to point to the same thing. Both loose an obligation of guilt. To loose the bound and lead back the one ejected also seem to point to the same thing, because both loose an obligation of repentance. A leper is cured when some corrupted person is divinely rescued from his blemishes; a dead person is resuscitated when someone held captive by sin is divinely enlivened to live a good life. After the cleansing of a leper by the intervention of the priestly office, someone who had earlier been cast out is led back to his own when it is known that, through the penance enjoined on him, he has received the dwelling of eternal rest, which he had lost by s­ inning. Infolded by the bystanders and loosed by the Lord’s ministers, he is allowed to leave and return to his own when, through the absolution and counsel of the priest, he is returned to newness of life. 19. Certain ones are indeed opposed to the things said above and say that those who are truly repentant from their sins already certainly have love (caritatem). Otherwise, how could one rightly understand in their regard what is written, at whatever hour a sinner cries out he will be saved.53 No one who is capable of love can be saved without it. However, they think that someone who has love cannot be held fast by the debt of damnation.54 How, then, does the priest absolve someone from this debt if, before the priest’s absolution, when love has intervened, that person already merited to be absolved? Without any doubt, the patriarchs and prophets had love and nevertheless were held by the debt of eternal damnation. Otherwise, they would not have gone down into the netherworld, nor would they have needed the death of Christ or any redemption. Therefore, without any doubt they were held by the debt of eternal damnation, not because it was to be eternal for them,

470

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

but because it would have been eternal if the death of Christ had not absolved them from that debt. It is clear that two things happened at once: a man had love and the debt of eternal damnation still had a hold on him.55 They say, did not this sinner begin to be a member of Christ from the time he began to have love? How could he be a member of Christ and be held fast by the debt of damnation? A person can be said to be a member of Christ from two points of view, either according to predestination or according to his current state (habitudinem). According to predestination, anyone can be a member of Christ and not yet have love, and contrariwise, someone can have love and not be a member of Christ. According to the Lord’s testimony, the love of many is growing cold.56 According to this opinion, a person can be a member of Christ and still be held fast by the chain of a deserved damnation. However, someone is said to be a member of Christ by his current state, when he has within himself that which brings this about. Does that love, which thus flares up and in some measure grows cold, make a member of Christ? Without doubt, those who never acquire lasting love were never among those true members of Christ who perfect the integrity of his body. However, in one way of thinking about this, we can and do say that those who have love temporarily can be said to be members of Christ because of the conformity to his members that they seem to have at the time. 20. However, to remove all scruple for those devoutly inquiring, let us say that we usually say that there are three modes of being a member of Christ: by predestination, by preparation, and by incorporation.57 By predestination, those who are divinely preordained to life; by preparation, when a pagan or false Christian is truly moved by compunction and imbued with truth and love; by incorporation, when someone through bodily washing58 or through the absolution of a priest is brought into fellowship with the Church.59 The first is a decision of the divine will; the second, a resolution of one’s own deliberation; the third, the office of a priest. From what is physical, we can draw a comparison to what we should think about spiritual edification. Wood is chosen from the forest to be a part in a building; then it is hewn, and so prepared to have the proper measure and shape; finally, it is connected to the building and fitted to it in place. See how one and the same wood becomes a member of a building: first, by just being selected; then, by preparation; thirdly, by being inserted into it. In this way, many are members of Christ by predestination, but not yet by preparation; many are members by preparation, but not

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing



471

yet by incorporation. When Augustine was still unbelieving, he was a member of Christ by predestination. He was a member of Christ by preparation for conformity to Christ, when believing in his heart and fervent in devotion he hurried to baptism. When he was baptized and brought into fellowship with the Church, he was incorporated among the members of Christ. If anyone has love before receiving the sacrament of our reconciliation, he can be said to be a member of Christ by a kind of preparation for conformation, but not yet by conformation. By the death of Christ we are reconciled to God,60 through baptism we are buried with Christ and incorporated among his members.61 From these things, I think it is clear by what meaning of the term someone can be called a member of Christ and held fast to a debt of damnation. What is to be thought about a sinful and penitent Christian can be understood from what has been said about a pagan. 21. Perhaps you will respond to this that the condition of a Christian is one thing, and that of a gentile is another. Perhaps you think that any Christian at the moment he is moved by true compunction is loosed from the debt of damnation, although one should think differently about the non-baptized. No one is loosed from the debt of damnation except by participation in the death of Christ. Through baptism and the other Christian sacraments, a person is enabled to become a sharer in him. However, I say that what a pagan receives in baptism, a sinful Christian loses by sinning. The sinner loses the participation in the sacraments of Christ that he first received in baptism.62 I say it boldly that, if before absolution by a priest he proceeds to communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, it is certain that he eats and drinks judgment for himself,63 even if he already repents deeply that he sinned and mourns deeply and groans. What reason do you give for contending and saying that the one who is inwardly penitent, who before the absolution of the priest could not participate in the sacraments of our salvation without adding to the weight of his damnation, is loosed from the debt of damnation completely before approaching a priest? Both a seriously sinful Christian and a pagan need reconciliation, and where there is not some insurmountable obstacle, this is brought about for both by the priestly office, the former by washing, the latter by absolution.64 22. If you wish to know and you can patiently hear, a pagan is more easily reconciled after a hundred serious sins than a Christian after just one. When a pagan, however sinful, receives baptism, no satisfaction is imposed.65 When a Christian has sinned seriously, but now is penitent and confesses, priestly absolution is not sufficient unless satisfaction

472

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

is imposed. The sacrifice of Christ, his immolated flesh, by itself satisfies for the one newly baptized. The offering of a sacrifice specified by the law makes satisfaction for those sinning through ignorance, but according to the Apostle, for those sinning by choice there remains no sacrifice for sin.66 What was mystically commanded in the law is now, when the veil of the figure is removed, actually fulfilled daily. The law commands that the soul that has sinned through ignorance, offer this or that for the sin, and what he had committed through ignorance will be forgiven him.67 However, those who sin willingly are commanded to render soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.68 Whatever an unbeliever commits is assigned to the sins of ignorance. Although he knows he has sinned when he sins, he does not know how to estimate the weight of sin. He does not know that it cannot be expiated except through the death of the God-Man. The fog of this kind of ignorance lightens beyond measure the extent of the fault. However, those who know themselves redeemed from death by the death of Christ surely cannot be excused by ignorance of this kind. A sacrifice is allowed to the former for the full satisfaction for sin, but this is not allowed to the latter. Where sin is expiated by a sacrifice, reconciliation occurs by the sacrifice of another’s flesh rather than one’s own. No satisfaction, no affliction of his flesh is required of any unbeliever who is converted and baptized in the faith of Christ. Because of his prior ignorance a sacrifice for sin is granted him, for through the passion and death of Christ he is fully cleansed of all guilt. However, a Christian guilty of serious sin is not at all excused from his sins by the ignorance of unbelief and is punished in his own flesh. When he accepts the truth, voluntary satisfaction is enjoined on him. What he presumed against God, no longer through ignorance, is cleansed not only by the efficacy of a sacrifice but also by the affliction and mortification of his flesh. Note, then, what we said earlier about how it is more difficult for a seriously sinful Christian than for a seriously sinful pagan to make expiation.69 But why, I ask, is it more difficult for him to make expiation if not because he offended more gravely. You say that a seriously sinful but penitent Christian is loosed from the debt of damnation before absolution by a priest, and you do not dare to say that a seriously sinful and penitent pagan is loosed from the same debt before the absolution of a priest. You do not notice how contrary it is to right judgment, indeed even against all reason, to say that someone who sinned more gravely is immediately saved when he is truly penitent and not to say that

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing



473

someone who sinned less is immediately loosed at the moment he truly repents. It is commonly agreed that no one can absolve someone who is impenitent. According to some, however, no one absolves a penitent because, at the very moment he is moved to compunction, he receives absolution from God. But if no one absolves the impenitent, and no one absolves the repentant, no one absolves anybody. However, whoever believes this makes a liar out of him who says, whose sins you remit are remitted them.70 It is therefore established for certain that priests remit sins and absolve penitents. At the moment a sinner cries out he will surely be saved,71 because from one who could not be absolved there is made one to whom absolution cannot be denied. 23. Still there are some who wonder and ask how one can say that God and God’s minister can remit sins, since assuredly both are found to expiate the sins of penitents by punishing and punish them by expiating. What is this remittance, they say, where a long and rather unpleasant expiation is exacted? From the things I said much earlier,72 it seems to me that the answer to this is clear. However, to add something to the greater evidence already articulated above is not burdensome where it is necessary. In any sin two things need to be considered, the injury to God and the corrupting of the one committing the sin. The former is a matter of wickedness and impiety, the later a matter of dishonor and deformity. One and the same sin is wickedness in regard to God and deformity in regard to oneself. Hence, the statement of John the Evangelist: Everyone who commits sin commits wickedness; and sin is wickedness.73 Without doubt, it is wickedness when someone wrongly injures his neighbor, and I think nobody would disagree; it is wickedness when someone blames, accuses, and blasphemes his God, and no one but someone mentally lacking would presume to contradict that. Maybe someone, who satisfies his desires with inebriation, drunkenness, and lust and other things like that, does not believe that it is iniquity, especially if he does it without harming his neighbor. However, when he does this he offends God. What a great injury it is to soil the Creator’s noblest creature, made in the likeness of God,74 with the stains of vices and to superimpose on the divine likeness the likeness of a beast. It says that when a man was in honor he did not understand; he was comparable to foolish beasts and made like them.75 Let a person think about how much his Creator has done for him, what his Redeemer underwent for him, and then he will be able rightly to evaluate how evil or impious it is to return injury for his benefits to such a great Lord and kindly

474

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

friend, and to offend him even just a little.76 The one who corrupts that most noble work of his offends him; whoever sins, corrupts. Therefore, whoever commits sin also does wickedness, because as we said sin itself is wickedness.77 It is also impiety, insofar as it offends God, dishonor and deformity, insofar as it corrupts the one who commits it. God can and does himself remit in one and the same serious sin whatever is of wickedness and impiety, and cleanse whatever is of dishonor and impiety in cleansing fire, and commit to the charge of his ministers what is to be remitted in this debt of purgation or cured by the remedy of satisfaction. What does it seem to you that the supreme physician did and does daily in this kind of work, if not what pertains to remitting the injury and applying to the sick servant the kind of remedy his corruption requires?78 From this, I think, it is evident how full of mercy is God’s remission of sins, when he remits the penitent his injury and by that very fact remits the eternal punishment. Whoever obstinately presumes what, insofar as it is in him79 he cannot correct in eternity, to the injury of him who lives in eternity and is omnipotent without doubt, incurs the debt of eternal damnation. How great and how ineffable is the mercy by which God absolves someone from this kind of debt! Does God hide his beneficence, and not rather magnify it, because he expiates the sin and purges the vice of the sinful soul with the remedies that it needs? Who, I say, would deny that there is a true remittance full of mercy, when at true repentance he leaves unnoticed his own injury and remits the eternal penalty, and beyond that, applies medicine to the illness of the sick person? From this, we can gather how great is the power and excellence of that priestly absolution that frees the one who is truly penitent, who is eager in making satisfaction, not only from the harsh fire of eternal punishment but also from the consuming cleansing fire. We learn from physical illnesses what we should think about spiritual ones. We know that some are healed by cauterizing and others by ointments. It is a great thing and full of mercy to cure someone of a fatal illness by using a painful remedy. I ask, how great an indulgence is it and how great a beneficence to heal a festering illness with a gentle ointment, which in a short while would have to be cured by cauterization?80 What is penitential satisfaction but an ointment that is gentle compared to the cleansing fire? There you have what you should think about both divine and priestly remission. 24. We can, however, speak about the difference between “remitting” sins and “dismissing” them, although you may find places where

O n the P ower of B inding and L oosing



475

one is put for the other. To dismiss sins is to be totally indulgent toward them. To remit sins is to temper the debt that they incur or to relax a large part of it. How great a remission of sin and relaxing of punishment do you think it is when, by God’s gift, for eternal punishment is substituted cleansing temporal punishment, or cleansing fire is changed into a penitential punishment by the priestly office? Behold! Now you have what you asked, what and of what kind is divine or priestly remission, when a lengthy and often rather unpleasant expiation is required? We believe and hold in common that priests can remit sins and by penitential satisfaction extinguish future fires. We do not believe or hold that they can completely dismiss sins or serious transgressions (criminalia) and forgive them fully without danger, if they do not assign any satisfaction. You surely see that there is a big difference between remitting and dismissing. Remission is to temper the penalty of sin in a fitting form of mercy; dismissing is to forgive completely and take no notice of the sin. Thus, we are told, dismiss and it will be dismissed for you,81 and rightly so if we do not hang on to a portion of anger, but dismiss it entirely, as we wish that all will be dismissed for us. Hence, each day we pray to the Lord, dismiss our debts as we dismiss our debtors.82 Because it belongs to justice, and at the same time to mercy, in forgiving in part, to be struck and so advance our cleansing and healing, and in part to be punished, the power conferred is that of remitting rather than of dismissing, in that it says, whose sins you remit are remitted them.83 Hence, the one who praises the Lord gives thanks for remitting rather than dismissing: You have remitted the impiety of my sins.84 One who had escaped the sentence of eternal damnation was awaiting, not without trepidation, the healing work that would cleanse him. 25. It seems to me that cleansing from sins occurs in three ways: sometimes by severity alone, sometimes by loving-kindness (pietatem) alone, and sometimes with moderation by them both, so that mercy is not without severity or severity without mercy. In cleansing fire, there is unbearable affliction without the remedy of complete consolation; in voluntary satisfaction, there is affliction with manifold consolation; in the bath of regeneration, there is full cleansing with no affliction. The first cleansing occurs through fire, the second through a beating, and the third through both. Through the burning of cleansing fire, the dross of sin is cooked off; through the beating of satisfaction, the chaff of sin is beaten out; through the bath of regeneration, the stain of sin is painlessly washed away. There are many who truly repent at the

476

M A ST E R R IC HA R D

point of death, but are prevented by death from having time to make satisfaction. For them, what there is of wickedness and impiety in their sins is remitted at their true repentance; what there is of uncleanness and impurity is cooked off by cleansing fire. In the light of these things, understand what you have in the psalm, blessed are those whose wickedness is remitted.85 Others come to confession with great devotion and, with all zeal and solicitude, make satisfaction and rid themselves of their filth by works of charity and a variety of virtues. There occurs in them what you read elsewhere: charity covers a multitude of sins.86 This fulfills that prophetic statement, blessed are those whose sins are covered over.87 There are many who come from both the Jews and the gentiles, who after many disgraceful deeds and blasphemies are reborn in charity, on whom no satisfaction is enjoined because of their past evils. To those reborn in Christ, none of their previous misdeeds is imputed. Regarding this entire kind, think of what is said, blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin.88 There are also some who repent so profoundly and interiorly, and are fervent with such ardor of devotion in their repentance, and presume so much on the Lord’s loving-kindness, that this suffices for them for the expiation of their sins and they render the Lord completely gentle in their regard. Testimony to this is the thief who repented at the last, and immediately heard, today you will be with me in paradise.89 Of this sort, are people who run in the number of those to whom the Lord does not impute sin, but dismisses many sins for them, because they love much.90 In the light of what we have heard, what the Psalmist says seems clearer: blessed are those who sins have been remitted and whose sins are covered over. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin.91 Thus ends Richard’s treatise on the power of binding and loosing.

N otes

 477

NOTES 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

The basis for this translation is the text in Richard de Saint-Victor, Opuscules théologiques, ed. J. Ribaillier, TPMA 15 (Paris: Vrin, 1967), 77–110. There is another version of the Latin text in PL 196.1159–78. In the 33 complete manuscript copies identified by Ribaillier, the title and author are given in different ways. Two of these manuscripts are from the twelfth century, and 17 are from the fifteenth. Ribaillier chose Paris, BnF, lat. 13519, a composite volume from St Victor, as his base manuscript. Sicard, Iter Victorinum, BV 24, 685, adds three additional late medieval copies to Ribaillier’s list. John 20:23. I have chosen to translate the Latin remittere very woodenly. Where it occurs, one can substitute “forgives,” as the Douay-Rheims translation did. “criminosi”: As noted in the introduction, Richard seems to use this term to mean serious, and perhaps public, sin. Ps 77:39. Ps 1:1. John 8:34. Ps 71:14. Rev 11:11; 20:6; Augustine, De  civ. Dei 13:2 (Dombart and Kalb, CCSL  48, 385–86; PL 41.377; tr. Dyson, 541–42); Opus imperfectum contra Julian 2:66 (PL 45.1170; tr. Roland Teske, Answers to the Pelatians 3, WSA 1/25 [Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2009], 192); Richard of St Victor, In Apoc. 1.6 (PL 196.721AB). Luke 18:24. Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8. Robert of Melun, Quest. de div. pag. 72 (Martin, Oeuvres 1, 38). Chapter 2. Eccles 4:12: “A three-ply cord is not easily broken.” 2 Kgs 12:13. Ezek 18:21–22; 23:12. Ribaillier provides many citations of this statement in medieval discussions of the theology of penance; e.g., Abelard, In  ep. ad Rom.  2.3 (PL  178.840C); Ethica  19 (PL  178.664D); Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.17.1 (Quaracchi [1916], 846; tr.  Silano, 4:94); Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.5, 8 (PL 176.560 564–67); Richard of St Victor, XII patr. 9 (Châtillon, 112–15; tr. Zinn, 61). Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL 176.567C). Ps 31:5. Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL 176.568A). Jas 5:16. In the twelfth century, some, among them Richard, thought the apostle wanted to signify the necessity of oral confession; e.g., Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.1 (PL 176.552); Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.17.3 (Quaracchi [1916], 850ff; tr. Silano, 4:99–101). Others thought that the statement was only an exhortation; e.g., Abelard, Ethica 24, 25 (PL 179.668, 670). Luke 3:8; Matt 3:8. Gregory, Mor. 9.34.54 (PL 75.889C; tr. Kerns, 3:288–89); Gratian, Decretum, de poen. 1, 82 (Friedberg, 1:1182; Larson, 62–63). Matt 16:19; 18:18. Matt 16:19; 18:18. Robert of Melun, Quest. de div. pag. 72 (Martin, Oeuvres 1:38). John 20:23. Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL 176.565D). Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL 176.567D). John 20:23. Matt 16:19; 18:18. John 11:43.

478 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 41

42 43

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

R ichard of S t   V ictor

On the resuscitated Lazarus as a figure of the penitent, see below, chapter 17, and the comments of Gregory, Hom. ev. 2.26.5–6 (Étaix, Blanc, Judic, SC 522, 144–49; PL 76.1200–01; tr. David Hurst, CS 123 [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990], 204–06) and the literature cited there; De vera et falsa poen. 3.8 (PL 40.1115); Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.8 (PL  176.565); Gratian, Decretum  2, De  poen.  1.34 (Friedberg, i:  1166; Larson, 18–21); ­Richard of St Victor, LE 2.12.19 (Châtillon 475–76). John 11:44. 2 Cor 5:1. Matt 16:19. Matt 16:19; 18:18. John 20:23. John 20:23. John 20:23. Richard is referring to Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.18.4–6 (Quaracchi [1916], 860–62; tr. Silano 4:111–17). The  key statement is in  4.18.6 (862): “Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem ligandi et solvendi, id est, ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos.” John 20:23. “juris”: At this time or shortly thereafter, the meaning of jus was expanding to mean not only law but also right. On this, see Riccardo Saccenti, Debating Medieval Natural Law: A Survey (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2016). Jerome, In Matt. 3.16 (PL 26.118); Bruno of Asti, In Lev. 13 (PL 164.421); Pseudo-Anselm of Laon, Enar. in Matt. 8 (PL 162.1320). Richard’s aside here indicates a pastoral concern for the proper exercise of the priestly office in confession, a concern that motivated his successors at St Victor, Robert of Flamborough and Peter of Poitiers, to write manuals of instruction for confessors. Matt 8:4. John 3:10. Lev 14:46. Luke 17:19. Luke 17:14. Isa 40:3. John 11:43. Richard here seems to speak from experience. Chapter 7 above. Ezek 18:21–22; 23:12. Peter Lombard, Sent. 4.18.4 (Quaracchi [1916], 860; tr. Silano, 4:108). Robert of Melun, Quaest. theo. de ep. Pauli, Rom 3:25 (Martin, Oeuvres 2:68–69). Matt 24:12. “concorporatione”: for this late Latin term, see the Vulgate of Eph 3:6. Baptism. “Ecclesiae Christi consociatur”: Consociare was a not uncommon term in classical ­Latin. On  this threefold distinction, see Robert of Melun, Quaest. de div. pag. 73 (Martin, Oeuvres 1:38–39). Rom 5:10. Col. 2:12. De vera et falsa paen. 6.17 (PL 40.1118). 1 Cor 11:29. Robert of Melun, Quaest. theo. de ep. Pauli, Rom 4:11 (Martin, Oeuvres 2:76). De vera et falsa paen. 8.19 (PL 40.1119). Heb 10:26. Lev 4:2–3; 5:17–18.

N otes 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

 479

Lev 24:19–20; cf. Exod 21:14; Deut 19:21; Matt 5:38. Isidore, De eccl. off. 2.17.2 (PL 83.802; tr. Thomas Knoebel, ACW 61 [New York: Newman, 2008], 90). John 20:23. Ezek 18:21–22; 33:12; see chapters 4 and 19 above. Chapter 8 above. 1 John 3:4. Jas 3:9. Ps 48:21. Richard of St Victor, XII patr. 8–9 (Châtillon, 110–15; PL 196.6–7; tr. Zinn, 60–61); Adn. in Ps. 134 (PL 196.367AB). 1 John 3:4. Jesus compared himself to a physician and sin to an illness (Matt 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31). Augustine speaks of Christ the physician in many places; see J.  Courtès, “Saint ­Augustin et la médecine,” in Augustinus magister, Congrès international augustinien, Paris, 21–24 ­septembre 1954, 3 vols (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1954), 1:48–51. See Richard of St Victor, Statu 1 (Ribaillier, 64–65; tr. Evans, VTT 4:252–53). “quantum in ipso”: insofar as it is in him. Richard of St Victor develops this metaphor of spiritual healing at length in Statu, 32–45 (Ribaillier, 99–114; tr.  Evans, VTT  4:280–96). See also Hugh of St  Victor, Sacr.  2.13.2 (PL 176.527A): “Homo igitur in peccatis iacens aegrotus est, vitia sunt vulnera, Deus medicus, dona Spiritus sancti antidota, virtutes sanitates, beatitudines gaudia. Per dona enim Spiritus sancti vitia sanantur. Sanitas vitiorum integritas est virtutum” (“The man lying in his sins is the sick man, God is the physician, the medicines are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the cures are the virtues, the beatitudes are the joys. Through the gifts of the Holy Spirit evil inclinations are healed. The healing of evil impulses is the completion of the virtues”); Quinque septenis 1 (Baron 102; tr. Benson, VTT 4:361). Luke 6:37. Matt 6:12; Luke 11:4; Mark 11:35. John 20:23. Ps 31:5. Ps 31:1. 1 Pet 4:8. Ps 31:1. Ps 31:2. Luke 23:43. See Augustine, Jo ev. tr. 50.12 (PL 35.763; tr. John Gibb and James Innes, NPNF 7 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952], 282). Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.14.5 (PL 176.560C). Luke 7:47. Ps 31:1–2.

HISTORICAL SETTING 3: PENANCE FROM RICHARD TO PETER OF POITIERS, CANON REGULAR OF ST VICTOR (D. C. 1216) INTRODUCTION

There are scores of penitentials, from the twelfth century and after, that were designed to help priests be good confessors. One of the earliest of these is the Compilatio praesens of Peter of Poitiers. It is not very well organized, but it is the work of a man who was an experienced confessor and a reformer who wanted to help upgrade the practice of confession in his time and place. That time and place were very important. Peter lived in Paris, after a long development in the theology and practice of penance, and just before the Fourth Lateran Council made annual confession a duty for all Christians. After declaring that “after receiving baptism, anyone who shall have lapsed into sin can always be restored through true penance,”1 the Council decreed: All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year, and let them take care to do what they can to perform the penance imposed on them… If any persons wish, for good reasons, to confess their sins to another priest, let them first ask and obtain the permission of their own priest; for otherwise the other priest will not have the power to absolve or to bind them. The Priest shall be discerning and prudent, so that like a skilled doctor he may pour wine and oil [cf. Luke 10:34] over the wounds of the injured one. Let him carefully inquire about the circumstances of both 1

IV Lateran Council, chapter 1, #802 (Denz.-Hün., ET, 266): “Et si post susceptionem baptismi quisquam prolapsus fuerit in peccatum, per veram potest semper paenitentiam reparari.” There is a vast literature on this decree: see, for example, M. Wayno, “Rethinking the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215,” Speculum 93/3 (2018), 611–37; Atria Larson, “Lateran IV’s Decree on Confession, Gratian’s De penitentia, and Confession to One’s Sacerdos Proprius: A Re-evaluation of OmnisUtriusque in Its Canonistic Context”, The Catholic Historical Review 104 (2018), 415–37.

482

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

the sinner and the sin, so that he may prudently discern what sort of advice he ought to give and what remedy to apply, using various means to heal the sick person. Let [the confessor] take absolute care not to betray the sinner through word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever… For we decree that he who presumes to reveal a sin that has been manifested to him in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office but also to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual penance.2

As will be clear, there is nothing in this decree that Peter (and indeed his sources) had not urged when they strove to instruct others on how to be good confessors. In his penitential, Compilatio praesens, Peter drew on four sources: a centuries-long canonical tradition represented by Gratian, the pastoral theology of the Parisian theologians of his time, his experience as confessor at St Victor of Paris, and the first penitentials written to help confessors in their pastoral work. The tradition regarding penance was based on biblical, patristic, and canonical authorities. As described above, collections of these authorities on penance began appear as early as the sixth century. There were many such collections, the authorities in them were sometimes contradictory and sometimes inauthentic. Over time, bishops and councils tried to sift through them and produce reliable and uniform guidelines for penance. The large, widely copied collections of authorities in the Decretum (1010–20) of Burchard of Worms and the Decretum of Ivo of Chartres (d. 1115) were among the main sources of the pastorally oriented penitentials of Bartholomew of Exeter (d. 1184), Alan of Lille (d. 1203), and Peter’s colleague at St Victor, Robert of Flamborough (d. 1224). The canons regular of St Victor were specially authorized to hear the confessions of the students of Paris. This responsibility definitely 2

IV Lateran, chapter 21, 812–14 (Denz.-Hün., ET, 271): “Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua solus peaccata saltem semel in anno fideliter confiteatur proprio sacerdoti, et iniunctam sibi paenitentiam pro viribus studeat adimplere… Si quis autem alieno sacerdoti voluerit iusta de causa sua confiteri peccata, licentiam prius postulet et obtineat a proprio sacerdote, cum aliter ille ipsum non possit absolvere vel ligare (812). Sacerdos autem sit discretus et cautus, ut more periti medici superinfundat vinum et oleum [cf. Luke 10:34] vulneribus sauciati, diligenter inquirens et peccatoris circumstantias et peccati, quibus prudenter intelligat, quale debeat ei praebere consilium et cuiusmodi remedium adhibere, diversis experimentis utendo ad sanadum aegrotum (813). Caveat autem omnino, ne verbo aut signo alio quovis modo aliquatenus prodat peccatorem… Qui peccatum in paenitentiali iudicio sibi detectum praesumpserit revelare, non solum a sacerdotali officio deponendum decernimus, verum etiam ad agendam perpetuam paenitentiam in arctum monasterium detrudendum.”

I ntroduction



483

shaped the outlook of Peter of Poitiers, and caused him to take an interest in the canonical requirements for confession, and in the current legislation enacted by the popes and the bishops of Paris and surrounding regions. The theologians of Paris associated with Peter the Chanter shared his interest in doing theology with a view toward enhancing the pastoral work of the Church. From their theology, Peter of Poitiers drew ideas about the morality of governance and property that reflected the new economic and social situations of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. So, in order to situate Peter and his penitential in the tradition he inherited and the setting in which he worked and thereby highlight his own personality and interests, what follows will have three sections. First, it will study the contents of two pastorally oriented penitentials that preceded him, those of Bartholomew of Exeter and Alan of Lille. Secondly, of interest is the pastoral work of the canons regular of St Victor as revealed in papal mandates, anecdotes recorded by those familiar with St Victor, and the penitential of his contemporary Victorine, Robert of Flamborough. Finally, it will examine what theologians active in Paris around ad 1200 said about penance in their sermons. The Penitentials of Bartholomew of Exeter and Alan of Lille Not long after Peter the Lombard completed his Sentences, there began to appear a new form of pastoral manual for confessors. The first two very influential representatives of this genre were written by Bartholomew of Exeter and Alan of Lille. Bartholomew of Exeter, Penitential, Numquam nimis Bartholomew was born about 1110 probably in Normandy. He may have studied and taught in Paris, which would account for his obvious learning and his wide circle of acquaintances. Along with John of Salisbury (his lifelong friend and correspondent) and Thomas Becket, he served as a clerk for Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury before becoming Archdeacon of Exeter by 1154. He attended the synod called by the very ill Archbishop Theobald late in 1159 to decide between two claimants to papal office. Theobald assigned Bartholomew to deliver a report on the synod to the King in Normandy. As Archbishop Theobald had urged, Bartholomew was elected Bishop of Exeter in 1161.

484

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

Bartholomew urged reconciliation in the conflict between Henry II and Thomas Becket, and tried to remain neutral, but his sympathies gradually moved from the king to Becket. In 1170, Pope Alexander III suspended him and other bishops who had attended the coronation of Henry the Young King in 1170 in the absence of Becket. At Exeter, Bartholomew absolved Becket’s murderers and later reconsecrated the cathedral at Canterbury, which Becket’s murder had polluted.3 He served the papacy as a judge delegate for cases in England, which involved him in matters of canon law. He was often in the service and presence of the king.4 As bishop he conducted visitations of the parishes and monasteries of his diocese. One hundred of his sermons survive. Shortly after becoming bishop he settled conflicts within his cathedral chapter, which included spaces for twenty-four canons, each with a vicar. A number of his canons held other church offices elsewhere and some were mostly absentee. Bartholomew called a number of local synods. He died in 1184.5 He was a dedicated bishop, a learned canonist who strictly interpreted the law, an able diplomat, and a generous benefactor to his diocese, to works of education, and to the poor. Among his close associates was Baldwin, who served as an archdeacon in Bartholomew’s diocese before becoming a Cistercian, abbot of Ford, and Archbishop of Canterbury. Besides his penitential and sermons, Bartholomew wrote a treatise on freewill and fate, Contra fatalitatis errorem, and a Dialogue against the Jews.6 Ten of his sermons treat of penance and confession. One of these declares: This confession of sin is to be done not only exteriorly but also interiorly: interiorly before the Lord for compunction, exteriorly before a man for satisfaction, because it is not enough to confess with the heart and the mouth, unless we also confess by deed.7

Only one or two copies of Bartholomew’s other writings exist, all of them of English provenance. By contrast, Morey was able to identify 18 still extant manuscripts of Bartholomew’s Penitential, five of them in 3

4 5 6 7

Adrian Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter, Bishop and Canonist (Cambridge University Press, 1937; reprinted 2014), 15–30. For a more recent appraisal of Bartholomew’s work on penitence, see Rob Meens, Penance, 204–09. Morey, Bartholomew, 44–78. Morey, Bartholomew, 79–99. Morey, Bartholomew, 100–12. Cited by Morey, Bartholomew, 167.

I ntroduction



485

continental libraries. There seems to have been a copy at St Victor in the seventeenth century, but it is not mentioned in earlier catalogues of the library there.8 Bartholomew probably wrote his Penitential early in his episcopate, although one can say only that he wrote it after Peter the Lombard finished his Sentences (1157). His work is groundbreaking in its genre and to some extent in its organization, but not in its contents, which Bartholomew draws from Burchard of Worms, Ivo of Chartres, Gratian, and Peter Lombard and, through them, from various councils and early Christian writers and, ultimately and often, from the Bible. Judging from the provenance of the manuscripts, Bartholomew’s work may have been used primarily as a tool for instructing clerics. Because Bartholomew’s work was the first of its kind, was very well organized, gathered earlier sources, and was an important source for Peter of Poitiers and other later penitientials, it will be worthwhile here to give a thorough summary of its contents. In most manuscripts, Bartholomew’s work is divided into chapters. It occupies 126 pages in Morey’s edition. Toward the end of his treatise, Bartholomew adds some miscellaneous paragraphs (my section XIV). I have made a cross reference to these at the places where they seem to fit into Bartholomew’s outline. I have added the divisions (Roman numerals); the paragraph headings and numbers (in Arabic numerals and here placed in parentheses) are Morey’s. Those who read Bartholomew’s penitential or this summary will notice how severe and, in some cases, archaic it seems. Just how much of what he includes reflects desired or actual penitential practice in England in the 1160s, after the publication of Gratian’s Decretum and the Lombard’s Book of Sentences, cannot be deduced from the text. We will see that Robert of Flamborough’s penitential also includes a great many canons and decrees that even he says are not observable in his time, that Peter of Poitiers deliberately leaves out. Perhaps Bartholomew includes this material in a penitential, that was intended to guide confessional practice and enjoyed considerable circulation, out of a desire for comprehensiveness and respect for tradition. The exact audience he had in mind for his penitential is not clear. One suspects that Bartholomew’s treatise included more than most priests needed to know, although its careful organization would make it a useful reference tool for bishops, instructors of confessors, or confessors. 8

Morey, Bartholomew, 163–66. Meens, Penance, identifies 4 manuscripts unknown to Morey, while Morey finds mentions of four additional manuscripts in four medieval book catalogues.

486

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

I. Preface Priests must make known to all the good things one must have, and the bad things one must not do in order to be saved (1). II. The Foundational Virtues It is most important that priests know and teach the faith: the seven principal vitia,9 the three basic virtues, the creed, and the Our Father. The confessor should make sure the penitent knows these, and if not, he should instruct him in them. Faith should be unalloyed (no heretical elements) and firm (in necessity, one is ready to die for it) (2–3). Hope is confidence, based in grace and a good conscience, about future goods (3). One must love God for himself and above all things, and one’s neighbor for or in God, either because they are good or so that they may be good (4). Love of God and neighbor cannot be separated; proof of love of God is caring for one’s neighbor (5). III. Penance Some things are essential to penance and cannot be dismissed or relaxed by bishop or priest: true penitence, pure confession, satisfaction, and renunciation of one’s sins (6). There are, however, things that can be relaxed or omitted for a reasonable cause: alms, prayers, fasts,10 groans, tears, silence, manual labor, vigils, genuflections, beating the body, tattered or rough clothing, pilgrimages,11 and other works of charity or discipline (7). Having distinguished the necessary and optional elements of penance, Bartholomew now deals with penance in general, then each of its components separately. St Jerome says that penance is, following baptism, a second plank after shipwreck. St Gregory defines it as to weep for sins committed and not to commit things that cause one to weep. Neither penance nor almsgiving wipes away sins that one does not seriously aim to stop doing (8). Penance has three essential parts, which Bartholomew now describes. 9 10 11

I leave vitia in Latin. The term usually does not mean either sins or vices, but inclinations toward sin. On fasts, see (135). See (127)–(128).

I ntroduction

 487

Confession of the mouth is necessary if the penitent has time to do it. The shame of a candid confession renders a mortal sin venial.12 In a pure confession, one tells one’s sins candidly to one’s confessor (or, with his permission, to another confessor) without hiding some sins, in order to tell them to another confessor, or seeking out an ignorant or careless confessor. In grave necessity, when no priest is available, one can confess to a peer. Thus, the lepers were cured on the way to the priest (9). Satisfaction to those one has harmed by one’s sin is necessary (10). Remission of sins requires that one forgive those who have sinned against oneself. One needs to pray for the grace to make this possible (11). There are various sorts of satisfaction that the priest may assign. Almsgiving is an important and varied form (e.g., all the works of mercy mentioned in Matt 25). Anyone can give some alms (12). Bartholomew offers a mini-treatise on prayer, which is an important form of satisfaction (13).13 Fasting includes both discipline of the senses and restraint in food and drink (14). Bartholomew treats more briefly the other forms of satisfaction: sighs and tears (15), silence (16), manual labor (17), vigils (18), genuflections (19), beating (20), tattered clothing (21), and pilgrimage, which receives a longer treatment: what is pilgrimage, its kinds and their utility. Who should or should not be assigned pilgrimages as penance (22)? IV. Priest and Penitents To learn what he needs to know, a priest needs a sacramentary, a lectionary, a ritual for baptism, a computus,14 a “penitential canon,”15 a psalter, and homilies for the Sundays of the Year and for Feast days (23). He needs to be a fair and disinterested judge in bind12 13

14 15

References to other parts of Gratian’s decree are to E. Friedberg, ed., Corpus iuris canonici, 2 vols (Leipzig: 1879–81; reprinted Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1955). Morey, Bartholomew, 185n, identifies Pseudo-Hugh of St Victor, Misc. V. 27 (PL 177.760CD), as the source of this passage. Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving are the three observances Jesus discusses in Matt 6:1–18. A guide for calculating the date of Easter. Morey indicates that Bartholomew is here citing Gratian, who attributed this list to Augustine. The “rules for penances” probably refers to earlier penitentials, which Bartholomew’s more pastorally useful manual is meant to replace. As was shown above, Egbert included all of these items, along with a martyrology and antiphonary, among the books a priest should have at his disposal.

488

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

ing and loosing; he needs to know how to encourage penitents to be candid (24). The confessor needs to take into account the state, dignity, wealth, age, education, health, sex, and occupation of the penitent (25).16 V. Sins in General Sins may be venial or mortal, public or hidden, with knowledge or in ignorance, spontaneous or not, with deliberation or not, in thought alone, or in speech, or in deed. Sin deepens as it unfolds: one is tempted by suggestion, seized with pleasure, conquered to consent, held by the deed, bound by custom, blinded by excuses, swallowed by obstinacy and impertinence. Likewise, time, place, manner, cause, intent, and extent of resistance also distinguish sins. It is up to the priest to decide what penance and how long a penance is suitable (26). Light sins include too much talk and laughter, and sloth in carrying out one’s duties. To gain remission for these sins, alms with contrition of heart and general confession and the Lord’s Prayer are sufficient.17 However, little sins add up; a ship can be sunk by one big wave or by gradually taking on water in the hold (27).18 All grave sins, however grave and abominable, can be forgiven by secret confession unless they are such that others will be harmed if they are not publicly acknowledged (e.g., someone is to be punished because of another’s false accusation). In the latter case, it is the responsibility of the penitent, not the priest, to make public his sin. The priest should do nothing to make the penitent’s sin known, but he can keep admonishing the penitent to do so (28). If a priest does make known sins confessed to him, he should be deposed and spend the rest of his life as a disgraced wanderer (29).19

16 17 18 19

Barthlomew does not here emphasize the need for priests to give good example by their lives, a topic that he touches on regarding penalties for clerics who hunt (105). See Artur Michael Landgraf, Dogmengeschichte der Frühscholastik, 4 vols in 8 (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1952–1956), 4/2:100–202. See (134) regarding how venial sins can grow into serious ones (and about putting off penance), and on this topic, Landgraf, Dogmengeschichte, 4/2:7–47. This legislation about penalties for a priest who reveals what was told him in confession is found in Gratian, De poenitentia D. 6, c. 1, 2 (ed. and tr. Larson, 266–67) and Peter Lombard, Sentences 4.21.9 (ed. Quaracchi [1916], 885; tr. Silano, 4:131), where it is ascribed to “Gregory.” As will be seen, Peter of Poitiers indicates that practice in his day was not quite as absolute as this, as least among the Cistercians.

I ntroduction

 489

VI. Penances Although which penance to impose is up to the judgment of the priest,20 he ought not impose inappropriate penances (29). A penance that does not correspond to the kind of serious sin involved is designated a “false penance” by the authority of the Holy Fathers. Likewise, it is a false penance if someone is given a penance but allowed to continue in a sinful occupation or to nurture deep hatred for someone. Such a one should be told to try to do good and pray for contrition until he can truly repent. Similarly, one cannot truly receive penance for one sin if one does not repent of all his sins (30). The quality of guilt should determine the quality of the penalty (31). We should forgive the sins committed against us and, for the sins committed against God, the priest should assign penance following the guidelines of the Holy Fathers (32). More specifically, the time and manner of penance assigned in confession should follow the guidelines of the ancient canons, the authority of Sacred Scripture, and proven Church custom (33). The priest should not assign public penance for hidden sins. He should not be too strict nor too lenient, but if he errs, it should be on the side of leniency. One should try to cure vitia by the opposing virtues (33–34). It is not enough to change one’s ways; one must also do penance (35). Penitents should confess sins of both body and spirit. The seven principal vitia indicate some of the main ones, but there is often no authority to guide the priest in assigning a penance for a specific sin. He needs to use his discretion and pick a penance that fits the person, circumstances, and the gravity of the fault (36–37).21 VII. How to Receive Penitents When someone comes to a priest for confession, the confessor should receive him devoutly and humbly, move him to genuine contrition by his example, and pray that God will give him a spirit of compunction. He should urge the penitent not to be ashamed, for the priest too is a sinner. He reminds the penitent of the seven principal vitia and their subsidiary sins. His questioning should not be so detailed as to shock or tempt the penitent by describing a sin she never heard of. Then, having heard the penitent’s confession, the confessor like a

20 21

See (26). For further discussion of penances, see (130, 135).

490

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

prudent physician22 should assign a penance, depending on the health of penitent, the gravity of her sins, and whether they were hidden or public (38). A sick person in danger of death should not be assigned a penance she will not live to complete. If the penitent is too sick to talk, those with her can testify to her penitence. One may be dubious about a person who repents only when she can sin no more, but she should not be denied remission of her sins. She should be given anointing and viaticum (39). For public penance, penitents come before the door of the church at the beginning of Lent, barefoot and clothed in sackcloth, then prostrate themselves on the ground, declaring thus that they are guilty. The priests responsible for them should be there to help determine the amount of penance they need to do. Then with the clergy, the penitents enter the Church, prostrate on the ground, and say the seven penitential psalms. Then rising from prayer, the bishop imposes his hands on the penitents, sprinkles them with holy water, puts ashes on their head, covers their heads with rough cloth, and sadly tells them they are expelled from the Church, as Adam was from Paradise. On Holy Thursday, they return with their priests to be presented again at the entrance to the Church (40). VIII. The Fifth Commandment The next twenty canons (41–60) concern sins against the fifth commandment, “you shall not kill.” Most of the entries are from earlier conciliar decrees, and they spell out very severe penances of seven, fourteen, or twenty-eight years. They treat of the penalties for many different sorts of perpetrators and victims: murderers of clerics, clerics who commit murder, parricides (this also covers other family members), matricides, those who kill their spouse, incite murder, commit suicide, kill in war or in vengeance, or accidentally; those who cause an abortion or accidentally kill their child. Not every instance of killing another person is murder. This lengthy section on murder is a reminder that the penitential is primarily concerned with serious or mortal sins (crimina). It seems unnecessarily detailed. Perhaps it reflects Bartholomew’s desire to organize material in a comprehensive way.23 22 23

On this widely used metaphor, see (33–34). For the task of the confessor, see also (1). To the discussion of the fifth commandment, one might add the sin of cutting off the limbs of another (126), hate, which the dismembers of the ecclesial Body of Christ (107), and assault on clergy or monastics (120).

I ntroduction



491

IX. The Sixth Commandment These are twelve paragraphs (61–72) on sexual sins. They mostly consist of passages from Augustine or conciliar legislation, as transmitted by Ivo of Chartres’ Decretum, Books 8 and 9. The authorities cited sometimes overlap, and deal with more than the chapter titles indicate. These paragraphs deal with adultery, fornication, incest, entry of married people into religious life, widows, and the sexual sins of priests, monks, and nuns. For priests who become sexually involved with penitents or women to whom they minister, the penalties are very severe (67, 68). One authority allows priests who have committed a sexual sin, if they have repented and done penance, to be reinstated in their office if they perform their duties worthily, but they are not to be promoted (72). There is also a canon on “unnatural sins”: bestiality, homosexuality, and pederasty. The punishment for pederasty by priests and religious is extreme and includes surveillance and no contact with youths (69).24 X. The Eighth Commandment Oaths were a prominent part of ecclesiastical and lay life. To violate one was to show contempt for God and, Bartholomew implies, undercut the fabric of society. Hence, the Holy Fathers assign very severe penalties for perjury (73). To swear on God’s hair or on some created thing is still an oath, and to violate that oath is perjury (74). Vows, which bind us to things to which we are otherwise not obligated, are binding as well (76). Oaths wrongly made are not binding (77). Before the age of fourteen, children are not required to take oaths (78–79). It is not a sin to make an oath (80), but one authority strictly limits when an oath (except to bring peace) can be taken: no oaths should be made from Septuagesima to the Octave of Easter, from Advent to Epiphany, during the Ember days and the Major litanies, or on Sunday. Oaths sworn in a conspiracy are sinful (82). Oaths wrongly taken, or carelessly by someone who did not think it was a sin, or by children are not binding (83).25 Some lies—e.g., done out of humility or to protect the life of neighbor—seem to have an honorable purpose, but perfect men avoid even 24 25

(69) is taken from Ivo of Chartres, Decretum 9.93 (PL 161.682), who ascribes it to the Dicta Basilii. On oaths and vows, see Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 2.12 translated above.

492

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

them as sins (84). The worst kind of lying is that done in teaching religion; this is followed by lies that harm others, lies told for sexual seduction, and flattery offered out of greed (85).26 XI. Seventh Commandment Secretly or openly committed thefts are sins, as is pillage. It is not lawful to take from the rich to give to the poor or to keep property that one has found. Rape and forced marriage are a form of sinful stealing. For theft to be remitted in confession, stolen property must be restored. The circumstances of the one who steals must be taken into account. The Church should not profit from stolen property (86). A priest who steals from the Church commits a sacrilege. People who wantonly damage a church receive strict penalties (87). Clerics who have nothing should not be buying up land holdings, unless they give them to their church (88). Vulgar singing near a church (89) and dancing and cross-dressing near a church are prohibited (89–90).27 Tithes should be paid, and clergy should assign them to their proper use (care of the poor and pilgrims) (91). Usury is forbidden to clerics; changing weights and measures should be punished by a twenty-day fast (92).28 Incendiaries, and those who aid or abet them, are to be excommunicated and, if they fail to repent and promise to amend, they should not receive Christian burial (125–26). Those who rob pilgrims or break the Peace of God are to be excommunicated until they make amends (127–28).

26

27

28

These varieties of lying come ultimately from the ten forms of lying identified by Augustine, De mendacio 25 (English translation at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1312.htm; accessed January 20, 2018). To these sins of speech might be added detraction (106). Perhaps Bartholomew sees these two inappropriate behaviors (88–89) as robbing a church of the respect it deserves. The dancing and cross-dressing could refer to activities associated with a celebration such as the “Feast of Fools.” See Max Harris, Sacred Folly (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011), for example, 17–22, 120–27. He concludes (p. 284), rightly I think, that in spite of numerous condemnations by Church officials, the aim of the Feast of Fools and liturgical plays with comic elements was to illustrate two central Christian beliefs: the Incarnation put down the mighty and exalted the humble, and Christians are called to be fools for the sake of Christ. In (108) Bartholomew condemns gifts to actors, and in (109) those who put scandalous booklets in a church. The sentence on false weights and measures comes from Burchard of Worms, Decretum 19 (PL 140.1012). (120) teaches that bishops have an obligation to confront those who despoil the poor, clergy, or religious institutions. See also (126) and (127).

I ntroduction

 493

XII. Civil Authorities Four things corrupt courts and judges: fear, avarice, hatred, and favoritism. Clerics should not hear cases on Sunday. One should not let people get away with illegal activities, but neither should one be too harsh. If judges and powerful people who oppress the poor do not amend when their bishop admonishes them, let them be excommunicated (93). If people will not amend, who out of pride and obstinacy contradict or resist legitimate authority, they should be excommunicated (94). False witnesses sin against God, the judge, and the person against whom they bear false witness. Those who commit this sin deserve the same punishment as adulterers and murderers (Matt 15:19) (95). XIII. Faith, Church, and Sacraments Schism and heresy are two different things. To have received communion from a heretic requires a year or more of penance. Someone who joins a heretical group, persuades others to follow him, and then repents should do twelve years of penance, three outside the church, seven among the “listeners,” and two without communion (96).29 Simony can occur at an ordination if either the ordainer or the ordained is a simoniac. Simony can take forms other than monetary payment. Some seek ordination out of vainglory or other reasons, or their parents secure for them a church appointment even when they are still children. All such should do penance, but if they are repentant and worthy ministers, they may then resume their office (97). Baptism is to be administered by a priest, except in danger of death, when even a layperson may confer it. Priests must not be negligent in fulfilling their duty to baptize infants. If there is doubt about whether a child has been baptized, the child should be baptized. A baptism known to have been conferred in the name of the Trinity should not be repeated. Only one person should receive the newly baptized child, that is, act as godparent (98).30 Confirmation times should be announced by a priest to his people. Bishops should administer the sacrament fasting, just as at Easter and 29

30

Morey traces this back from Gratian to Ivo of Chartres to Pope Julian. It is a not-exceptional example of the very serious penalties Bartholomew’s sources assign for grave sins. See (126) on posthumous excommunication of heretics, and (129) on the reception of communion by dying apostates. The urgent concern of this paragraph is that no one dies without being baptized.

494

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

Pentecost baptism is celebrated by those who are fasting. Confirmation can be conferred outdoors if necessary (99). Regarding service at the altar: when priests are assigned to a parish they should make a profession to the bishop to live chastely and devoutly. Priests render an account of their ministry to their bishop once a year. It is enough for a priest to offer Mass once a day. If the sacrifice falls on the ground, everything it touches should be burned, and the one who caused this should do a half-year’s penance. If someone does not take care of the sacrifice and a mouse eats it, the guilty person should do penance of forty days. Those suffering from demons or seizures should not celebrate the sacrament. The priest, not a layperson, should take communion to the sick (100). Nocturnal pollution can occur because of natural excess or weakness, gluttony, or thoughts. There is some guilt in the last two cases, but this need not stop a priest from celebrating Mass (101). Drunkenness leads to all kinds of bad things. Priests or monks found drunk should do penance, and laypeople who get drunk or cause others to get drunk should also do penance. Clergy or laity who vomit up the Eucharist because of excessive drinking should do penance (102). Seculars who do not receive communion at Christmas, Holy Thursday, Easter, and Pentecost are not really Catholics (103).31 XIV. Miscellaneous Topics Bartholomew includes a long paragraph on divination. The sources he cites describe various forms of superstition. The penalty assigned for this sin can be very severe: for clerics, deprivation of office, and for laypeople, excommunication (104). Clerics who hunt are assigned penances of one or more months, depending on rank, during which they are banned from exercising their office or receiving communion (105). Detraction of the person in charge is to be punished by a seven-day separation from the community (106). Those who hate others and disturb the community should be separated from the community until they make peace (107). Gifts to actors are not good deeds, but sins (108). If someone puts scandalous booklets in a church, he should be anathematized (109). 31

Other liturgical concerns are the observance of Lent (110) and offerings (116).

I ntroduction

 495

According to some decrees, the observance of Lent requires of clerics seven weeks of abstinence from meat, and of laity, abstinence from meat and conjugal relations. Those who fail to do this need to do penance (110). Offerings are of two kinds: for the sacristy or for the treasury. The former, of bread and wine, are of two kinds: those made for consecration at the Eucharist and those made to be blessed and distributed as eulogias to those who do not receive the Eucharist. Bartholomew copies a prayer for blessing these breads (111). XV. On Death and Burial People who keep offerings and donations left by their parents are to be regarded as killers of the poor and should be excluded until they return what they have taken (111). The goods of deceased bishops, priests, and deacons should remain with the church. Bishops should make sure that heirs respect the directives in the deceased person’s will (112). No fee should be exacted for burials. No one should be buried within the church building (113). As Augustine says, it is a good thing to pray and give alms on behalf of the dead, though some are so good they do not need them, and some are so bad that these good deeds will not help them (114). Those who are executed on a gibbet should be buried by the Church if they have repented their sin (115). Those who relapse after public penance cannot perform public penance again, though they may be present at Mass and may be admitted to penance when they are dying (117). XVI. Excommunication Every anathema is excommunication, but not vice versa. The purposes of excommunication, which is separation from the society of one’s Christian brothers and sisters, are to reprimand those who do wrong or are disobedient and to serve as part of their penance when they have changed their ways. It takes many forms: public penance, or when a cleric or monk is forbidden to take part in choir; or when someone is temporarily excluded from the Eucharist or something else available to the faithful. Anathema, however, is a condemnation, or separation from God and the Body of Christ, until the Final Coming; it should be pronounced only for a weighty reason (cf. 1 Cor 5:5;

496

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

16:22; Rom 8:9; John 20:23; Matt 18:17). Bishops should consult with and give notice to neighboring bishops when they excommunicate someone (118). Heretics may be excommunicated after their death, and similarly, persons may be reinstated after their death, but only for grave reasons (119). Bishops are obligated to confront and, if necessary, excommunicate powerful people who despoil the poor, or the clergy, or a religious institution (120). Clerics or monks who receive churches from laypeople are to be excommunicated (121). Those who do not present themselves to the ones who excommunicated them within a year, lose the right to appeal. Those who lived without being in communion are not received into communion after death (122). No priest should receive the excommunicated until their case is examined, and he should not join them in prayer, food, drink, or a kiss, under pain of excommunication (123). Those who violently injure a cleric or monk are excommunicated and no bishop should absolve them, except in danger of death, without permission of the pope (124). Incendiaries and those who aid and abet them are to be excommunicated, and if they fail to repent and promise to amend, they should not receive Christian burial (125–26). Those who rob pilgrims or break the Peace of God are to be excommunicated until they make amends (127). Many are excommunicated who sin out of ignorance, fear, and necessity. We should temper the penalty they receive (128). Those who need to find sustenance when they travel through a territory under excommunication may receive sustenance from those who live there, without falling under excommunication for doing so. Likewise, helping the excommunicated for humanitarian reasons is not forbidden (128). Apostates should not be received back into the Church unless they seek to do penance, and if they are in danger of death they should not be given communion unless they make known their correct faith and do penance (129).32 32

For the most part, this lengthy paragraph treats of those who denied their faith in times of persecution.

I ntroduction

 497

The length of time for penances should take into account the kind of sin and the health and disposition of the person. Serious public sins by laypeople are subject to public penance and imposition of hands (130). Such are the contents of Bartholomew’s Penitential, which summarizes a millennium of developing Christian thought on sin, penance, and forgiveness in order to guide confessors in the twelfth century in the pastoral work of hearing confessions, giving advice, and assigning acts of satisfaction. Bartholomew is a well-educated theologian, but his concern in this work is practical. Bartholomew is almost always dependent on his predecessors. He avoids theoretical discussions, except insofar as they immediately affect the lives of confessors and penitents. Alan of Lille, who wrote a quarter of century after Bartholomew had the same aims, but he is more original in his presentation. Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis Alan of Lille (1117–1203) was a man of very wide interests: poet, theologian, preacher, and author of the Liber poenitentialis33 that is of concern here. He taught in Paris, and later in Montpellier. It seems more likely that he wrote his Artes predicandi and Liber poenitentialis in Montpellier, when he was pastorally engaged. At some point late in life, he entered the Cistercian Order.34 33

34

Alain de Lille, Liber poenitentialis, ed. Jean Longère, 2 vols, Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia 17, 18 (Louvain: Nauwelaerts, Lille: Giard, 1965). Longère here edits the long version. There are middle and short versions that he edited in AHDLMA 32 (1965): 169–242. Longère (Liber poenitentialis, 1:32–108) identified 15 manuscripts of the long version, five of the middle version, and 21 of the short version. The version in Migne (PL 210.279–304) reprints the edition of the short version by Charles de Visch, Alani Magni de Insulis… opera (Antwerp: 1654). On this edition, and the reprint in Migne, see Longère, Liber poenitentialis, 1:109–25; for the edition of the long text by J. Miller (Augsburg, 1508), see 1:126–29. Longère shows (1:133–60) that the middle text was the written first, probably before 1191; it copies much from Burchard’s Decretum 19. The long version, published between 1191–99, utilized the Compilatio prima (or Breviarium extravagantium), a collection of decretals or papal directives compiled between 1187 and 1191 by Bernard of Pisa, a canonist who died as bishop of Pavia in 1213 (see Kenneth Pennington, “The Decretalists 1190 to 1234,” in the History of Medieval Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140–1243, from Gratian to the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, ed. Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington, History of Medieval Canon Law [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2008], 211–15). The long version of Alan’s Liber poenitentialis went through several revisions. The short text is an abbreviation of the long text, made by someone other than Alan de Lille, not long after the long text was written. Longère, ed., Liber poenitentialis, 1:19–26. For a recent summary of what is known about Alan of Lille, see Winthrop Wetherbee’s introduction to his edition and translation. Alan of Lille, Literary Works, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 22 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

498

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

Alan of Lille dedicated his Liber poenitentialis to Henry of Sully, Archbishop of Brouges (1183–99). Henry had been a Cistercian monk and abbot. He promoted church reform. He may have been a fellow student of Alan of Lille. The two men shared a common culture and zeal to reform the Church. Henry’s death provides a terminus ante quem for Alan of Lille’s penitential. A terminus a quo is Alan of Lille’s use of the Compilatio prima of the canonist Bernard of Pavia, which was compiled between 1187 and 1191. The Liber poenitentialis consists of a prologue and four books divided into small chapters. The first book (37 chapters) offers guidance to priests on how to hear confessions. The second book (152 chapters) begins with further advice to the priest, and then considers murder, perjury, theft, sexual sins, divination, and disrespect for the Eucharist. The third book (51 chapters) considers what penances should be assigned. The fourth book (48 chapters) gives advice about how to make a good confession and further guidance for confessors. It is not necessary here to survey all the contents of Alan’s Liber, but a summary and some observations will help situate it in the development of penitentials designed to serve as confessors’ manuals, such as those produced at St Victor within two decades of Alan’s work. Alan begins his prologue by designating the priest as a corrector and physician,35 who must call all categories of the faithful to penance and help them achieve it. He must be discerning about the what, where, how long, when, and how of sins confessed. Alan names his sources: Augustine, Gregory, Bede, the Roman Penitential,36 Burchard of Worms, and the Decretals.37 Alan summarizes the four Books into which his work is divided and says each will be preceded by a table of contents to

35

36

37

Press, 2013), vii–l. See also the earlier study and anthology by Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny, Alain de Lille, Textes inédits, Études de philosophie médiévale 52 (Paris: Vrin, 1965). As was noted above, Burchard of Worms addressed the confessor as corrector and physician in his Decretum, Prol. (PL 140.948). D’Alverny, Alain de Lille, 154, notes Alan’s frequent references to medicine and suggests that these may indicate that he wrote his penitential near Montpellier, which had an important medical faculty. As indicated above, in connection with the Synod of Paris (829) Halitgar, Bishop of Cambrai, was asked to compose a penitential book that agreed with the authentic canons and writings of the Church Fathers. Halitgar claimed that book six of his compilation was based on a penitential from the archive of the Church of Rome. Halitgar’s penitential was widely copied in the ninth and tenth centuries. On it, see Meens, Penance, 130–32. In the years after Gratian’s Concordia discordantium canonum (Decretum), many new papal decrees were issued. These were gathered in five successive collections (compilationes) between 1191 (Bernard of Pavia, the one which Alan of Lille used) and 1226 (Tancred, d. 1235). See Pennington, “The Decretalists, 1190–1234,” 215–45.

I ntroduction

 499

help the reader find what he is looking for.38 He concludes the prologue with his dedication to Archbishop Henry. Amid the shipwreck of this world, penance is a rudder that Henry uses to guide shipwrecked sinners to port. Alan switches metaphors to talk about the physician of souls. He also recalls their student days together. Alan begins Book One, devoted to the reception and questioning of the penitent, with a lament (cf. Jer 1:6) about priests who are the opposite of youth wise beyond their years.39 These priests are foolish, enfeebled old men, walled off from God because they are deficient in action, knowledge, and love, deficiencies that he likens to three walls. He wants to punch four windows into the wall of weakness in action: almsgiving, fasting, vigils, and devout prayer. The four windows to be opened in the wall of ignorance are knowledge derived from creation, reasoning about divine things, divine inspiration, and the Scriptures. The deficiency in love is to be remedied by the four windows of loving what is above us, ourselves, what is equal to us, and our bodies. These walls do not exist for the blessed in heaven, who, full of the sevenfold Spirit, contemplate God (1.1). The priest is a physician, who should welcome the spiritually ill with kind, reassuring words. Once he knows the particulars of the illness, he should tell the sinner what he needs to do and prescribe the contrary of the illness in order to cure it (1.2). He should urge the penitent to confess truthfully and fully, because he is actually confessing to God, who is ready to grant absolution. As Christ sent the healed lepers to the priests, so now he sends the contrite and forgiven sinner to the priest (1.3). To help the penitent confess in an orderly way, the priest should ask him about the seven capital vitia, but not in such detail as to suggest forms of sin of which the penitent knows nothing (1.4). The remaining chapters of Book One concern the circumstances of the sinner and his sins, e.g., whether they are of a venial or mortal kind, a distinction that Alan does not explain (1.22), in thought or in action, and how willingly and how knowingly committed. He concludes by asking whether there were aggravating or extenuating circumstances. As Longère notes, in chapters 5 and following of this first book, most of them short, Alan de Lille asks who (1.9, 10, 15, 16–20), 38 39

These lists of chapters at the beginning of each book made Alan’s work much easier to use. The following summary of the long text of the four books of the Liber poenitentialis is based on the text edited by Longère, Liber poenitentialis, 2:15–192. I have also consulted Longère’s commentary in Liber poenitentialis, 1:161–206. Books and chapter numbers in Alan’s work are indicated in parentheses.

500

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

what (1.21–22), where (1.8), the means employed (1.28), why (1.11–12), how (1.23–25), and when (1.6–8). In this, Alan may have been elaborating on Pseudo-Augustine, De vera et falsa penitentia 14–15.40 Book One has emphasized that the priest should know both the penitent and the sin before imposing a penalty. Like a good physician, he will assign different forms of satisfaction for different sins and sinners.41 Most of the contents of the book are traditional, but it seems to be Alan’s own composition, since the editor lists almost no sources or parallels. Book Two begins by saying a priest, like a good physician assigning different medications, will assign different forms of satisfaction for different sins (2.1), suggesting how a priest might encourage someone to confess or make satisfaction (2.1–6), and how he should decide what satisfaction to assign (2.7–8), particularly for a multitude of venial sins (2.9), usury (2.10), ill-gotten goods (2.11), and simony (2.12). The last three sins require restitution as well as satisfaction. Citing many examples, Alan asks why in earlier times such heavy penalties were assigned and whether such penalties can be performed in his time. Penalties were stricter in the early days of the Church when love (caritas) was stronger and it was important to set good precedents. As the Church grew, those precedents were firmly set and penalties did not need to be so stringent. Besides, people were more robust earlier. The priest should ask a penitent if she is up to doing a penance before assigning one (2.13). The rest of Book Two consists almost entirely of various authorities regarding penances for sins in the following categories: murder and bodily injury (2.14–74), perjury (2.78–95), pillage and theft (2.78–95), sexual sins (2.110–40), divination (2.141–46), and disrespect for the Eucharist (2.147–52). The immediate source of most of these is Burchard’s Decretum, Book 19, whose attributions of them are often incorrect. The categories correspond closely to the five sections into which Robert of Flamborough will divide the canons he collects in Book V of his penitential, which he devoted to penances for various sins.42 Like Bartholomew, Alan devotes proportionately less space to sexual sins than many other penitentials will. The purpose of including many odd

40 41 42

PL 40.1124–26, a passage cited by Gratian, De penitentia, D.5, c. 1 (Larson, 246–47). Longère, Liber poenitentialis, 1:166–67. Longère, Liber poenitentialis, 1:174–75.

I ntroduction



501

cases and canons appears to have been to provide the priest with guidance when he met with unusual situations.43 Book Three deals with some basic questions regarding penances and intersperses authorities regarding those questions. It begins with general principles. Assigning penances is a judgment call (3.1: poenitentiae sunt arbitrariae, a dictum of Alcuin’s that was cited by Peter Lombard, Gratian, and Burchard, and falsely attributed to Jerome). Penances are usually specified for exterior rather than interior sins, because the latter offend only God and do not give bad example (3.3). Penance is to weep for one’s sins and not to want to do them again (3.4).44 Ecclesiastical penance can be solemn (the prerogative of prelates) or private (3.7). Venial and less serious mortal sins are forgiven frequently. Solemn penance for the gravest sins is not repeated lest it bring contempt on the sacrament (3.10). In these first ten chapters of Book Three, Alan draws on a variety of sources. There follow a series of canons dealing with dying people and burial of the dead. Those doing solemn penance are prohibited from taking part in the Eucharist, but if someone is in danger of death, he is not to be denied penance, reconciliation, or communion (3.12–13). Those who kill themselves, notorious usurers, priests who are killed in battle, claustrals who when they die are found to have money, and those who have stolen tithes are not to be prayed for or (except for the priest killed in battle) buried in a Christian cemetery (3.25–37). These chapters are drawn from Burchard, Gratian, and Bernard of Pisa’s Compilatio prima. The chapters that follow concern the minister of penance and indicate some limitations on his power to bind and loose. In these chapters, Alan is less dependent on identifiable earlier sources. There are biblical precedents for penances that involve doing something seven times. There are seven ways in which sin is remitted (Origen). Penances must be greater or lesser according to circumstances, so that a heavier penance does not burden a weaker person, or a lax penance move a stubborn person to contempt (3.38). A priest may not receive the confession of a woman with whom he has committed sexual sins. Shame is part of penance (3.40). A priest can receive the confession of someone else’s parishioner only if the penitent has already confessed to his proper priest (3.41). Besides showing that the penitent is loosed from sin, and remitting part of the punishment, a priest should pray for 43 44

Longère, Liber poenitentialis, 1:175–76. An oft-quoted dictum.

502

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

the penitent (3.43). If someone is dying, a priest may take the person’s penance for venial sins on himself and so free the person from purgatorial fire, but whether this absolves the penitent only God knows (3.44). Regarding the vexed question of the role of the priest in confession, Alan de Lille offers a multistep answer. A priest binds by imposing penance; he looses by relaxing a penance. He binds when he shows that someone is bound or when he pronounces excommunication of someone subject to him. He looses when he shows that someone is loosed or when he leads someone into the church through reconciliation. Again, the bond of priests is threefold: fault, when for some reason they do not enjoin a penance on penitents; penalty, when they burden them with penance; and sentence, when they cast them from the Church. They loose from fault when they enjoin penance; they loose from punishment when they lessen the penance; they loose from the sentence when they receive them back into the Church (3.45). A priest should not judge the sins of others if he is still bound by sin (3.46). He should call his people to penance at the beginning of Lent and warn them not to put it off (3.50). The priest should assign only one penance for all a penitent’s sin (3.52). Book Three began with a principle basic to Alan’s understanding of penance: that penances are a matter of prudent judgment. Alan ends Book Three by saying that the priest’s power lies in showing that the penitent is absolved from sin. In this, he follows Peter Lombard. He refers to three kinds of penance: solemn, public, and private, a distinction that Robert of Flamborough and other late twelfth-century theologians elaborate. Alan seems to take for granted that all three forms are sacraments whereas, a few decades before, Master Simon thought that only solemn penance was a sacrament. In composing Book Three, Alan drew primarily on Gratian, Peter Lombard, and the Compilatio prima, in which he found four canons of Lateran Council III (1179).45 Book Four begins by offering guidelines to a penitent on how to go to confession. If a person cannot remember any sins, he should tell the priest that and ask for a penance for those he has forgotten (4.1). Venial sins can lead to greater sin, and so one should make a general confession of them (4.2: e.g., at the beginning of Mass or at Compline). Three things are necessary for a true penance: contrition of heart, confession 45

Longère, Liber poenitentialis, 1:185–88.

I ntroduction



503

of the mouth, satisfaction in deed (4.3).46 Contrition corresponds to sinning in thought, confession to sinning in speech, satisfaction to sinning in deed; or, these three components of true confession correspond to sins against oneself, God, and neighbor. (4.4; 4.26) Alan now takes up the three components of true contrition. Contrition is deep sorrow (amaritudo) of mind inspired by love and grace, by which someone is sorry for the sins he has committed and intends not to relapse (4.8). Confession is to acknowledge one’s sins by speech. There are three reasons why one should confess one’s sins after having received remission of them through true contrition: so that the priest will know what he should judge; the utility of shame; and the grace of humility. Such confession helps prevent relapse. “And it is to be noted that confession is so necessary for returning to God, that remission received is to be judged as fruitless and as it were null, if, with the availability of a priest and time, confession of the mouth does not follow.”47 Confession should be “general,” including known sins by species and forgotten sins in general. Five things block a person from confessing: negligence, shame, the pleasure of sin, fear of satisfaction, and desperation (4.8).48 The Lord sent the healed leper to the priest, which signifies that a sinner must show the wound of sin to the priest through confession. If, for some reason, a priest does not assign any act of satisfaction, the one who confesses should give alms, say prayers, or perform fasts and vigils (4.13). It is not enough just to amend one’s life without making satisfaction (4.25). The rest of Book Four consists of a series of questions, which Alan de Lille answers briefly. If a penitent’s own priest is incompetent, he should get permission from him to go to another, or go to him first and then to another (4.14). If a penitent knows that the penance he has been given is too great or too small, he should consult someone of greater authority than his priest (4.15). No priest should judge the parishioner of another, but it is one thing to avoid your own priest out of hatred, and another to avoid him if he is ignorant (4.16). Alan then takes up questions regarding the remission of punishment. A private 46 47

48

He also mentions the intention of not relapsing, which he evidently assumes is contained in the other three. Liber poenitentialis 4.5 (Longère, 2:165): “Et notandum quod confessio in tantum est necessaria ad Deum revertendi, ut collata remissio infructuosa et quasi nulla judicetur, si, parata copia sacerdotis et temporis, oris confessio non sequitur.” In the next paragraph, 4.9 (Longère, 2:167), he lists four impediments to confession: the greatness of the sin, pride, shame, and pleasure.

504

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

person cannot relax a canonical penance (4.19); nor can one’s prelate relax a public penance assigned by another prelate (4.20). Bishops, when dedicating a church, or at other times, sometimes grant “absolutions” or indulgences. Alan thinks these are meant to deal with penances that are too burdensome (4.21–23).49 Lesser satisfaction, such as the Our Father or some fasting or alms, is adequate for venial sins, if contrition precedes and confession, if possible, follows (4.24). If no priest is available, a sinner can confess to a neighbor (c. 27, mentioning again the lepers who were cured while they went to show themselves to the priests). One should not confess one sin and not others (4.28, citing Gregory the Great’s definition of penance and De vera et falsa poenitentia, as did Gratian and Peter Lombard). A sinner should not delay confession, because sin not confessed tends to drag one to greater sins (4.29). One cannot cover his sins with alms, unless he confesses them (4.30). If a sinner falls back into some sin, many authorities say that the previously forgiven sins return so, to be safe, one should confess them again (4.31). If a priest is known to be careless about revealing sins he hears in confession, a penitent should with his permission go to another priest; a priest who reveals sins heard in confession should be deposed (4.31; 4.39). If a sinner sees that someone else is known for committing the same sin that he commits, he should not excuse the other person but try to free him (4.34). Someone summoned to trial by judicial combat should confess beforehand (4.35). Those guilty of theft, usury, or brigandage must make restitution because, without that, the sin cannot be remitted (4.37). The spiritual physician, whether priest or prelate, should offer other healing medicine besides confession, e.g., admonition, prayer, preaching (4.40). Prelates should, with wisdom and fortitude, protect their flocks from tyrants who terrorize the land and from heretics. They should teach by word and example and provide spiritual and physical support (4.41, 44–45). Priests must be properly instructed (4.42–43). A pastor should exercise properly the power of the keys to bind and loose (4.46–47).50 This fourth and last Book is the most personal and theological of the four, although Alan continues to draw on Gratian, Peter Lombard, 49

50

Longère, Liber poenitentialis, 1:204: Alan here draws on a text entitled De inungendis penitentiis, although he disagrees with the author’s explanations. Regarding this text, see Anciaux, La théologie du sacrement de pénitence au xiie siècle, 93–94, 129–31. Here, Alan is passionate and eloquent about priests who turn the keys (claves) into clubs (clavas), who are doorkeepers not of heights (poli), but of depths (soli), not of the supernal but of the infernal.

I ntroduction



505

and Pseudo-Augustine’s De vera et falsa paenitentia. Alan insists on the three elements of penance—contrition, confession, and satisfaction— which he presents as complementary and interconnected. His insistence was probably prompted by the objections of heretics who saw no need for confession to a priest. Alan counters by saying that sin incurs two punishments: an eternal one, forgiven by God when one is truly contrite; and temporal punishment, that is remitted by satisfaction specified by the priest. The first corresponds to the disobedience shown to God, the latter to the bad example shown to others. Confession to a layperson in the absence of a priest is not sacramental, but it is humbling and expressive of genuine contrition. While Alan is very insistent that priests be knowledgeable and devout, he assumes that even if they are not they validly exercise the power of the keys.51 Such are the contents of Alan of Lille’s penitential. Two thirds of what it contains is taken from Burchard, Gratian, Peter Lombard, and Bernard of Pavia, who in turn drew on a long tradition of authorities to which Alan now adds his contribution. Alan’s purpose is pastoral. Throughout, his concern is that priests and penitents celebrate the sacrament wisely and devoutly.52 In addition to Patristic and canonical authorities that were conveyed by the collections of Burchard, Ivo of Chartres, and others, and the penitientials of Bartholomew and Alan of Lille, Peter of Poitiers was able to draw on the penitential theory and experience of other canons regular at St Victor. That theory and practice is the subject of the following discussion. Penitential Theory and Practice at St Victor Witnesses to Victorine penitential ministry are found in historical, canonical, and anecdotal sources that were gathered by Longère in his edition of Peter’s penitential.53 In 1133, Stephen of Senlis, Bishop of Paris (1124–42), excommunicated all those involved in the murder of Thomas, Prior of St Victor, reserved absolution to himself, and forbade any priest, including the Abbot of St Victor, from absolving them. 51 52 53

Longère, Liber poenitentialis, 1:198–204. Longère, Liber poenitentialis, 1:204–06. Jean Longère, introduction to Petrus Pictaviensis Compilato praesens, CCCM 51 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1980), pp. lxxv–lxxxv, which give references for the sources of this information.

506

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

In his Life of King Louis VI, Abbot Suger reports that, when the king was dying in 1137, he summoned Abbot Gilduin of St Victor, a monastery the king had endowed, to come to him. Gilduin heard his confession and gave him viaticum. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Robert Courçon wrote in his Summa celestis philosophie that, if a penitent not under his jurisdiction came to a priest, he could give advice, or tell him of his penance, but he could not impose a penance or commute a penance assigned by the penitent’s proper confessor. He added that canons of St Victor were able to assign a penance only because they had a special mandate from the Bishop of Paris. A decree contained in Statutes of Paris of 1208 provides that students in Paris be publicly warned about the threat of excommunication. If they are excommunicated, they are to be avoided until they make satisfaction and are absolved by the Bishop or, in his absence, by the Abbot of St Victor. In his Penitential (3.108), written 1209–13 and discussed below, Robert of Flamborough, a canon of St Victor, condemns priests who authorize, without having requested the necessary dispensations, the ordination of men guilty of serious sins. He had obtained these dispensations from the Bishops of Paris, Eudes (1196–1208) and Peter of Nemous (1208–19). In 1212, Innocent III clarified for Abbot John the Teutonic of St Victor the privilege of the canons of the abbey to absolve students who had injured a cleric, but for whom travel to Rome for absolution was a grave burden. This privilege applied only to harm inflicted in Paris, not elsewhere. Around 1216–18, Ménend (discussed below), penitentiary at St Victor, submitted six questions to Rome, five of which concerned the penitential jurisdiction of the Abbot of St Victor over the students of Paris. In his penitential (51), Peter of Poitiers reports that James of St Victor was consulted by the Bishop of Paris about a penitent of his whom the bishop was considering for a prebend. He could tell the bishop nothing of what he had heard in confession, and suggested the Bishop consult others who knew of the candidate’s reputation and suitability. In 1222, Pope Honorius III forbade masters to block students from going to Saint Victor for confession and funerals. In his Historia Occidentalis (1230–40), Jacques de Vitry reports that the humble and kindly canons of St Victor are a place of refuge, offering

I ntroduction



507

purifying water in their church for students dwelling in Paris and for others who come to Paris seeking help and peace. In 1231, Gregory IX granted the abbot of St Victor and the prior of the Dominicans of Paris the power to absolve masters and students who had incurred censure for reading books of Aristotle that were forbidden by the Council of Paris in 1210 and the statutes promulgated in 1215 by Robert Counçon when he was papal legate. In 1237, because of their pastoral duties in parishes pertaining to the abbey, and their ministry of preaching and hearing confessions for the students of Paris, Gregory IX granted the canons of St Victor the right to have at the abbey their own master of theology. Caesarius of Heisterbach repeats the story told by a monk about a student in Paris in 1199. The student was afraid to confess his many sins. Finally, fear prompted him to confess to the prior of St Victor, “who was equipped for that office as were all the brothers of that monastery.” The student was contrite, but he lost the ability to speak. He wrote his sins down and handed the list to the prior, who asked and received the student’s permission to consult with the abbot. When he showed the list to the abbot, it was blank. The explanation that the monk gave for this was that the great effort the student put into overcoming his shame and his deep contrition in confessing his sins was satisfaction enough. Overcoming shame is a major element in satisfaction.54 In a letter written to a dear friend, a student recommends that he go to St Victor and meet with Brother M. for advice and help. Fourier Bonnard conjectures this M. may be Ménend of St Victor, who wrote a now-lost penitential. Ménend (d. c. 1224) His interest in penance is clear from the list of questions he submitted to Rome around 1216–18. Ménend left St Victor to oversee the construction of the new Victorine Abbey of Notre-Dame-de-la-Victoire near Senlis, which was constructed by Philippe-Auguste in thanksgiving for the French victory at Bouvines. The cornerstone was laid in 1221 and canons for St Victor occupied the site on 1224. It is reported that Ménend died not long after that. 54

Caesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum. Dialog über die Wunder, ed. and tr. Horst Schneider and Nikolaus Nösges, 5 vols, Fontes Christiani 86 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009), 1:396–402.

508

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

Robert of Flamborough (d. 1224), Liber poenitentialis Robert of Flamborough (or Flamesbury) was of English origin. We know nothing of his education. He was at St Victor before 1205 and very probably quite a while before that. In some manuscripts of his Penitential and in some papal letters, he is termed a poenitentiarius, that is. someone with special authority in regard to penance. He was subprior for some time under Abbot John the Teutonic (abbot from 1203), certainly before 1213. By 1234 someone else was subprior, but Robert may have been dead for a decade before that. The editors of the necrology of the abbey identify him as the “Robert, subprior of good memory” listed on July 14.55 Robert dedicates his Penitential, his only known written work, to Richard Poore (or Poor), an Englishman who studied under Stephen Langton. Richard became Dean of Salisbury in 1197 under his brother Herbert Poore, who was Bishop of Salisbury (1194–1217). Richard was in exile, teaching in Paris (1208–13), during the papal interdict of England in the reign of King John, who objected to Innocent III’s appointment of Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. Richard became bishop of Chichester in 1215. In 1217, he succeeded his brother as Bishop of Salisbury, and in 1228 went on to be Bishop of Durham. As Bishop of Salisbury and Durham, he issued various documents organizing the administration of his diocese. He died in 1237. Robert could have studied with Richard Poore during their student years in Paris, or known him when Richard was teaching there during the years Robert wrote his Penitential. Robert wrote his Penitential, in the form present in most of its 37  manuscripts, between 1208 and  1213. One version found in two manuscripts may be earlier, and another version found in only one manuscript may be later. Robert’s sources included decretals, issued by the papacy after Gratian’s Decretum, expanding and updating canon law. He also drew on the works of contemporary Parisian theology associated with the ideas of Peter the Chanter, but his most important sources were the Decretum of Burchard of Worms,56 the Decretum of Ivo of Chartres,57 the Panormia of Pseudo-Ivo of Chartres,58 the Decretum of 55 56 57 58

Necrologium abbatiae Sancti Victoris Parisiensis, ed. Ursula Vones-Liebestein and Monika Seifert, Corpus Victorinum, Opera recollecta 1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012), 210.2. PL 140.537–1058. PL 161.59–1022. PL 161.1045–1344.

I ntroduction

 509

Gratian, the Liber poenitentialis of Bartholomew of Exeter, Huguccio of Pisa’s Summa decretorum, and the Compilatio prima. Although Robert is mostly concerned with canonical legislation, at times he deals with theological matters, for which he draws on other sources. Robert’s zeal for juridical precision and observance of all canons, ancient and new, was not practical or pastoral, as both he and his confrere at St Victor, Peter of Poitier, recognized.59 It is indeed difficult to see how including such a wide variety of canons was of use to most pastors and confessors. The Penitential is attributed to Robert in twenty-seven of the thirty-seven manuscripts known to Francis Firth, from whose edition of the work this information about Robert is taken.60 Thirty-seven extant manuscripts (five from St Victor) contain all or some of Robert’s Penitential, and there is evidence of at least ten others that no longer exist. Firth divides them into four forms (plus one intermediate form); most of the extant manuscripts belong to two of these forms. Firth’s edition gives the text of the final form that Robert gave to his work. Although Robert’s work was soon followed by many other penitentials, it was copied until the end of the thirteenth century, and occasionally in the fourteenth century. Judging from the manuscripts that survive, Robert’s work was used in many parts of Europe. It is found in the libraries of monasteries, other religious orders, and in cathedral and parochial libraries. Robert’s lengthy penitential has five books. Book One is a dialogue between a penitent and a priest. The penitent has committed more sins and experienced more troubled marriages than any one person could have. Robert just uses various scenarios in the poor man’s life to instruct him about penance. The book begins with the priest receiving the penitent and kindly instructing him about the requirements for a good confession. Here, Robert draws on the penitentials of Bartholomew of Exeter and Alan of Lille. For the sake of clarity, Robert wants the penitent in his confession to follow the order of the seven capital vitia. The most difficult matters, marriage and orders will be dealt with in Books Two and Three respectively, and that will clear the way to deal with the seven capital vitia in Book Four. The teaching on 59

60

J. J. Francis Firth, introduction to his edition of Robert of Flamborough, Liber poenitentialis, Texts and Studies 18 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1971), 19, referring to paragraphs 234–35, 356; Peter of Poitiers, Liber poenitentialis L (Longère, 65). Peter does not mention Robert by name. Robert of Flamborough, Liber poenitentialis (Firth, 1–20).

510

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

marriage in Book Two draws on Huguccio,61 other canonical sources, and Robert Courçon.62 Book Three draws on Pseudo-Hugh of St Victor, Speculum de mysteriis ecclesiae, Huguccio, and other canonical sources. In Book Four, the seven capital vitia are listed in the order given by Gregory the Great. For these, Robert drew on Pseudo-Hugh, De fructibus carnis et spiritus, and Alan of Lille, De virtutibus et vitiis et de donis Spiritus sancti. In dealing with problems of theft, damage, usury, and restitution, Robert’s penitential draws on the Summa of Robert Courçon. Book Four ends with a short section on penances. Book Five, which is one third of the total content of the penitential, contains canons that tell what penances are to be imposed for what sins. Most of these came to Robert from Ivo of Chartres’ Decretum via Bartholomew of Exeter. Robert concludes the final book with an exhortation to the confessor in which he explains the way he assigns penances. In Firth’s judgment, Robert’s penitential was innovative in that it included new canon law from the decretists and the decretals presented in a form that ordinary confessors could use. Robert is insistent that all law and canons be observed, whether they are new or ancient. This discussion of the ministry of penance at St Victor and Robert of Flamborough’s Penitential has already indicated the interaction of the canons of St Victor with the schools of Paris. The teachings of the schools were a third influence on the penitential of Peter of Poitiers. Penance in the Preaching of Peter the Chancellor and his Circle The theology of Peter the Chancellor and his associates in the faculty of theology in Paris touched the penitential of Peter of Poitiers at St Victor, both through their theology of the sacrament of penance and through their moral theology. Penance was a key instrument in the efforts of these theologians to purify the moral lives of all Christians. Here, their teaching about penance as it appears in their sermons will be discussed. The influence of their moral theology on Peter’s penitential will be considered next, in conjunction with the contents of his penitential. 61 62

Huguccio (Hugh of Pisa, d. 1210), studied and taught canon law in Bologna. He wrote an influential summa on the Decretum of Gratian in 1190 or shortly before. Robert of Courçon (d. 1219), studied in Oxford and Paris, became chancellor of the University of Paris in 1211, and a cardinal in 1212.

I ntroduction



511

Of the seven sacraments identified by Peter Lombard,63 it is the sacrament of penance that appears most often in the late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century sermons of preachers associated with Peter the Chanter.64 During the twelfth century, the theology of penance developed in many ways, which have been indicated already. One question that was debated was the relation between contrition of the heart and confession to a priest who judges what satisfaction should be assigned. The emerging consensus, which did not follow the ideas of Hugh and Richard of St Victor, was that contrition expressed to God brings remittance of guilt and of eternal punishment. However, confession to a priest is still necessary as part of the satisfaction, insofar as it requires humility and the overcoming of shame, and makes possible a deeper self-knowledge and more suitable advice.65 Theologians distinguished three kinds of penance: the ancient, solemn, and unrepeatable penance imposed by a bishop; a repeatable form of penance that was public; and a third kind that was secret. It was commonly agreed that the essential elements of all three kinds were compunction of heart, oral confession, and satisfaction.66 The power of an unworthy minister to confer the sacrament was debated. The sacrament of orders confers the power, but the ordinand does not always have or receive wisdom and discernment. Moreover, except in emergencies, priests must also have jurisdiction over the penitent.67 When these men preached about penance, they almost always had in mind secret penance. However, they recognized that penances for public sins could be public; but penances for private sins had to be private. Maurice de Sully insisted that the general absolution sometimes given at the beginning of Lent or on Holy Thursday applied to sins already confessed to a priest or to sins that had been forgotten. Forgiveness requires a will to change.68 63 64

65 66 67 68

Sent. 4.2.1 (Quaracchi [1916], 2:751; tr. Silano, 4:9). These sermons are among those analyzed by Jean Longère, Oeuvres oratoires de maîtres parisiens au xiie siècle, 2 vols (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1975). In summarizing Longère’s findings, I have focused on preachers with close ties to Paris. These include Maurice de Sully (bishop of Paris, 1160–96); Prévostin of Cremona (chancellor of Paris 1206–09); Stephen Langton, who taught in Paris from 1170, was elected archbishop of Canterbury in 1206, and was able to peacefully occupy that position from 1218–28; and Jacques de Vitry (1165–1240), who studied in Paris, was a renowned preacher, became a canon regular at Oignies in 1211, bishop of Acre in 1216, and a cardinal in 1229. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:255–62. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:262–70. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:270–71. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 2:206 n80.

512

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

The  dictum of Jerome that penance is a second, post-baptismal plank of salvation after the shipwreck of sin was widely repeated.69 Another widely used metaphor was the leprosy of sin. Sins could be divided according to whether they were committed in thought, word, or deed, through one or more of the five senses, in violation of one of the Ten Commandments, or as an expression of one of the vitia.70 The distinction between mortal and venial sin was mentioned but was not intrusive. In a sermon, Maurice de Sully spelled out the distinction: “Venial sins are those that cannot be easily avoided so that they never happen again, for example, light and passing anger or laughing and the like… Mortal sins (criminalia) are those that cause grave harm if they occur, or cause corruption by which one greatly offends God or neighbor, or the one who commits it is soiled, such as homicide, adultery, perjury, and theft.”71 Jacques de Vitry listed seven ways to commit a mortal sin: prolonged indulgence in pleasure, an evil will, illicit action by the mouth or some other part of the body, defending sin, glorying in sin, excessive contempt, habit, and despair.72 Venial sin is unavoidable. One should not despair, but trust in God’s mercy. Grave sins must be confessed with their circumstances. A good confession is humble, complete, sincere, and without excuses. Alan of Lille emphasized the joy that confession brings and the beauty of a purified soul.73 Prévostin responded to four obstacles that keep ordinary people from confession: shame, fear, presumptuous hope, and despair. Shame before a priest should not seem much in comparison to the shame one should have before God. Fear of the penance that will be assigned is unfounded: a priest will not assign more than you can bear, and whatever he assigns is nothing compared to eternal punishment. A penitent who does not want to confess because a penance will take time away from acquiring wealth needs to remember that, by contrast to earthly goods, spiritual goods are certain, great, and eternal. If someone despairs of being able to resist falling back into sin, he needs to put his trust in God and not in himself.74 Stephen Langton listed eight qualities that each of the three components of the 69 70 71 72 73 74

Jerome, Ep. 109.9 (PL 22.1115), cited by authors mentioned by Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 2:206–07 n84, e.g., Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis Prol. (Longére, 2:17). Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 2:207–08 n85–92. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 2:208 n93. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 2:208 n94. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:265–66; 2:211–12 n123–32. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:267–68; 2:213 n143.

I ntroduction



513

sacrament need. For example, satisfaction involves fasting, bodily labor, vigils, prayers, tears, alms, discipline, and a watch over the mouth and the senses. Just as Parisians grow accustomed to the stench of their city, so they grow accustomed to the reek of their sins. They should not fear revealing their sins in confession, for a physician cannot heal a wound he does not see.75 Jacques de Vitry said that one should confess often to different priests to increase one’s shame and to have more advisers and intercessors. It is better that the penitent spontaneously tell his sins rather than tell them in response to questions. Mortal sins must be told to a priest; venial sins may be told to a fellow Christian. Venial sins are also pardoned by reception of the Eucharist, a general confession, and praying the Our Father. Jacques also insisted on the secrecy required of a confessor. It is worse to reveal a sin than to commit it.76 The priest who exercises the power of the keys should be discerning, though often he is not. He should seek the causes of sins, judge impartially without excessive severity, and comfort and encourage.77 Alan of Lille said that one of the keys given the confessor is the power to bind and loose, and the other is to distinguish one sin from another. In a sermon that corresponds to what he said in his penitential, Alan declared that the priest binds in three ways: by leaving someone bound, by imposing a penance, and by threatening excommunication. He looses by showing someone that he is set free from his bonds, by remitting a penalty, and by praying for those he has loosened.78 To exercise these bindings and loosings requires discernment and deliberation, especially when it is a question of excommunication. The preachers are very cautious about indulgences.79 These common features of Paris-connected preachers are very much in evidence in Peter of Poitiers’ penitential. The preachers agree with Peter Lombard that contrition of heart is sufficient for forgiveness. As a result, they do not speak of the priest as granting absolution, but rather as interrogating, encouraging, advising, and assigning satisfaction. They point out the advantages of oral confession of sins in their kinds and circumstances. Confession brings shame, humility, advice, 75 76 77 78 79

Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:269; 2:213 n148–58. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:269–70; 2:214–16 n159–74. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:270; 2:216 n175–77. Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:270; 2:216 n179; Alan of Lille, Liber poenitentialis 4:46–47 (ed. Longère, 2:190–91). Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:270–71.

514

3 – P E NA N C E F R OM R IC HA R D T O P E T E R P O I T I E R S

and objective certainty. Satisfaction is necessary, but these preachers do not emphasize it. The power of binding and loosing and to discern sins is a double key, whose efficacy does not depend on the worthiness of the minister. The priest acts like a physician. He must steer the penitent between despair and presumption. These sermons are not always clear about the difference between penance and excommunication. Jacques de Vitry contributes some original ideas regarding indulgences, the value of several spiritual guides, self-accusation, and the inviolability of the secrecy of confession.

PETER OF POITIERS (DIED AFTER 1216), COMPILATIO PRAESENS INTRODUCTION

This introduction consists of three parts: the author and his book, an organized summary of the contents of Peter’s Penitential, and soundings into seven elements of his teaching. The Author and His Book Jean Longère gathered in the introduction to his edition of Peter’s penitential, the Compilatio praesens, what little is known of Peter of Poitiers. Peter’s family was able to make donations of books to several monasteries and was closely connected with the bishops of Poitiers. Later Victorine historians report that Peter entered St Victor in 1166 and died sometime after 1216. On October 3, the Abbey’s necrology includes “a commemoration of the parents and benefactors of Br. Peter of Poitiers, from whose beneficence we have twenty volumes of books.”1 Peter was a contemporary of Ménend and Robert and, like them, seems to have been a confessor, a ministry that led him to compile a penitential. He may also have been the author of a work entitled De mysteriis Incarnationis Christi, which in one manuscript is bound with his penitential and attributed to him by a later hand.2 It seems, from the few references he makes to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), that Peter wrote his work during or shortly after the Council and near the end of his life. James of St Victor, who was prior and a teacher at St Victor, then expanded Peter’s work. He probably made his additions shortly after Peter’s death. 1 2

Necrologium, ed. Vones-Liebenstein and Seifert, 274. Paris, BnF, lat. 14886, fols 85ra–180. See Gilbert Ouy, Les manuscrits de l’abbaye de SaintVictor: Catalogue établi sur la base du répertoire de Claude de Grandrue (1514), 2 vols, BV 10 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), 2:399–400, who attributes it to a different Peter of Poitiers, the chancellor of Paris (Ouy, Manuscrits, 1:313–14); Jean Longère, ed. Petrus Pictaviensis Compilatio praesens, pp. x–xiii, l–lii. There is another short work attributed to Peter of Poitiers of St Victor, In capite ieiunii, nec cineribus caput abstergere, found only in Paris, BnF, lat. 14470, fols 182vb–189b.

516

P eter of P oitiers

There survive twelve manuscripts of Peter’s work as he wrote it, and seven with James of St Victor’s additions. The non-biblical sources and parallels that Longère identifies most often are Ivo of Chartres, Gratian, Bartholomew of Exeter, Alan of Lille, conciliar decrees, Peter the Chanter,3 Prepostinus,4 and Robert of Flamborough. In his penitential, Peter appears as a conscientious and kindly man, who wishes to provide priests with guidance that will help them be good confessors. His bent and aim is practical; he seldom refers to theoretical questions. He seems well acquainted with his immediate predecessors, Gratian, Bartholomew of Exeter, Alan of Lille, Robert of Flamborough, and with the thinking of his contemporaries in Paris, Peter the Chanter and his circle. He shares the latter’s interest in morality in economic and social matters. Peter’s penitential lacks organization. He seems to have written small sections, then stitched them together. The sections sometimes seem to jump from one idea to another. For example, in chapter ,5 Peter considers the penances to be assigned for fornication, unless circumstances, e.g., the danger of scandal, suggest commutations. If the sin was committed on a feast day, it is fitting to assign fasting on the vigil of the feast. This leads Peter to a more general consideration  of circumstances that make sins more serious, the dangers of venial sin, and the bad things lay people do on holydays. This, in turn, leads him to recommend not assigning fasts to people who do heavy manual labor . Peter is modest about his book. He says that he writes without prejudice to more reasonable authorities and recommends 3

4

5

Peter the Chanter (d. 1197) was a leading figure in the teaching of theology in Paris. He was educated at Rheims, was a canon at Notre Dame of Paris by 1171, and became chanter there in 1183. He was part of a circle of theologians, including Robert Courçon and Thomas Chobham, who focused on moral theology and its applications to commerce and society. His major works include a Summa de sacramentis et animae consiliis, a book of distinctions known as the Summa ab Abel, and the Verbum abbreviatum, which exists in several versions. See John W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circles, 2 vols (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), and An Edition of the Long Version of Peter the Chanter’s Verbum Abbreviatum. Petri Cantoris Parisiensis, Verbum adbreviatum. Textus conflatus, ed. Monique Boutry, CCCM 196 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004). According to Longère, Oeuvres oratoires, 1:23–25, Prévostin (Prepostinus) of Cremona was born about 1140. He was well educated in Scripture and law. He taught in Paris (1190–93), and then in Mainz, and finally was back in Paris 1206–09 as chancellor and papal delegate. He died in 1210. He wrote several influential works: a summa of theology, Tractatus de officiis, which was a principal source for William of Mende’s Rationale divinorum officiorum, a Summa super psalterium, and over 65 sermons. Longère divides Peter’s penitential into 55 chapters, and a conclusion, which has two forms, A and B. He puts chapter titles into angle brackets, a practice I have followed.

C ompilatio praesens



517

Peter the Chanter’s Summa de sacramentis, and concludes by saying that his text, which hopes to lie hidden, if it is put to no other use and is known to only a few, may be a reminder to them of sins and a summons to confession . The Teachings of the Compilatio praesens Because Peter’s penitential lacks order, it seems desirable to include here a summary of its contents, keyed to the chapters of the book where items can be found. His teaching will be summarized under the following headings: The Priest: as physician of souls; what he should know; his roles in confession and satisfaction; penances. Kinds of Sins: spiritual and carnal; their gravity; recidivism; gluttony; lust; sins regarding property; acts of violence and hostility; divination. Categories of Penitents: laypeople, clerics, religious. Advice to Penitents: do not delay to confess; the qualities of a good confession; to whom one should confess. The Physician of Souls Like many before him, Peter develops the metaphor of the confessor as a physician of souls. When a doctor comes to a patient, he is calming, sympathetic, and promises healing. He encourages the patient to be candid in describing his illness, inquires about the patient’s state, lifestyle, and the onset of the illness, takes the patient’s pulse, and notes his bodily bearing and the appearance of his face. Then the physician prescribes a suitable diet and warns the patient of the consequences if he does not stick to the diet. Likewise, the priest greets the penitent in a reassuring way and encourages him to be candid about his sins, for he is confessing not just to a man but to God. Repetition makes the illness of sin more ingrained and more serious. If the sinner says he does not want to change his ways, the priest needs to warn him of the punishment that this brings now, and will bring in the future. A sin not repented will drag the sinner into other sins. The priest should, through shame and his own tearful admonition, keep the penitent from relying too much on God’s mercy. To the unrepentant, the priest should suggest pious works of mercy that will open him to the grace of repentance. When a penitent

518

P eter of P oitiers

is repentant for some sins, but not for others, a confessor may assign a penance for the repented sins in hopes of illumining the penitent’s heart so he becomes contrite for all his serious sins, although meanwhile such a penance is fruitless for eternal life . Instructing the Confessor The Diocese of Paris has the admirable practice of supplying each priest with a copy of the synodal statutes. These include the requirements that priests have the oil of the sick, and urge those who are dying to receive the sacrament. Peter then mentions other items in the synodal decrees regarding reserved sins and what to do when the consecrated wine is spilled. He reports what Bishop Maurice said one should do if, after the consecration of the host, it is discovered that there is no wine in the chalice. Bishop Maurice and Peter the Chanter emphasize that priests should teach their subjects the basics of faith, an admonition Peter of St Victor repeats in the very next chapter. These include the creed, the Our Father, the seven sacraments, the Trinity, the salutation of Mary, the seven capital vitia and the virtues opposed to them, and the seven works of mercy . The Priest, Confession, and Satisfaction Peter very seldom uses the words “absolution” or “contrition.” He uses “confession” fifty-eight times and “satisfaction” nine times. His concern is the priest’s role as the one who assigns a suitable penance or act of satisfaction. To do so, the priest must judge the depravity of the sin and so a considerable part of Peter’s book is devoted to identifying the kinds and circumstances of sins. All penances are assigned at the discretion of the confessor. Peter is generous in allowing for commutations of penances. Manual laborers should not be given penances that require heavy fasting, especially during harvest time  . There are many other kinds of penance: prayers, alms, pilgrimages, and abstinence from meat, fish, or wine . A confessor should not impose a penance that will cause scandal, such as a fast that would be noticed by others eating at the same table . A penitent should not be forced against her will to a specific kind of satisfaction for a hidden sin. However, very grave public sins, such as parricide, are assigned a public or solemn penance .

C ompilatio praesens



519

The recitation of the confiteor or the creed at prime and compline is a general confession of sins that includes forgotten sins. If later someone remembers a forgotten sin, although it is forgiven already, she should confess it . The Kinds of Sin Sins are of two kinds, spiritual and carnal. Gregory the Great wrote that spiritual sins bring more guilt but less disgrace, while carnal sins bring more shame and less guilt. Sins of commission fall under several heads. Spiritual sins include pride, envy, acedia, avarice, negligence, anger, sadness, evil thinking, pleasure, consent, flattery, and detraction. Carnal sins, among which Peter includes sins of speech, occur through the senses of the body .6 In evaluating the gravity of sins and the penance to be assigned them, one needs to take into account their magnitude (kind, place, time, manner, pleasure, and cause) and their number (how many, how frequently, and how recently, which may determine whether one should receive communion) . One must also consider the circumstances of the one who commits the sin: his social role (ordo), family, age, knowledge (educated persons who have greater power, or access to persons with power, deserve closer scrutiny ), sex, condition, capacity, and status . If someone repents and confesses all his sins, then falls into a single mortal sin, then goes to a new confessor, he must confess all the former sins, but if he goes to the same confessor who heard his earlier confession, he need confess only the new sin. This is a stricter opinion than that of Prepostinus . Gluttony Gluttony gulps down many. Its circumstances include what, how much, with what foresight and appetite, and when . Drunkenness occurs when drink seriously disturbs thought and perception . If someone deliberately chooses to consume food or drink excessively, that is a mortal sin according to Peter the Chanter, but other authorities say that one instance of drunknness is not a mortal sin. Whether excess in licit food and drink is mortal depends on extent, frequency, and de6

Peter seems to be contradicting himself here. His penitential is not much concerned with spiritual sins or with sins of speech.

520

P eter of P oitiers

liberation. It is hard to draw the line between necessary nourishment and excess. For excess in food and drink, fasting on bread and water is the customary penance. If the offender is a member of the clergy, a greater penalty should be assigned . Much later in his book, Peter returns to gluttony. Gluttony occurs when food and drink are consumed too hastily, sumptuously, excessively, eagerly, or zealously. This led him to discuss the fast days of the Church (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) . Stricter fasts on these days are assigned to very serious sinners. For them, fasting during the four forty-day fast periods is a suitable penance. This leads Peter to discuss other forms of penance: rough clothes, prayers, pilgrimage, and actions that are the opposite of the sin committed . Lust The other sin of the flesh that a confessor needs to scrutinize is luxury, that is, excess or superfluity. This is a sibling of avarice. However, each of these can be taken in a narrower sense: luxury to refer to sexual sin, and avarice to the desire to acquire (its sister being the love of dominating). In inquiring about sexual sins, the confessor needs to be discerning and not scandalize penitents by asking them about sexual aberrations they have never heard of. One can ask, did you sin with someone is sexual matters? If so, was it a prostitute (especially dangerous, since one does not know their status), a married person, someone related to you, or a vowed religious (in which case, one must confess to the bishop who blessed her or to his delegate), a widow (who is an ecclesial personage), or a virgin? One who has sexual commerce with virgins should find them husbands, or support them, or provide for their entry into a convent if they choose that. Also, was the sexual act against nature (from behind, the woman on top, the wrong orifice), with a pregnant woman (especially if it harmed the fetus), with another male or an animal ? He should also inquire discretely about nocturnal emissions: were they were occasioned by drunkenness or debased and lingering thinking that led to consent? One of the worst sexual sins is masturbation, because though it involves only one person, that person is both active and passive participant. Moreover, it is very habit forming . Penances for these sins, and for simple fornication, are usually fasts, since continence requires fasting  . However,

C ompilatio praesens



521

hard-working people and those whose fasting would raise questions should be given a different kind of penance . Ultimately, penances are up to the judgment of the confessor. Questions addressed to women might include whether they made sexual advances . One should be careful in inquiring about unusual sins . Sins regarding Property In keeping with the teaching of Peter the Chanter and his school, Peter devotes considerable attention to sins related to property, fraud, and plunder, and the restitution that they require. The priest should inquire about violations of truth or promises, and require restitution if that is possible . He should also inquire whether the penitent has anything “unjustly,” that is, by theft, fraud, usury, violence, or plunder. Peter examines the obligation for restitution in various situations . He weighs the culpability of those who consent to harm inflicted on others , the duty to pay tithes , and the culpability of knights and marauders who withhold tithes. This is such a frequent occurrence that they cannot be excommunicated. For their oppressive exactions—at least the gravest ones— they should make restitution . Peter also considers the culpability of those who live by the ill-gotten goods of others, and what restitution they should make . The obligations of the father of a family, who is in debt or obligated to restitution, must be weighed against the needs of his family and heirs . Acts of Violence and Feelings of Hostility The priest should inquire about violence against a priest, cleric, or religious and, if so, what the circumstances were. Has the penitent been absolved by the pope or by his mandate? Has the penitent made peace with those he injured ? The priest needs to determine if the person is excommunicated . There are many circumstances when striking a cleric usually does not incur excommunication . There are also many occasions when someone other than the pope may absolve someone excommunicated for striking a cleric . Excommunication should be pronounced reluctantly and with sadness, using a proper formula . If someone is excommunicated, there are restrictions about who may communicate with that person,

522

P eter of P oitiers

notably at table and prayers, or by a greeting, the kiss of peace, or conversation. Necessity, kindness, utility, and ignorance can excuse someone who communicates with an excommunicated person . Does the penitent have rancor and hatred toward someone? If the penitent says there is someone to whom I do not speak, but I do not wish him evil, he is not describing a mortal sin . Divination Peter briefly discusses divination, but he does not indicate that it was a widespread problem . Advice to Penitents Do not postpone confession. To do so because one is afraid of relapse is dangerous. Confession will actually help someone avoid sin in the future. However, one should avoid binding oneself by a vow or oath . The tears of the penitent achieve what they seek, but confession should follow immediately because the devil is confounded when he hears a description of what he has incited, and that will drive him away . Do not let fear, shame, forgetfulness, ignorance, presumption, cupidity, negligence, contempt, or other such things impede confession . A good confession has seven qualities: it is willing, integral (not divided between several confessors), perfect and complete in regard to circumstances, bare (without effort to cover up what one did), direct (not blaming someone else), discrete (focused on one’s own sins), and pure (purely for God). Confession should not be made randomly to anyone. A  parish priest may not receive the confession of another’s parishioner without permission of his ordinary, but he can give advice to such a person. The Diocese of Paris wisely delegates certain priests to hear the confessions of other priests. The relation of clerics to the bishop and diocese where they reside is a matter of dispute. In case of imminent danger of death, all priests can absolve from sin and excommunication . Sometimes, a subject can lawfully request permission from his ordinary confessor to confess to someone else. If that permission is refused, one may approach a higher authority. Reasons for seeking another confessor include: one’s ordinary confessor is inept, imposes

C ompilatio praesens



523

penances incommensurate with the sin, reveals confessions, is known to solicit sin in confession, or the sin to be confessed concerns the confessor . In necessity, one may confess to a layperson but, since a layperson does not have the power of the keys, it can be argued that it would be better to confess to an unauthorized priest . Hearing the Confessions of Laypeople The priest should ask if the penitent is lawfully married, what his business or occupation is, and about sins related to commerce, and should impose restitution if it is called for . Hearing the Confessions of Clerics Much concerning clerics is found in decrees and decretals, so Peter considers only a few questions. Were they legitimate and free when they were ordained? Did they receive orders at the proper time ? Were they of lawful age? Did they have their benefices properly and without simony ? In the event there is something irregular in these matters, the confessor should urge them to rectify the situation. Peter expounds at length and with fervor regarding the dangers of pluralism, that is, the holding simultaneously of more than one benefice to which there is attached the care of souls. He lists the five grounds that are sometimes given for holding plural benefices and says that recourse to these grounds is often an abuse. An absentee benefice holder is obligated to supply a qualified vicar . There is another issue regarding clerics about which Peter is very adamant. A qualified priest can do much more good by exercising the care of souls than by serving as a secular canon. He will help people become better by his example and teaching. If they are rebellious, he will have some coercive power over them. He will be able to have an upright life and household, to be in church regularly for services, and to give counsel to neighboring priests. Hence, qualified clerics should be encouraged to accept the care of souls, rather than become secular canons. By contrast, secular canons are primarily concerned about their own well-being. If a good person is found among them, the rest will hate him when he objects to their bad deeds, or he will keep silent and become complicit with them. They are conformed to the world in food, clothing, and behavior. Their superiors find it hard to correct them. They are canons without a canon or rule: they usually do not live in

524

P eter of P oitiers

common; they have no common places in which to receive the poor or religious. Clerics should rush from prebends among secular canons and go to serve in parishes . In support of his hostility toward secular canons, Peter cites Peter the Chanter (a secular canon) and Prepostinus, although Longère was unable to find the texts to which he was referring. The roots of Peter’s hostility to secular canons probably lie in the history of St Victor, which had often been called on to undertake the difficult task of reforming communities of secular canons into Victorine houses. Secular canons are obligated to pray the hours of the divine office . Hearing the Confessions of Religious The confessor should ask whether their entry into religious life was without any form of simony. Peter tells how to rectify the situation if simony has occurred . A religious superior can remove a subject from office on the basis of what he hears in confession, since the subject serves at the discretion of the superior. A secular prelate cannot do that, because he must follow a judicial procedure to remove someone from office. Peter suggests that a heretic does not have the protection of the seal of confession, since heresy aims to overthrow the Church. If the bishop consults a confessor at St Victor about the suitability for office of a cleric who makes confession to this confessor, the latter cannot say anything. Peter considers the case of a Cistercian abbot who decreed that the confessors he appoints in the community must report to him all mortal sins. If a dying monk refused to confess unless the confessor promised not to tell the abbot, the confessor could ignore the abbot’s decree. Secular confessors are not required to report mortal sins of their subjects to their bishop