Distinction VI

GRATIAN. Since discussion has begun concerning an excess of nature, it is asked whether, after the illusion that is accustomed to occur through a dream, anyone may receive the body of the Lord, or, if he is a priest, celebrate the sacred mysteries. Concerning these matters blessed Gregory [I] writes thus to Augustine, bishop of the English [response 11]:

The testament of the Old Law calls such a man polluted unless he has been washed with water, and does not permit him to enter a church until evening. Yet the spiritual people, understanding this otherwise, regards as though deceived through a dream the man who, having been tempted by uncleanness, is defiled in thought by true images. But he is to be washed with water, so that he may wash away the fault of thought with tears, and unless the fire of temptation has first receded, he should know himself to be guilty as though until evening. §1. But in that same illusion a discernment is very necessary by which he ought subtly to weigh from what cause it happens to the mind of the sleeper. For pollution sometimes occurs from surfeit, sometimes from an excess or infirmity of his nature, and sometimes from thought. §2. And indeed, when it has arisen from an excess or infirmity of nature, this illusion is by no means to be feared, because the mind is rather to be grieved for having unknowingly suffered it than for having done it. §3. But when the appetite of gluttony is carried beyond measure in taking food, and the receptacles of the humors are consequently burdened, the mind has some guilt from this, yet not so much as to prohibit receiving the sacred mystery or celebrating the solemnities of Masses, when perhaps either a feast day requires it or necessity itself compels him to furnish the ministry because another priest is lacking. For if others are present who are able to fulfill the ministry, an illusion caused by surfeit ought not to prohibit the reception of the sacred mystery, but he ought, as I judge, humbly to abstain from the immolation of the sacred mystery—provided, however, that it did not shake the sleeper with a shameful image. For there are some in whom the illusion commonly arises in such a way that their mind, even while situated in the sleep of the body, is not defiled by shameful images. In this matter one thing is shown: the mind itself is guilty, though it was not then free in its judgment, because, although it remembers having seen nothing while in the body of the sleeper, it nevertheless remembers having fallen into gluttony during the body’s waking. §4. But if the illusion in the mind of the sleeper arises from the shameful thought of one awake, his guilt is evident to the mind. For he sees from what root that defilement proceeded, because what he knowingly thought, he unknowingly suffered. [PALEA.

But it must be considered whether the thought itself occurred in suggestion, in delight, or—which is greater—in consent to the sin. For every sin is completed in three ways, namely, by suggestion, delight, and consent: suggestion is made through the devil, delight through the flesh, and consent through the spirit; for first the serpent suggested the fault, Eve was delighted as the flesh, and Adam consented as the spirit. §1. And great discernment is necessary, so that the mind, as judge of itself, may preside between suggestion, delight, and consent. For when the malignant spirit suggests sin in the mind, if no delight in the sin follows, the sin has by no means been perpetrated; but when the flesh begins to be delighted, then the sin begins to be born; and if it also descends from deliberation into consent, then the sin is known to be completed. Therefore, in suggestion is the seed of sin, in delight nourishment is given, and in consent there is completion. §2. And it often happens that what the malignant spirit sows in thought, the flesh draws into delight, yet the mind does not consent to that delight. And although the flesh cannot be delighted without the soul, the mind itself, resisting the pleasures of the flesh, is nevertheless in some way unwillingly bound in carnal delight, so that it contradicts it by reason and does not consent, and yet is bound by delight, but groans vehemently that it is bound. Hence that foremost soldier of the heavenly army groaned, saying: “I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind and leading me captive in the law of sin that is in my members.” But if he was captive, he did not fight back at all; therefore he was both captive and fought back. Thus the law that is in his members fought against the law of his mind; but if he fought back, he was not captive. Behold, therefore, the man is, so to speak, captive and free: free by the justice that he loves; captive by the delight that he unwillingly bears.]

Likewise Isidore in the book of Sentences [Book III, Sentences on the Supreme Good, c. 6, nos. 13–14]. It is not a sin when we are unwillingly deceived by nocturnal images; but it is then a sin if, before we are deceived, we are anticipated by inclinations of thought. For images of lust that we have enacted in reality often appear in the mind while we sleep, but they are harmless if they do not occur through concupiscence. §1. Likewise: He who is polluted by a nocturnal illusion, although apart from the recollection of shameful thoughts he perceives himself to be defiled, should nevertheless attribute it to his own fault that he was tempted, and should at once wipe away his uncleanness with tears.

GRATIAN. These matters are answered thus. Natural law is contained in the Law and the Gospel; nevertheless, not everything found in the Law and the Gospel is shown to belong to natural law. For in the Law some things are moral, such as “You shall not kill,” and the rest; some are mystical, such as the precepts concerning sacrifices and other things similar to them. Moral commandments belong to natural law and are therefore shown to have received no mutability. Mystical commandments, according to the surface meaning, are shown to be foreign to natural law; according to their moral understanding, however, they are found to be joined to it. And by this, although they appear to have been changed according to the surface meaning, nevertheless according to their moral understanding they are shown to know no mutability. §1. Natural law, therefore, beginning from the origin of the rational creature, as was said above, remains immovable. The law of custom, however, took its origin after natural law, from the time when men, coming together in one place, began to dwell together. This is believed to have occurred from the time when Cain is read to have built a city. Although this appears almost to have been extinguished in the flood because of the scarcity of men, afterward it is judged to have been restored, or rather altered, from the time of Nimrod, when he, together with others, began to oppress other men, and others through their weakness began to be subject to their dominion. Hence it is read concerning him: “Nimrod began to be a mighty hunter before the Lord,” that is, an oppressor and destroyer of men, whom he enticed to build the tower.