講道與書信 第 78 章

CHAP. I.—Today, dearest brethren, we solemnly keep the day of him, namely, who, governing all things with the Father, created every day; the Word, I say, who in the beginning said: 'Let there be light, and there was light' (Gen. 1:3). His flesh today was made bright upon the mountain, as the Gospel text relates. Upon the mountain, before two prophets and three disciples, the Lord was transfigured; namely, that he might grant us hope of his Divinity, he willed to show them his face whiter than snow. But if anyone wishes to know who these prophets were, let him run to the most sublime utterances of the evangelists.

But if to anyone Luke seems to differ from the two former evangelists, because he reports that this brightness of the Lord was shown not after six days but after eight (Luke 9:28), let him run to the trope of the grammarians. For there is among them a trope which is called syllepsis, where for one many, and for many one is comprehended, and the whole is taken for the part, and the part for the whole; and let him know that Luke nonetheless wrote figuratively of the day when the promise was made, and comprehended in his Gospel that day too when it was fulfilled. That is to say, when the Lord had promised this, it was evening; and when he was transfigured, it was nevertheless appearing morning.

But Matthew and Mark, passing over the days of the promise and of the transfiguration, chose to hand down to perpetual remembrance only the six whole intervening days. CHAP. II.—Nevertheless, if anyone should ask why he willed to be transfigured before two prophets and three disciples, let him recall the very brilliant first discourse of the Lord; he himself says to the Jews: 'In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true' (John 8:17). And that he might show himself to be the one who said to Moses, 'I am who I am, and thus you shall say to the children of Israel: He who is has sent me to you' (Exod. 3:14):

and who had sent that same Moses to Pharaoh for the deliverance of the children of Israel, and had given him the law on Mount Sinai, and had carried the prophet Elijah in a fiery chariot into the aerial heaven, he brought these witnesses, by divine power, along with the disciples, to contemplate the transfiguration of his brightness; recalling, namely, one of them from the threshold of death, the other from the translation of paradise. For no one could know the sepulcher of Moses, save he who commanded and brought him to himself; and no one had known whither Elijah was translated, save he who had called him to himself. For this is the Only-begotten of the Father, who for the redemption of the human race willed to be made the firstborn of a mother.

For in this today's transfiguration he willed to unite the concord of both pages [of Scripture]. For that he might show himself to be Lord of the law and of the prophet, he willed to bring these to the testimony of the evangelists. In this transfiguration indeed it pleased him, the dispenser of the Father, to show the dispenser of the Son, namely Peter to Moses, and he willed to demonstrate the chaste old man to the chaste new, Elijah to John. Two suns the disciples beheld on the mountain today: one which was contemplated by them all in the firmament, and another which, shining more splendidly than it, was seen by the prophets and disciples—the face of Jesus. But this Sun, which glowed on the mountain, illumined by its power the one which is in the firmament.

For this is the Sun of justice, burning and shining; for by burning it kindles the faithful in itself, by shining it illumines all. For concerning this Sun John says: 'He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world' (John 1:9). CHAP. III.—But that his brightness might be instilled in us more surely than sure, after his countenance was transfigured into another form, and he was overshadowed by a bright cloud with the apostles, he was truly glorified by the Father: 'This,' he said, 'is my beloved Son, hear him' (Luke 9:35). But the disciples, not bearing so great a voice, fell upon their faces; and when Moses and Elijah withdrew, there remained alone the divine offspring, who, raising them up, said, 'Do not fear,' which is to say:

Let those fear who do not believe, let those fear whom phantasms delude. You, who obey the Son of the Father, and are present at his hidden secrets, for what reason are you afraid? Yet the holy disciples, looking up, saw no one but Jesus alone; so that it might be clearly demonstrated that the voice which had been sent was fitting not to Moses, not to Elijah, but to the Only-begotten Son alone. Concerning this vision indeed a certain most eloquent poet marvels and praises together the merit of these three apostles, saying (Sedulius, Book III, v. 284 ff.): 'O sublime merit of the three, to whom it fell to see in the world those things not believed by the world! What? that they saw both Elijah and Moses illustrious in virtue, unknown to the eyes, by the light of the heart.'

'That our faith may be the greater, that he is throughout the world the Beginning and the End, this one, namely, the Alpha and: whom such prophets shone round about in the midst. The one still living, the other standing in the light of life: and with a starry sound, saying, This is my Son, the Father's voice showed Christ begotten by his word.' Hence indeed to Moses beseeching and saying, 'Show me thy glory,' the Lord says: 'You shall not be able to see my face: for man shall not see me and live. Behold,' he says, 'there is a place with me, and you shall stand upon the rock; and when my glory shall pass, I will place you in a cleft of the rock, and I will protect you with my right hand, until I pass by, and I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back parts, but my face you shall not be able to see' (Exod. 33:18, 20 ff.).

What then, most beloved, is this? What indeed is this? Has no one ever seen the Lord? Has one of these lied, who said: 'No one has ever seen God, except the Only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he himself has declared him' (John 1:18)? Is the almighty Father, incomprehensible and immense and invisible, believed to be corporeal, or are bodily members ascribed to him, so that he is reported to have back parts? Great is this, deep is this; and for such little ones it is not easy to search out a thing so deep. But it is to be opened only by him who, when he wills, opens the mouth of brute animals to speak. O Holy Spirit, unlock for us this supreme utterance of the Father.

Attend more diligently, attend more cautiously, most beloved, and together with me prepare your minds. CHAP. IV.—'When I shall have passed by,' says the Lord, 'you shall see my back parts, my face you shall not be able to see' (Exod. 33:23). For the face of the Lord is his incomprehensible Deity; but his back parts are to be believed to be the assumed humanity of the Son. Assuredly by the face, which is the first part of the body, is intimated the Divinity before all ages; but the back parts are the humanity of Christ, which came to us in the last times through the inviolate Mary. On this day indeed, what he promised to his servant Moses, the Father faithfully fulfilled through the Son. Concerning this solemnity of this day David says:

'You have put on confession and beauty, clothed with light as with a garment' (Ps. 104:1). Christ put on confession and beauty when he was glorified with the glory of the paternal voice; he was clothed with light as with a garment when with the splendor of the sun he showed to the disciples his glittering countenance. Concerning this solemnity too the prophet Habakkuk marveled, when it was chanted by him: 'Lord, I have heard your report and I was afraid, I have considered your works and was terrified' (Hab. 3:1). Did he marvel and grow terrified at the fabric of the world? No. But at what did he marvel and grow terrified? Hear what follows: 'In the midst,' he says, 'of two living creatures you will be known.'

O most beloved, what is it to be known in the midst of two living creatures? Unless it be either in the midst of the two Testaments, or in the midst of Moses and Elijah conversing with him today on the mountain. For this is the cornerstone, in which each wall deserved to be joined together, namely the Old Testament and the New. The Old was signified by Moses and Elijah, by whom the law and the prophets are designated. The New by Peter and James and John, by whom the holy and venerable Gospel is designated. Or by Moses and Elijah that former Jewish people, by Peter, James, and John the Gentile people is designated. But this is the people walking in darkness, which saw a great light;

to which light may the Only-begotten of the Father lead us to contemplate in that fatherland, in which the just shall shine like the sun, and God himself shall be all in all, who with God the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns and is glorified as God through all things. 1. To these words of Leo, sermon 3, chap. 2: 'The solidity of that faith which was praised in the prince of the apostles is perpetual,' Quesnel appended this annotation: 'He explains the words of Christ the Lord, that what was praised in Peter is that rock upon which he promises to build his Church, and against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, because it is perpetual; and as he says in chap.

3, it received the firmness of the rock, which could be shaken by no impacts, so that neither could heretical depravity ever break through it, nor pagan perfidy overcome it.' In the same sense he expounds the same words in sermon 3 (now 4), chap. 2 and 3, and in sermon 60 (now 62), or On the Passion 11, chap. 2. Thus far he. But lest this interpretation, which accommodates the name of the rock to the faith praised in Peter, be believed to favor those who—expounding the testimony of Christ, 'Upon this Rock I will build my Church,' not of Peter but of the faith—contend that it in no way pertains to establishing the prerogatives of Peter and his successors, Leo's mind must be more exactly explained. 2. When the holy

pontiff explained the rock, upon which Christ promised to build his Church, of the faith or of the solidity of that faith which Christ himself praised in Peter, we shall most clearly show that Leo understood not faith in general, nor the private faith of Peter, but that faith which he preached, whose deposit he left in the Roman see, and transmitted to his successors with an equal privilege of solidity: hence indeed it will be plain how accurately Quesnel wrote in the postil appended to sermon 65, chap. 2, in general terms: 'The rock, upon which the Church is built and against which hell does not prevail, is solid faith.' 3.

That indeed the faith preached by Peter is to be understood according to Leo's mind, the same pontiff openly declares in the aforementioned sermon 62, chap. 5. For he affirms that Peter, by God's revelation, went before all the apostles in the profession of faith, so that, being prepared for the government of the whole Church, he might first learn what he would teach, and for the solidity of the faith WHICH HE WAS ABOUT TO PREACH, might hear: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Behold, he attributes the solidity and the name of the rock, upon which the Church was to be built and against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, to that faith which Peter was about to preach, and by preaching which he was about to build the Church.

But lest hereby the name of rock be taken away from Peter, the Author testifies that, on account of this solidity of the faith to be preached, Peter himself too was constituted a rock, in sermon 4, chap. 2. For thus he introduces Christ speaking: 'You too are a rock, because you are made solid by my power'; and therefore he calls not so much the faith of Peter as Peter himself the rock of the catholic faith, in epistle 119, to Maximus of Antioch, chap. 2. 4. But since the same Peter chiefly left the deposit of this faith in the Roman Church and see, and transmitted it to his successors the Roman pontiffs, Leo openly discloses that the same solidity of faith which was in Peter perseveres and shall persevere in this Church, and in the successors of Peter by a peculiar privilege, until the end of the world, in these words of sermon

3, chap. 2: 'For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the prince of the apostles is perpetual: and just as what Peter believed in Christ abides, so what Christ instituted in Peter abides.' Christ instituted, namely, that his faith, upon which the Church was to be built, should be so solid that against it the gates of hell should never prevail, which requires a perpetual solidity of faith. But he who thus affirmed this solidity of faith to be perpetual, assuredly acknowledged that it did not cease in Peter, but passed over into his successors: whence in sermon 5, chap. 4, he says: 'For that solidity, which he (Peter), himself made a rock, received from the Rock Christ, transfuses itself also into his heirs.'

Into those heirs, namely, it has been transfused, in whom he indicates in several places that Peter lives, and still governs and teaches the Church. Wherefore in sermon 3, chap. 3, attributing to blessed Peter the ever-persevering solidity of the rock, he says: 'The disposition of truth therefore remains, and blessed Peter, persevering in the received strength of the rock, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he undertook.' We could bring forward concordant testimonies of other Fathers, which we have collected in another treatise to be published someday, if it please God. But it was our purpose here to disclose the opinion of Leo alone. And how much this opinion contributes to establishing the prerogatives of the Roman see, no one fails to see. 1. On the described testimony Quesnel noted these things.

'So excellent an opinion, although already illustrated by the observations of many, the plan of our undertaking does not permit us to pass over untouched. After St. Leo asserted at the beginning of the chapter that the edifice rises upon the firmness of the faith asserted through Peter, and that, in view of this confession, the power signified by these words was handed over to him: "To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc. (Matt. 16:19); he subjoins that it was given not to Peter alone, but that the right of this power passed also into the apostles: yet that it was intimated singularly to Peter, so that in one all the rulers of the Church might learn what was entrusted to them, and the whole form of Peter might be set forth as a model.

For just as the prince of the apostles had uttered the confession of faith on behalf of all, and all had answered in him and through him; so also on behalf of all he received the power of the keys, and all received it in him and through him. Hence again Leo asserts that, just as there is a power common to all, so also there is a privilege common to all, the honor of the primacy excepted; and that that privilege of Peter remains wherever throughout the lands, through the bishops the successors of the apostles, judgment is passed according to the equity of Peter; and accordingly that the privilege of Peter does not remain wherever judgment is not passed according to his equity.

By which sentence, says Charles the Bald, king of the Franks, in a letter drawn up in the style of Hincmar of Rheims, it is established that the privilege of Peter does not remain where judgment is not passed according to his equity. For since it is said 'wherever,' just as no place, so no ruler of the Church passing judgment according to the equity of Peter is excepted, or one pronouncing against his equity is commended. And because 'wherever,' without any exception, the privilege of Peter does not remain where judgment is not passed according to his equity, shall we obey a command, or receive a judgment, which shall not have been pronounced according to the equity of Peter, and shall through this have been destitute of his privilege? (Epistle of Charles the Bald, to Pope Hadrian, among the Hincmarian letters of the last edition).

To the same words of Leo the same Hincmar, and also other Gallican bishops, allude in the synod of Troyes of the year 878, who, confirming by the vote of Pope John VIII, in the present synod, the condemnation of Lambert, enemy of the Roman Church, excommunicated (as they say) by the privilege of blessed Peter and of the apostolic see, seem to interpret that privilege and equity of the apostolic see as concerning judgment pronounced according to the sacred canons founded by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the reverence of the whole world; and again, according to the path of the Scriptures, and the decrees of the sacred canons. See Peter de Marca pursuing these things more fully in book 4 of On the Concord of the Priesthood and the Empire, chapters 6 and 8.» Thus Quesnel, where toward the end St.

Bending Leo's words gradually more to his own purpose than to the mind of the holy pontiff, he insinuates that only those judgments of the Roman pontiffs themselves enjoy the privilege and the equity of Peter, and are ratified, which are pronounced according to the norm of the canons. He drew out so lengthy an annotation, perhaps, with this design: that Leo himself, once this testimony had been so explained, might seem to favor those things which he was meditating to establish in the case of Hilary of Arles (Dissertation 5), wherein he contends that Hilary rightly resisted Leo when Leo exercised judgment against the rules of the canons, as he himself invents, and this because it was not hidden, he says there (Part III, ch. 1),

the prerogative of the chief prelates over the lower bishops is inert and idle, since nothing is claimed by them except according to the norm of the canons. This is not the place to discuss Leo's judgment in the case of Hilary of Arles, which was undertaken and held at Rome both from natural equity and from the rules of the canons, as will be fully demonstrated in the Observations on that same Quesnellian dissertation. Here only, lest the testimony of the holy pontiff be dragged into a sense foreign to him — one that favors disobedience and impugns the prerogatives of the Roman See — the genuine meaning of Leo's proposition must be explained from Leo himself. 2. When therefore the holy

pontiff declares that the privilege of Peter abides wherever judgment is pronounced from his equity, he is speaking of judgments concerning persons and especially concerning crimes, as is clear from what he immediately subjoins in the same sermon about excessive severity or excessive laxity, and also from Sermon 5, ch. 5, where he says: 'While the right of binding and loosing remains with us, through the governance of the most blessed Peter both the condemned is led to penance and the reconciled is brought to pardon.' Now this is the privilege of Peter: that whatsoever he shall have loosed or bound on earth may be loosed or bound in heaven.

But in those judgments which are pronounced by the princes of the Church concerning offenders, Leo teaches that this privilege of Peter abides if the judgment is pronounced from the equity of Peter himself — namely, if it be as upright and just as the judgments of Peter were upright and just. For 'equity' in this place is taken for real justice, so that the one who is bound, that is, condemned, is truly a sinner, and the one who is absolved is truly a penitent. For those who are of this kind, when they are bound or loosed on earth, are bound or loosed also in heaven.

But if through some error or through anyone's fraud there be bound or condemned one who, though judged guilty in the external forum, is yet truly innocent; and if, on the other hand, there be absolved one who is believed penitent but in truth approaches feignedly and is not converted before God — who would believe that to be bound or loosed in heaven which is thus loosed or bound on earth? Nothing further can be drawn from the whole context of Leo. The whole passage regards the judgments of the Church held on earth in relation to the divine judgment in heaven. 3. There is here nothing about the canons or about a method of canons; those who think Peter's equity must necessarily be derived from these ought to indicate which canons Peter followed in order to pronounce judgments from equity.

The canons indeed had regard to natural equity when they prescribed certain rules for judgments. But the equity of Peter which is here indicated must be referred to natural justice or equity — which is what the substance of the canons regards — and not to the discipline or method of the canons, without which Peter most equitably bound or loosed. 4. So long as the judgments of the Roman pontiffs preserve this natural justice and equity, it makes no difference whether they are pronounced according to a fixed method and discipline of the canons, or otherwise by that supreme authority whereby, not in the substance of natural equity but in the method and discipline of the canons, they can sometimes dispense or alter, and this from equity itself:

for they will always enjoy the privilege of Peter, and whatsoever they shall have loosed or bound by the authority of Peter will be loosed or bound in heaven. Just as, on the contrary, if any judgments were pronounced by them even according to the rules and method of the canons, which yet lacked real equity and justice — a thing that can happen especially through an error of fact and the deceit of witnesses or documents — then the method and discipline of the canons, though observed, would profit nothing.

For although they ought to be held ratified and observed by the Church so long as the error is not detected and the judgment is not retracted (as many theologians and canonists teach, drawing from the very institutions of the Fathers and the rules of the canons), yet God in heaven would not bind or loose one who on earth was bound or absolved through error and deceit. This is the genuine and open interpretation of Leo's principle, from which the use or abuse of that same principle will easily be discerned; so that there is no need to discourse further about the testimony of Charles the Bald, which — being something to be weighed from its whole context and from peculiar circumstances — would require a longer disputation by no means necessary to the present matter.

We have reserved for this place Quesnel's longer annotation concerning usury, appended to Sermon 17 against a newfangled error. 'So evidently,' he says, 'is the novel dogma about the free faculty of lending at interest to the rich here overturned (a dogma into which, grievous to say, some among Catholics are swept away), that it is worth the trouble to consider Leo's doctrine more attentively. It is clear, then, that he assails not only that usury which is exacted from the poor, but absolutely all usury — as do those who condemn all usury and have nothing peculiar to say about the poor. Secondly, he condemns him who seizes upon the necessities of laboring men in order to multiply his own wealth by immoderate increases: which scarcely happens with a small sum received from the poor;

but rather from copious gains, which are reaped while someone seizes upon the necessities of laborers — that is, of businessmen — and receives back money lent that has been augmented with immoderate profits. Thirdly, he refutes the reasoning of those who contend that they are conferring a benefit when they give their money at interest to businessmen; for such a benefit he calls deceitful services, deceitful profit, unjust and shameless avarice, which claims to confer a benefit while it deceives — a lust for unjust gain, etc. Fourthly, he declares in general that the interest of money is the death of the soul;

that the iniquity of usury must be utterly fled, and that he is a stranger from the holy mountain of God who seizes deceitful gain from the interest of his money. Fifthly, he says that the moneylender is either wretched by losing what he gave, or more wretched by receiving what he did not give. Here he shows that the iniquity of usury is properly reckoned to consist in this: that one receives what he did not give, against the general sentence of God which, as St. Ambrose writes in the book On Tobias, excludes every increase of the principal. For usury, as Jerome defines it, is to receive more than one gives. Sixthly, gather from these words how feeble are the petty reasonings which moneylenders hold out to excuse their avarice:

'Whatever the outcome may be, the account of the moneylender is always evil, for whom both to have diminished the money and to have increased it is a sin.' Hence, according to Leo's mind, whether this interest seem to turn to the advantage of the one who receives the loan, or to his loss, or with peril and loss to the giver, or with profit — the account of the moneylender is always evil. See also his Epistle 3, alias 1 (now Epistle 4), chs. 3 and 4, where, with no mention made of the poor, he condemns by a general sentence all who ply usurious money and wish to grow rich by interest; and he grieves that this falls upon those who desire to be called Christians.' So far Quesnel.

But many things disputed on this matter against the same error will be found in several works most recently published, and especially in the celebrated work of the supreme reigning pontiff Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book VII, ch. 47; who moreover condemned the same error by apostolic authority in the Encyclical issued on the 1st of November in the year 1745, and inserted in tome I of the same pontiff's Bullarium. 1. To those words of Leo in Sermon 20, ch. 1: 'Rightly did the apostolic ordinances arrange that the usefulness of the ancient fasts should remain, and although the custom of the Church had learned to exercise itself with more prolonged chastisements, it should nevertheless embrace the sanctification of continence coming from the law,' etc., Quesnel appends this annotation:

'Let the theologians of a later age see by what reasoning they can reconcile their doctrine with the documents of the holy Fathers — those who, from the perfection of the law of grace, prefer the shorter chastisements of today's fasts to the longer ones. Thus argues Alexander of Hales, Part IV, question 28, on fasting, member 7: The hour of fasting is the ninth hour, which... up to evening.... The Church ought to keep a mean, so that in the time of fasting we might be refreshed at the middle time. St. Thomas treads in the footsteps of his master, 2-2, question 147, article 7, ad 1: To the first, then, he says, it must be said that the state of the Old Testament is compared to night, but the state of the New Testament to day; according to that saying to the Romans 13: The night is far spent, but the day is at hand.

And therefore in the Old Testament they fasted until night, but not so in the New Testament.' Our Leo philosophizes otherwise in the present sermon: 'The moral commands and precepts,' he says, 'remain as they were promulgated, since they insinuate nothing other than what they say, and among Christian devotion they grow by increase, they do not fall away by cessation.' And below: 'Although many things have been added by the newness of grace, yet nothing has been diminished from the antiquity of justice.' Consequently, he shows by this excellent reasoning that to exercise longer chastisements is the custom of the Church: 'For to those to whom it was granted to be able to do what is greater, it was unbecoming not to celebrate what is less.' In the same sense he writes in Sermon 14, On the Passion, ch. 5:

'In the moral precepts,' he says, 'no decrees of the former Testament are reprobated, but by the evangelical teaching many have been augmented, that they might be more perfect and more luminous, giving salvation rather than promising the Savior.' See Sermon 6, On the Fast of the Tenth Month, ch. 1. But that we may set alongside two peers of an older theology two chiefs, contemporaries of scholastic theology, let us hear Salvian singing in harmony with Leo, book II To the Catholic Church, where he has this before the middle: 'But perhaps someone asks,' he says, 'what is the reason that God now demands more from Christians through the Gospel than from the Jews formerly through the Law? The reason of this matter is open. For we now pay greater things to our Lord because we owe greater things;

for the Jews had a certain shadow of things, we the truth,' etc.; and a few lines before: 'There was then more indulgence and more license; then the eating of flesh was proclaimed, now abstinence; then in a whole lifetime very few days of fasts, now one might call all of life a single fast,' etc. 2. But this censure — which Quesnel, under no necessity of explaining or vindicating Leo, so lengthily set forth against the most excellent theologians, and especially against the very prince of theologians, St. Thomas — how it is not only inopportune but even extravagant, we show in a few words. They are reproved as though, from the perfection of the law of grace, they had preferred the shorter chastisements of today's fasts to the longer ones.

From the context itself it is clear that they, considering the discipline of their own time — in which the fast was broken at the ninth hour rather than in the evening — sought a certain fitting reason for this hour, one that might agree with the law of grace in a mystical sense: for thus other ancient Fathers too adduced mystical reasons for the rites to be instituted. But that they compared the shorter chastisements of the fast with the longer ones, and preferred the former to the latter as though more perfect, on account of the perfection of the new law — this you will nowhere find. For who of sound mind would think it? And if they preferred the ninth hour to the evening one, they are not therefore to be said to have set a shorter chastisement before a longer one:

for about the same chastisement could be had, if someone, abstaining for a span of twenty-four hours, took a single meal at the ninth hour or in the evening: for the abstinence that is shorter for one breaking the fast at the ninth hour is in a manner compensated by the following longer abstinence; and besides, since those theologians speak chiefly of the fast of Lent, which was then broken at the ninth hour, they could reckon the same abstinence and chastisement through twenty-four continuous hours both in the one who fasts from the ninth hour of one day, after the midday meal, to the ninth hour of the next day, and in the one who fasts from evening to evening; so that they would have made least account of the variation between a ninth-hour or an evening meal within the same twenty-four hours of abstinence.

'This formula of prayer is in the first place catholic — nay rather, it is the sum and fullness of the Christian religion, whose peculiar mark it is to worship God through Christ, as Tertullian witnesses in the Apologeticum, ch. 21, and in Optatus, book III: You call him a pagan who has prayed to God the Father through His Son before the altar? And — what is equivalent to all witnesses — the Church employs it partly in her offices, partly in the public prayer of the sacrifice. For she thus concludes all her collects, Through Christ, etc., namely the mediator of God and men. And that at the altar prayer may always be directed to the Father, it was of old sanctioned by the Council of Carthage which is called the Third, canon 23.'

Of old, however, while the Arian heresy raged, this formula of speech employed by Leo was not heard with altogether favorable ears: because the Arians concealed the impious sense of their heresy under these words, being wont to sing this doxology at the close of their hymns in this manner: 'Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit'; of which thing Philostorgius is witness in book III of his History. And for that reason Eusebius of Pamphili — as Socrates relates in book II of his History, ch. 21 — came under suspicion of the Arian dogma among certain persons, because he rather often repeats in his writings these words, 'Through Christ.' Which words are also everywhere familiar to ecclesiastical writers, and first of all to the apostle Paul:

'Who nevertheless,' says Socrates, 'was never reckoned a teacher of perverse dogma.' All this from Quesnel. 'Similarly,' says Quesnel in an annotation, 'in Sermon 4 On the Epiphany, the Son of God is said to be mingled with the nature of the flesh. Such modes of speaking the scholastic theologians shunned more scrupulously than did those parents of an older theology, whose chief, Augustine, in Epistle 3 to Volusianus, proposes this definition of the Lord's incarnation, as full as it is brief: A mixture of God and man. Yet only if, as he immediately subjoins, the hearer withdraw from the custom of bodies, whereby two liquids are wont to be so commingled that neither preserves its own integrity.'

Whence a little after he too fears lest the name of mixture or blending be unworthily applied to the union of God and man, nay of soul and body. Yet they spoke more securely while the Eutychians were not yet contending, who — not withdrawing from the custom of bodies, as Augustine had warned — dreamed that the natures had coalesced into one after the union. After the rise of which heresy, Leo spoke more cautiously and weighed his words more carefully, lest — as he admonished Theodoret — he should seem, against the Nestorians or against the Eutychians, to have favored one or the other of them, but might avoid and condemn both enemies of Christ with an equal balance (Epistle 93, alias 63).

Moreover, when the one nature has been mingled with the other, it is to be noted not only that which our author everywhere declares — that neither was confounded by the commingling — but also that this was done in this manner: that when the Word of God, as Augustine says, was mingled with the soul having a body, it at once took to itself both the soul and the body (St. Augustine, Epistle 3). But in what manner the Word was mingled with the soul, who could explain, when Augustine dares not explain it? This one thing he says: that the Wisdom of God, which is His Word, everywhere present and hidden, nowhere enclosed, nowhere divided, nowhere swollen, but without mass wholly everywhere, in a manner far other than that by which it is present to the rest of creatures, took up the man, and made both itself and him one Jesus Christ, etc.

For she herself, as he says in another place of the same Epistle, joined to herself the rational soul and, through it, also the human body, and the whole man entirely, to be changed for the better — she herself in no way changed for the worse — deigning to assume from him the name of humanity, bountifully bestowing on him her Divinity. Finally, this union is nothing other than the intimate penetration of the soul and, through it, of the whole nature, into which God Himself wholly pours Himself wholly, in a manner that cannot befit a creature, since no creature truly penetrates another.

'But God,' says Augustine, 'who is capacious, not capable of being contained; penetrating, not penetrable; filling, not fillable; who is everywhere at once wholly, and everywhere diffused — through the infusion of His power was mercifully mingled with human nature; the human nature was not mingled with the divine nature' (Augustine, in Leporius's Confession). Thus far he. But we have gathered more on this subject in Dissertation 2, ch. 3, in the Works of St. Zeno, p. 91, which whoever wishes will be able to compare.

Here we insert a particular little dissertation on this subject by Giovanni Ciampini, addressed to Erasmo Gattola, which Quesnel added to his second edition. Long since has your love toward the liberal arts and toward those devoted to them become known, together with your will to deserve well of them — a love which you have always displayed and cease not to display, inviting some to studies, enticing others, instructing others by your most courteous and learned replies, sparing at last neither labors nor expenses whereby you might be of service to the literary republic to the best of your power. I too had known what was commonly reported of you in this praise, not only by the associates of your most noble order, but also by others.

Yet a more certain and most ample testimony of this matter I received with great delight of soul, when not long ago, in the month of May, I betook myself alive to visit that most celebrated arch-monastery. Doubtless I gazed in admiration upon the sanctity of the place, the beauty of God's house in the temple, and, so to speak, the illustrious colony of all the virtues, which gave to heaven so many excellent bishops for the cities, so many most worthy cardinals for the Vatican, so many most holy pontiffs of the Church, so many myriads of saints. I marveled at the structure and magnificence of the monastery, plainly worthy both of its royal founders and of its monastic inhabitants.

Most gladly I saw the most opulent gifts of Caesars, kings, and princes, in which one could recognize both their Christian piety and the glory of Benedict your father. Nay, most pleasant to me likewise was the singular liberality of the monks, who dismissed me at my departure with all the most generous offices of religious hospitality. But — that I may frankly confess what most bears upon the present matter — I took exceeding pleasure in beholding so many chests of most ancient codices in the library over whose custody you yourself preside; and doubtless greater pleasure when I heard you reading most readily the codices themselves, written out in so many and such diverse characters, with the utmost ease.

Indeed, from this singular erudition I judge it came about that, so often questioned by me in doubtful matters, you answered with that facility which we can only expect from a man long versed day and night in these studies. Nor yet are you so devoted to codices written by hand that you neglect those published in print. Nay rather, in acquiring these too you have expended no small sum of money, so far as religious discipline permits — codices which, diligently bought at Rome, you transferred into your noble museum, therein placing your rest, therein your delights, after the manner of the wise. Hence it came about that I believed no more acceptable monument of a grateful soul could be offered to you by me than some little literary work;

and this especially, which, having in a manner proceeded from you, seems by a certain right to be owed back to you. When I had already committed to type some of my lucubrations with the inscription 'On the Sacred Buildings Constructed by Constantine the Great,' and on that occasion had described the Vatican basilica, most celebrated throughout the whole world, this among many things came to be noted: that the ancient faithful, venerating on bended knees, were wont to ascend to it by steps. On which matter, when I chanced to hold a conversation with the Reverend Father

Giuseppe Maria Tommasi, priest of the Congregation of Clerics Regular, our common friend and an outstanding investigator of the ancient sacred rites of our age, chanced to hold a conversation, he told me that in Sermon 7 of St. Leo the Great, On the Nativity of the Lord, he had noticed the word ARÆ ('of the altar'), which he supposed to have been there placed by an error. Wherefore he left the solution of that doubt to my care and my investigation. Most gladly did I resolve to comply with my friend's urgings; therefore in the first place I turned to searching out the printed codices. If I recite all of these to you, I by no means think I shall be tiresome, since you love letters. The most ancient printing of St. Leo's sermons, then, is that made at Cologne in the year 1551;

in folio, which appeared in the same city and format in the year 1569; then the sermons of the same St. Leo were brought to light at Venice in the year 1553, which in the same format and in the same city came forth again in the year 1573. Then in the year 1566 the same sermons were edited at Louvain in quarto; and afterward reprinted at Antwerp in the year 1583, likewise in quarto. But in the year 1633 all the Works of St. Leo were brought to light from the presses of Lyons, which, together with St. Maximus and five other Fathers, were likewise reprinted there in the year 1652. Finally, at Paris in the year 1675, by that most erudite man Pasquier Quesnel, priest of the Congregation of the Oratory, illustrated with appendices, dissertations, and observations, they came forth from the press.

All these editions, which came into my hands, I read with careful attention, and found that all of them contained in themselves the word ARÆ. Wherefore I forthwith set my mind to investigating the manuscript codices; therefore I went to the Vatican Library, in which — since it abounds in manuscript codices, and chiefly on account of the intimacy which at that time existed with Emmanuel a Schelestrat of blessed memory, the chief custodian of the same library — I hoped I should find something therein; but hope deceived me, since I found nothing. Not terrified in mind by this — nay, made the bolder — I turned to visiting other libraries, both in the City and outside it, and to turning them over by the help of friends.

I went to the renowned Barberini, Ottoboni, and also the Angelica libraries, and although in them I had found manuscript codices in which were the sermons of St. Leo, nevertheless, on account of their being venerable for their antiquity, they were of least help, and in them I observed nothing but the word ARÆ. Afterward I wrote letters to the most reverend Father Eustachio a Sancto Ubaldo of the Order of St. Augustine, consultor of the districts and most deserving of the literary republic, that he might investigate in the Ambrosian Library whether any manuscript codex was there which contained the sermons of St. Leo, and that he might notice the aforesaid word ARÆ in them. My friend replied that he had diligently searched the codices, and had read in them the word ARÆ.

Soon I also gave you letters, and received the reply that you had found the aforesaid sermon in the codex marked number 126, and that in it the word ARCÆ was expressed; wherefore you supposed it a copyist's error, who instead of ARÆ had written ARCÆ, changing the letter E into C; and that that one codex contained above ninety sermons of St. Leo, the beginning of which codex is: 'Here begin the sermons of St. Leo the Pope. First, on the fast of the tenth month. If, dearly beloved, we understand faithfully and wisely the origin of our creation,' etc., and it ends: 'If therefore anyone, having spurned the darkness of perfidy, shall have willed to obey his precepts and commands and endeavors, he shall enter secure the gates of heaven and of paradise, Amen';

and that that codex was written out in Lombardic letters already six hundred and more years ago, since it was written by order of Desiderius, abbot of Monte Cassino, who afterward became Roman pontiff under the name Victor III, as is read in ch. 63, book III of the Cassinese Chronicle, and as the characters of this codex show, which are similar to those of other codices written out by command of the same abbot Desiderius. When these notices had been communicated to me, you wished abundantly to testify your kindness toward me, when you sent the beginnings and endings of another sixteen sermons found under the name of the same St. Leo in other manuscript codices. But I knew that nine of those you had indicated had already been printed under the name of another saint;

but of the rest I do not know the authors. Of these I found two in the Quesnellian edition, but they are by no means complete, since they are parts of sermons; namely one, which begins 'Honorabilem,' etc., is part of Sermon 1 on the anniversary day of the Assumption; the other is Sermon 48, on Lent. Of those sent, therefore, five remain, which, comparison having been made, I found by no means to agree with the clear and open style of St. Leo. I thought also in this to use the judgment of friends, who came over to that same opinion of mine.

I judged that I ought by no means to acquiesce in these investigations, but thought it fair to approach the Vatican Library again and to apply new diligence; I therefore asked the erudite man Lorenzo Zaccagni, the second custodian of the same library, that he would grant me the opportunity of searching the indexes: he most kindly indulged my petition. Nor was the new search useless. We found, then, one codex marked number 1276, written two hundred years ago, on the reverse of whose page 39 is read the word ARCE without a diphthong; but in another codex marked number 1267, page 78, second column, on the reverse, written out about six centuries ago, in plain letters I read the sought-for word ARÆ, which resolves the question of the doubt.

Of this diligence applied by me I judged I ought to make you certain, that you may know it has crept into this word, and may notice how it ought to be read. For one little letter, omitted through the copyist's carelessness, changes the whole sense, as will most clearly appear from what is to be said below. 'Ara' (altar), then, is that place in which sacred offerings are made to God; but 'area' (landing) is that level space which is interposed at the top of stairs — and sometimes also in the middle and in other parts, when the stairs have many steps — for this purpose: that those ascending by them may be able to pause there a little, on account of the difficulty and labor of the ascent. This word ARÆ is read in Sermon 7 of St. Leo the Pope, On the Nativity of the Lord, ch. 4. The particular portion of the sermon runs thus:

From such practices there also arises this impiety, that the sun, as it rises at the beginning of the daylight, is adored by certain rather foolish people from more elevated places; which some, even Christians, think they do so religiously that, before they reach the basilica of the blessed Apostle Peter, which is dedicated to the one living and true God, having climbed the steps by which one ascends to the platform of the upper court, they turn their bodies back toward the rising sun and, with bowed necks, bend themselves in honor of the shining orb. That this is done partly through the fault of ignorance, partly through the spirit of paganism, we greatly waste away in grief and sorrow.

For even if some perhaps venerate the Creator of the beautiful light rather than the light itself, which is a creature, one must nevertheless abstain from this very appearance of such an observance; for when he who has abandoned the worship of the gods finds it among us, will he not retain it with himself as a portion of his old opinion, as though plausible, since he sees it to be common to Christians and to the impious alike? Let this damnable perversity therefore be cast out from the custom of the faithful, and let not the honor owed to the one God be mingled with the rites of those who serve created things. Here I seem to behold you rightly astonished at me, that so foul an error was not in the least noticed by the learned men who have several times published the works of Saint Leo.

Do not therefore disdain to interpose a brief pause in your studies, and to read with a friendly mind those things which, for the sake of erudition, I have written after the inquiries recorded above. In the first place, then, I turn to the stairway of the Vatican basilica, which I have found to have been very great; its thirty-five marble steps afforded the ascent to the upper area of the basilica, and these were distributed into five sets. For architects observe an odd number in the arrangement of steps; for nature, when we ascend, always inclines us to move the left foot first, and on that same step we usually come to rest. Hence, if the steps be even in number, the right foot rests on the last step, while the left remains suspended, as if it wished to end the ascent.

Wherefore the one ascending suffers a certain discomfort, since, though by nature the left foot desires to find rest, it by no means enjoys it. The design of this stairway, as it was in antiquity, I set forth in plate 12 of my work concerning the Sacred Buildings constructed by Constantine the Great, where the five sets of steps are distinctly seen with landings interspersed among them; hence each set consisted of seven steps. The purpose of the landings which are placed between the flights is that the one ascending, wearied in the climb, may find rest for a little while by strolling or by standing still. But at the summit of the stairway there is one landing greater than all the others, since there the one ascending ought to find greater rest before he enters the building.

In these stairs of Saint Peter's the greatest landing was the one which Saint Leo calls 'the platform of the upper area,' to distinguish it from the other lower ones. Through the steps of this stairway the ancient faithful, for the sake of prayer or of a vow, ascended indiscriminately, namely on bended knees, as is gathered from Gregory IV and Hadrian I in the Lives of the Librarian. Having therefore shown what the word 'area' (court) is, and what it signifies in the sense of Saint Leo, the matter demands that I submit to examination that same pontiff's rebuke to the faithful.

Certain of the ancient faithful, before they entered the Vatican basilica, after the ascent of the stairs—that is, on that greatest landing of the stairs—would station themselves on the day of the Lord's Nativity and adore the rising sun, taking their pattern from the Manichaeans, who observed a profane rite of this kind. Wherefore these very faithful, ignorant of their own rites, confused the newborn Christ with the rising sun, adoring the creature in place of the Creator. Let me set this forth more precisely. Nearly all the nations, and especially those of the East, believed the sun to be the chief of the gods. This is taught by a man of admirable reading and erudition, Gaspar Barthius, in his Adversaria Commentaries, book 41, chapter 27.

The same is shown by a man of manifold erudition and varied reading, Gaspar Johannes Vossius, in his treatise on idolatry in very many places; the same by Kircher in his Oedipus Aegyptiacus. Since therefore the heresy of the Manichaeans had its origin in Mesopotamia, an eastern region, as writes Saint Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia—or Salamis—in Cyprus, in his work Against Heresies, heresy 46 (or 66), it is no wonder that these Manichaeans adored the sun; which that great light of the Church, Saint Augustine, indicates in his book On Heresies, heresy 43, writing thus concerning these same Manichaeans: 'They make prayers to the sun by day, wheresoever it goes about; to the moon by night, if it appears, toward the northern part where the sun, when it has set, returns to the east.'

Wherefore, toward that region of the sky where they saw the sun to be viewed at that hour, there they turned themselves to adore it. In the very early morning, then, the rising sun looks upon the face of the Vatican basilica, and illumines it for many hours. Therefore, if the Manichaeans, while they stood on the Vatican stairs, wished to adore the sun, in an act of this kind they turned their backs to the Vatican basilica itself. And although a profane rite of this sort was observed by the Manichaeans on every day and at every hour, nevertheless that very day, the 25th of December, of the Lord's Nativity, was esteemed honorable among the Manichaeans on account of the rising of the sun, as is most openly gathered from the praised Saint Leo in sermon 2 On the Nativity of the Lord, chapter 6, where he says thus:

'Having therefore the confidence of so great a hope, most beloved, in the faith in which you are founded, remain steadfast, lest that same tempter, whose dominion over you Christ has already shut out, seduce you again by some snares; and lest he corrupt by the art of his deceit these very joys of the present day, mocking the simpler souls with the pestilent persuasion of certain persons, to whom this day of our solemnity seems honorable not so much on account of the Nativity of Christ as on account of the rising, as they say, of a new sun. Their hearts, wrapped in vast darkness, are estranged from every increase of the true light;'

'for they are still dragged along by the most foolish errors of paganism, and because they cannot raise the keenness of the mind above that which they behold with carnal sight, they venerate with divine honor the luminaries that minister to the world. Far be impious superstition and monstrous falsehood from Christian minds. Temporal things are beyond all measure distant from the eternal, corporeal from the incorporeal, subject things from the ruler; for although they possess a wondrous beauty, they nevertheless possess no Godhead to be adored. That power, therefore, that wisdom, that majesty is to be worshiped, which created the whole of the world out of nothing, and by all-powerful reason produced earthly and heavenly substance into whatever forms and measures it willed.'

'Let the sun, the moon, and the stars be of use to those who use them, let them be beautiful to those who behold them; but in such a way that thanks be referred from them to their Author, and that God be adored, who created them, not the creature, which serves. Praise God therefore, most beloved, in all His works and judgments. Let there be in you an undoubting belief in virgin integrity and childbearing. Honor with holy and sincere service the sacred and divine mystery of human reformation.' Concerning this practice of depraved adoration the same Saint Leo again rebukes the faithful in the above-cited sermon 7, On the same Nativity, chapter 4, which I think it will not be unfitting to repeat here. Thus therefore this holy man speaks:

'From such practices there also arises this impiety, that the sun, rising at the beginning of the daylight, is adored by certain rather foolish people from more elevated places; which some, even Christians, think they do so religiously that, before they reach the basilica of the blessed Apostle Peter, which is dedicated to the one living and true God, having climbed the steps by which one ascends to the platform of the upper court, they turn their bodies back toward the rising sun and, with bowed necks, bend themselves in honor of the shining orb. That this is done partly through the fault of ignorance...'

'For even if some perhaps venerate the Creator of the beautiful light rather than the light itself, which is a creature, one must nevertheless abstain from this very appearance of such an observance; for when he who has abandoned the worship of the gods finds it among us, will he not retain it with himself as a portion of his old opinion, as though plausible, since he sees it to be common to Christians and to the impious alike?' This truth, which is drawn out from the sermons cited, will shine forth the more if the times of the same Saint Leo are weighed, with respect to the concourse of the people to the Vatican basilica.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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