Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book I: On the Beatitude and Canonization of the Saints
Chapter 11: The Question on the Cult of the Saints, and the Catholic Opinion Explained
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia quae Triumphat in Coelis, the fourth general controversy. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Chapter 11. The Question on the Cult of the Saints Is Put, with the Arguments of the Adversaries
The questions on glory and canonization being settled, there follows in right order the controversy on cult. There was an ancient heresy of Eustathius, in Socrates, book 2 of the History, chapter 33; of Eunomius and Vigilantius, in Jerome; of Claudius of Turin, in Jonas of Orleans; and of Wyclif, in Thomas Waldensis, volume 3 On the Sacramentals, title 13: that the saints are not to be honoured; which has been renewed again by the Calvinists and Lutherans. For the Magdeburgers, Century 1, book 2, chapter 4, column 440, say that all adoration of the saints is idolatry. By like reason Calvin, book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 11, section 11, and chapter 12, sections 1 and 2, does not allow any cult to be shown to the holy angels or to dead men, neither small nor great. And these are his arguments.
First. Honour is twofold: one civil, by which we honour powerful and wise men; the other of religion, which befits God alone. But that civil honour does not befit the angels and holy men, as is well known, since they do not live with us in civil society; and the honour of religion cannot be given them, because religion is the worship of God. And by this distinction of his Calvin evades the arguments of the Catholics when they prove that creatures can be adored by the example of Abraham, who adored the sons of Heth, and of Jacob, who adored his brother Esau, and of the sons of Israel, who adored Joseph; for he will have all these to have been civil.
The second argument. If some cult of religion were owed to the saints, surely of dulia, not of latria, as the Catholics teach. But it is foolish to say that the saints are honoured, and not with latria; for since latria signifies cult, to honour without latria is to honour without cult. Then douleuein is more than latreuein; for douleuein is to serve, latreuein is to honour; and it is less to honour someone than to serve him; for we honour equals, as friends and colleagues, but we do not serve except masters.
This argument can be confirmed from Lorenzo Valla and Theodore Beza, who in the notes on chapter 4 of Matthew teaches that latria and dulia signify the same and are confused both in the Scriptures and in profane authors. For Leviticus 23, “You shall do no servile work,” is always in the Greek ergon latreuton ou poiēsete; and on the contrary Romans 7, “That we should serve in newness of spirit,” is in the Greek hōste douleuein hēmas en kainotēti pneumatos. And so latria is said even of work for the use of man, and dulia of the worship of God. Likewise in Xenophon, book 3 of the Cyropaedia, latreuein is put for the obedience of a handmaid toward her master, and a little after the very same is called douleuein. Wherefore Augustine, question 94 on Exodus, says that both latria and dulia are given to God: latria as to God, dulia as to the Lord.
Calvin's third argument is from the Scriptures. Deuteronomy 6: “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt serve him only”; like which is that of Paul, 1 Timothy 1: “To God alone be honour and glory.” Likewise Matthew 4, when the devil had not mentioned latria, but had asked only proskynēsis, that is, some bowing, the Lord repulsed him, saying: “It is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.” Where he shows that no bowing can be offered to a creature for religion's sake without its belonging to idolatry. Likewise Galatians 4: “You served them who by nature are not gods”; in the Greek it is edouleusate tois physei mē ousi theois; therefore dulia cannot be given except to him who is by nature God.
The fourth argument is from the examples of the Scriptures. For in Esther 13 Mardochai would not bow before Aman; and giving the reason he says: “I feared lest I should transfer the honour of my God to a man, and lest I should adore any one except my God.” Likewise Acts 10, when Cornelius adored Peter, Peter forbade it, saying, “Arise, I myself also am a man.” And yet it is not credible either that Aman wished to be adored as God, or that Cornelius wished to adore Peter as God. Likewise in Acts 14 Paul and Barnabas forbade the Lycaonians to adore them. Lastly the angel, Apocalypse 19, says to John when he adored him: “See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant; adore God.” And yet the angel was not ignorant that not latria but dulia was being shown him by John.
The fifth is from the Fathers. Athanasius, sermon 3 against the Arians, before the middle, teaches that neither angels nor holy men are to be honoured with adoration. Epiphanius, in the heresy of the Collyridians, often repeats that Mary is not to be adored, but God alone. Ambrose, on chapter 1 to the Romans, finds fault with those who adore their fellow servants. Augustine, in the book On True Religion, chapter 55: “Let not the worship of dead men be a religion to us: for if they lived godly lives, they are not so held as to seek such honours, but will have him honoured by us, by whose enlightening they rejoice that we are sharers of their merit.” And below he says the same of the worship of angels. So he.
Chapter 12. The Catholic Opinion Is Explained
Now the opinion of the Catholics is to be explained; of which matter the theologians treat on book 3 of the Sentences, distinction 9. And it is to be observed in the first place that adoration takes in three acts. First, an act of the intellect, by which we grasp the excellence of someone. Second, an act of the will, by which we are inclined inwardly to him, and wish to do something by an inward or outward act, by which we may testify his excellence and our subjection. Third, an outward act, by which we bow the head or bend the knee, or show some other sign of subjection. Of which acts the second is the most proper and essential; for the first act can be without adoration, and the third even with mockery.
Second, it is to be observed that there are as many species of adoration, or cult, as there are species of excellence, as blessed Thomas teaches, part 2 of the second part, question 103, article 3; for honour or cult is owed to a person because of his excellence. But, as regards the present purpose, there are three species of excellence. The first is the divine and infinite excellence, to which answers the first species of cult, which is called latria by the theologians.
The second is human or natural excellence, which is placed in human virtues, dignities, ranks and so on; to which answers the second species of cult, which can be called civil cult and a certain human observance; although this can be divided into many other species, as Aristotle teaches, book 9 of the Ethics, chapter 2; for one honour is owed to a father, another to a prince, another to a teacher, another to a wise or learned man, and so on.
The third is a certain excellence in the middle between the divine and the human, such as is the grace and glory of the saints; for these are supernatural and most excellent gifts; and to this excellence answers the third species of cult, which the theologians call dulia. And because among the holy creatures the humanity of Christ, if it is considered by itself, excels singularly because of its union with the Word, and likewise the Blessed Virgin, as Mother of God, so excels the other saints that she can call our Lord and King her son, which does not fit the other saints except very imperfectly, the theologians therefore divide this third species which they call dulia into dulia properly so called and hyperdulia, giving the former to the other saints and the latter only to the humanity of Christ and to his mother.
Third, it is to be observed that these three species of adoration are not univocal but analogous; for as excellence is not said univocally of the excellence of God and of creatures, so the cult owed because of excellence cannot be said univocally of the cult of God and of creatures.
It is to be noted also that these very species of adoration are best distinguished as regards the inward acts. For the first species, that is, latria, is a certain highest prostration and inclining of the will, with the grasping of God as the first beginning and last end, and so the highest good; which adoration befits God alone.
The second species, that is, civil cult, is a far lesser inclining of the will, with the grasping of a certain human excellence.
The third species is a certain middle inclining of the will, with the grasping of an excellence more than human and less than divine. But as regards the outward acts, it is not easy to distinguish the species of adorations; for almost all outward acts are common to every adoration, except sacrifice and the things which are referred to it, churches, altars and priests. For God willed this cult of sacrifice to be shown to himself alone, as Augustine teaches, book 10 of the City of God, chapter 4, and Theodoret, book 8 to the Greeks, which is on the martyrs; and it is plain from that of Exodus 22: “He that sacrificeth to gods, shall be put to death, save only to the Lord.” From the other outward acts, which are common to the cult of God and the cult of a creature, it cannot be evidently gathered whether someone gives to creatures the cult owed to God or not: for Abraham with the same act of bowing to the earth adored God, Genesis 17, and angels, Genesis 18, and men, Genesis 23.
Fifth, it is to be observed that latria is sometimes taken for the very act by which God is honoured, sometimes for the habit by which a man is made ready to honour God. And that this habit is a certain special and moral virtue blessed Thomas teaches, on book 3 of the Sentences, distinction 9, question 1. Nor does it stand in the way that blessed Augustine, in the Enchiridion, chapter 3, and book 12 On the Trinity, chapter 14, says that the worship of God consists in faith, hope and charity, where he seems to will that latria is a general virtue made up of the three theological ones. For as charity and prudence are special virtues, because they have a special object, and yet at the same time are in some way general, because they direct or order the acts of all the virtues, so latria is a special virtue because of its special object, that is, the divine honour; and yet at the same time it is general, because to honour God it uses the acts of all the virtues, and especially of faith, hope and charity; for the highest honour is paid to God when by faith we testify that he is the first truth, by hope that he is the most powerful, by charity that he is the best. And so, of the acts of those virtues the object is God; but of religion the object is the honour offered. And that is a theological virtue which is concerned with God; religion is not a theological virtue, because it is concerned with something created: for its act is not God, but something created. I say the same of hope and charity: their object is God, but their acts can belong to the object of religion.
Sixth, it is to be observed, as regards the name, that in the Hebrew tongue there is no name by which the worship of God alone is signified, but all are common, and the same name is now given to the cult of creatures, now denied it, according as it is taken in one way or another. For what the Greeks turned in Deuteronomy 6, autō monō latreuseis, him only shalt thou serve, in the Hebrew is ta'avod, which is as common among the Hebrews as “to serve” among the Latins. Likewise Exodus 20, “Thou shalt not adore them,” which the Greeks turned ou proskynēseis, in the Hebrew is tishtachaveh, which is common in all the places cited above, Genesis 17, 18 and 23, and elsewhere, wherever either men, or angels, or God are said to be adored. In the Latin tongue likewise we do not have any word which is said only of the worship of God, as Augustine noted, book 10 of the City of God, chapter 1. And this is why the Fathers now grant, now deny the words adoration and religion to creatures, according as they are taken variously. St. Jerome, in the letter to Riparius against Vigilantius, says that neither the relics of the martyrs, nor angels, nor anything created can be honoured or adored. And yet he himself, in the epitaph of Paula, at the end, says: “Farewell, O Paula, and help by your prayers the old age of your worshipper.” And in book 2 of the Apology against Rufinus he says: “I came to Bethlehem, I adored the crib and the cradle of the Lord.” So too Augustine, in the book On True Religion, chapter 55, says that the cult of religion is owed neither to angels nor to holy men already dead, but to God alone; and yet in book 20 against Faustus, chapter 21, he says: “The Christian people celebrates the memories of the martyrs with religious solemnity.”
And so sometimes they took the name of religion and adoration as it fits the principal analogate, that is, for that special virtue which has for its object the worship of God, and which is distinguished in species from that virtue by which we honour the saints; but sometimes they took it more broadly, for all that virtue by which we honour either God or the friends of God and other sacred things, and which is distinguished from political cult and human custom. In the Greek tongue one word is proper to the worship of God, namely theosebeia, which is not much in use. Besides this word there are four others: eusebeia, piety; thrēskeia, religion; and latreia and douleia, service; but there is none of these which is not sometimes given to creatures too.
But although these words are not proper to the divine worship according to the first institution of the words, yet the school of the theologians not without cause devised that distinction of latria and dulia. For since there is found in the thing a manifest distinction between the worship of God and of the saints, it was necessary, to avoid equivocation, to find distinct words too; and these two were excellent. First, because the sacred writers never use the word latreia except for the worship of God alone, as is plain from the whole New Testament; while they use the word douleia for every service, both of God and of men. Nor does it stand in the way that in the Greek version of Leviticus the name of latria is once had for human service: for the Hebrew text and the Latin of the Vulgate edition have a most common word, which is fitted to every service. Then, the ancient Fathers never give the name of latria except to God, though they say that the saints too are honoured, as is plain from Augustine, book 10 of the City of God, chapter 1, and book 20 against Faustus, chapter 21, and from all the Fathers of the Second Council of Nicaea, as can be seen in acts 3, 4, 6 and 7; and also from Damascene, orations 1 and 3 on images; and Jonas of Orleans, book 1 on the worship of images; and Bede on chapter 4 of Luke. Nay, all the ancients called the worship of false gods idolatry, not idoloduly, because they saw that the worship proper to God was called latria, not dulia, according to the Church's manner of speaking, as Augustine noted, question 61 on Genesis.
Nor does it stand in the way that these Fathers rarely mention dulia by name: for when they say that the saints and images ought to be honoured, and not with latria, they show enough that they ought to be honoured with another species of cult. This we call dulia, as Bede calls it on chapter 4 of Luke, and the Master with the whole School, book 3 of the Sentences, distinction 9; and Augustine hints the same, book 10 of the City of God, chapter 1, where he says that the cult owed to a creature is not called latria by the Apostle, Ephesians 6, but by another name; and the Apostle there calls it dulia. And so there was no need for Martin Perez, in his work on traditions, part 3, consideration 7, to say that the name of dulia taken for the cult of the saints did not much please him, since dulia properly signifies slavery, and we are not the slaves of the saints but their fellow servants. For in the Scriptures dulia is taken not only for the slavery of bondsmen, but also for honourable subjection, as Galatians 5: dia tēs agapēs douleuete allēlois, “By charity serve one another.” In this way, then, the theologians could call the cult of the saints dulia.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI.
Proponitur quaestio decuUu sanctoruni cuni
argumentis adversariorum.
Kxpedilis quacstionibus de gloria ct canoniza-
lioiie, sequilur recto ordine controversia de cullu.
Fuilanliiiua baeresis Kuslachii apud Sooratom lib.
2. histor. oap. 33. Eunomii et Vigiliintii apud Ilic-
ronymum. Ciaudii T;iurincnsis apud Jori:im Aure-
lianensem, el Wiclofi apud Thomain Waldensem,
lom. 3. de SacramcnUilibus. til. 13. Sanclos noii
essc colendos: quae rursum pcr Calviui?!as el Lu-
thcranos renovala csl; nauiMadgdeburgCQses Cen-
440
DE SA.NCTOHUM r>EATlTL'bl?<li
tur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 'MO. dicunl onincm san-
ctoruin adoiMtionem essc idololiilrinni, 1'uri ratione
Ccilvinus lil). 1. Inslilul. ciip. 11. § 11. el oap. 12.
§ 1. et 2.non palilur nlluni cullum exliibori sanclis
imgelis, vei liuniiiiibus dcfunclis , nequc parvum ,
neque magnum. Argumenta vero ejus haec sunt.
PrinuiMi. duplox esl bonor:Unus civilis, quo ho-
noranms pol(Miles el sapien!(!s liomiucs: alter reli-
gionis, qiii Deo soli convenit: sed angeiis et san-
ctis luuuiuibus non convenit honor ille civilis, ut
noium esl, cuni non versenlur nobisrum civiliter :
Iionor anlem reiigionis non polest eis tribui , quia
religio esl cultus Dei. Atque itac sua dislinclione
•■ludil Calviiius argumcnta calholicoruin. cum pro-
bant posse crealuras adorari cxcmplo Abraliae.qui
sidoravit filios Ilrili: et Jacobi, qui aduravit fralrem
suum Esau: ct liliorum Israel, (pii adoraverunl Jo-
sepb; vult eniin islos oniues fuisse civiles.
Secuuiium argumenluur. Si sanctis deberetur
cultus aliquis religionis; cerle duiiae. non iatriae,
ut calliolici docenl: al ineptuin esl dicere, sanctos
coli,el uon lalria; nnm cum iatria significel cultiim
coiere sinc lalria. esl colcre sine cuilu. Deinde
pius est 5ouA3'Jc'.v quam Aa-cf-rjs-.v ; nam SouXrJciv
esl servire, 'ko.-^A-jVM est colere , mirius autem est
coiere aliquem, quam ei scrvirc, colimus enim pa-
res. ul amicos et coiiegas, non autem serviraus ,
nisi dominis.
Conlirmari polest hoc argumenlum ex Laurenlio
Valla el Theodoro Beza, qui in annotationibus nd
cap. 4. Mallh. docel, lalriam clduliam idein signi-
licare et confundi lam in Scripluris , qinim apud
prof.inos auclores; narn Levit.23.0pMS servile non
facielis, semper est in graeco Epyov XaTpsuxov ou
T.oiriGixz, el contra Hom. 7. Ul serviamus in novi-
iate spirilus, esl in graeco lics SsuXsuew -rniac, sv
xaivor/i-'. -vrjy.a-o;. Itaque dicitur iatria de opere
etiam in usum hominis. et dulia de cultuDci. Ilem
apud Xenophonlem lib. 3. Cyropediae ponilur
Xa-prjctv pro obsequio ancillae erga dominum , et
paulo posl idipsum dicitiir oouXsuciv: (piare Augu-
slinus quaesl. 1)4. in Exodum dicit. lain latriam ,
quam duliam Deo tribui, lalriam ut Deo, duiiam ut
domino.
Terlium argumcnlnm Caivini ex Scripturis.Deu-
ier. G.DomimimDeumtuuintimebis, ct ilU soli
servies; cui simile esl illud Pauli , 1. Tim. 1. Soti
Deo lionoret gloria. Ilem Mallh. 4. cum di;ibolus
uon meminissct lalriae , sed solum poslulasset
iz^JSG/CUv/iO-iv, idesl, inclinalioncm ali(|uani,Doininus
eum repulil dicens: Seriplum eM,Dominum Deum
tuum adoraljLS, et iUisoU servies. Ubi osieiidit ,
non posse crealurac inciinalioncm uilam reiigionis
caussa deferri, quin iila ad idololatriam perlineat.
Item Gal. 4. Hs qui nalura non sunt Dli. servie-
batis,m graeco est, E'5ouX£uca-c xoic, ;x7] (puc;£c oZa'.
Oco:?; ergo dulia non polest tribui.nisi ilii qui na-
tura l)eus est.
Quartum argumenlum ab o.vemplis Scripiura-
rum: nam nostlier 13. ^lardocbaeus poiuit se in-
clinare coram Aman: et ralioncm reddcns, ait: Ti-
7nui ne honorem Dei mei Iransferrem ad homi-
nem, et ne quemquam adorarem , excepto Deo
ineo. Itom .\cl. 10. cuin Cornciius adorarel Pe-
truin, prohibuil Pelrus, dicons, Surge, elegoipsa
homo sum. Kec lamen credibile est, aut Aman vo-
luisse adorari ul Dcum.aut Cornelium voluissc Pe-
truin adorare ul Doum. Itcm .\ct. 14.Paulus et Bar-
nabas protiibuorunl Licaonibus, ne se adorarent.
Deniquc angeiiis Apocai. 19. Joanni adoranli se ,
aii: \ide ne feceris . conservus luus suvi, Deum
adora.FA tanicn nou ignorabal angelus sibi a Joan-
ue non ialriam, sed duiiam exhiberi.
Quintnin ox Patribus Aliiaiiasius serm. 3. conlra
Arianos aule mediuin, docet,neque angelos.noque
bomincs sanctos adoratione colendos esse.Epiplia-
nius in haeresi Collyridianorum saepius ropetit ,
Mariam non esse adorandam,sed solum Doam.Am-
brosius iu cap. 1. ad Rom, reprehendit eos, qui a-
dorant conservos. Augustinus iib. de vera religio-
ne, cap. .'JS. l\onsitnobis religio cultus hominum
mortVMrum: quiasi pie vixerunt.non sic haben-
tur, ul lales quaerant honores. sedillum anobis
coUvolunt. quo illuminante Ut.etantur meriUsui
nonesse consorles. E[ infra idem dicil de cultu
augeioi'um. Ilaec ille.
CAPUT XII.
ExpUcaiur sentcnUa cathoUca.
iVunc explicanda est senlentia catholicorum^ d(!
qua re theologi tractant in 3. sent. dist. 9. Est au-
tom primo loco ol)Scrvandum , adorationes tres a-
ctus corapiecti. Primo, actum inteileclus, quo ap-
prehendimus excellentiam aiicujus. Secundo,a-
clum voluntatis, quo nos iili interius inclinamur,
el aliquid volumus facere actu interiore, vel exte-
riore, quo protestemur ejus excellentiam , el no-
slram subjcctionem. Tertio.actum exleriorem.quo
caput inclinamiis vel genufleclimus, vel aliquod
aliud signum subjectionis ostendimus. Ex quibus
actibus secundus esl maxime proprius et essen-
tialis; nam priinus actus potestesse sine adoratio-
ne; tertius etiam cum irrisione.
Sccundo observandum esl, tot esse species ado-
ralionis, sive cuitus, quot siint species exceiien-
tiae, ut b. Tbomas docet, 2. 2. quaest. 103. art. 3,
honor enira, sive cultus debetur personae propter
exceiieniiam ejus. Sed, quod ad praesens institu-
tiim porlincl, tres sunt species excellentiae. Prima
esl excellenlia divina et infinita , cui respondet
prima species cullus, qui a theologis dicitur ia-
Iria.
Secunda cst excellentia bumana. seu naturalis ,
quaeposila esl in humanis virlulibus,dignitatibus,
gradibus etc.Cui respondet seounda specios cuitus
quae dici polesl cultus civiiis, et observantia qnae-
dam humana, quamquam iiaec in aiias mullas spe-
cies dividi potest, ut Aristot. docet, iib. 9. eliiic.
cap. 2. nam alius lionor debetur patri, alius prin-
cipi, alius praeceptori , alius sapienli vcl erudi-
to etc. .
Tertia esl excellentia quaedam media inter divi-
nam ct bumanam, qualis esl gralia et gioria san-
clorum; ista enim suntdona supernaturalia et.ex-
oelientissima, ct huic exceiicnline rcspondel ler-
lia species cultus, quam thcologi vocant duliain,El
lllilH IMtnit S H1
(|tiiii iiiliM' sniiclns ciciiliiriis iMiiiiniiil.is C.lirisli, s| siiiiiiiir riiiii cssc |iriiii:iiii vcriliilcm; pcr hpcfii »•«•
scorsiiii coiisidcrcliir, siii«,'iiliirilcr c\cf||il |irn|iit<r vc |MilcMiissjmiiiii; |fr rlmriliilcm chhh (i|ilimiiiii.
iiiiiniicm 11(1 vcrlniiii : ci simililcr Ii.Viikh. iil m.ilcp !i,ii|iii4 i|i<(iiiH iicIiin llikl olijcdiim.cHl hcii»»; ttrliu
lilii Pci ilii jiriicslal iiliis siiiiclis, iii (li.i |Hissil ilii- milcin ||im' (lilrl csi (ilijccliim ri'lii/i<mis: cl tdiMi
iiiiiiii cl rc^,'!!!!! iin^lrii, (|iini| iiliis siiiM lis iKtii cdii- liilcs rs[ virltis l|icii|n^'ic.i. (|tii.i circii hciim YCfHn-
vmiil.nisl ndimiiliiiii iiii|)(Mr(iclc;i(|('t» Hicold^l luiiic Itir. Uclij»io iioii rHl vlrliis llicoloifutii.qiini v«T»iiliir
Idrliiiiu s|tcci(Mii. (Hiiim vdcittil (Itiliaiii. ilividiiiil iti circa (Tciiliir.im; iicliis ('iiiin lid^M iioii csl llciiH.M-d
diiiiitm |ir(i|irii> dii liiiii, cl liy|i(M'(ltili'<iii. lriliti(Miics (|iiid crciiltim. ld(Mii (IKM d)^ s|ic ct (■liiinlalt! po-
illiiiii s.iiiiMis cii(>lcris, isliim soli liiiminiilali (lliri' lcsi; (dijccttim cnim curiim csi IIimih . tirliiM vrro
sti ct iiiiilri cjtis. ips iriim iid oltjccliim rcli^fioiilH piTtiiicrc |»ossiinl.
TtMlio ohstM vaiidiim cst.liiis Ircs iidoriilioiiis spc- Scxlo (dc^iMviiiidiini . (piiiiiliim ii<l iiomimi . iii
cics II 011 css«' niiivociis. scd iiiialoijas, nl imiiiii c\- liir^iia li(dir.ic.i iitilliim cssc ikmiiimi (pto jiroprur di;-
cnllcnliii iKui iii( iltir iihummm' {\i' c\(M'lltMilia I>ci si^;iicliir (miIIhs sidnis lici.sfid omniii «sKncommii-
ct cicaliir.initn, ila ciillns didiiliis (di c\r( lliMiliiKit. niii, cl idcm iionicii iiiiik' Irilini ciillni crcnltiriiu ,
iion pnlc.^t (li(M nnivdcc ilc (111111 Dci cl crc.ihir.i- imnc iic;;ari, proiit iiMiiinim itlilcr itl(|iic iiltlcr iic-
iiiin. ci|ii|nr. iNaiii (|tio<l (Iriicci \(^rlcriiiil l)ciit«Toii. 0.
.Noliiiidiim (pidipic csl (pinld lias ipsis spccics A'*j"(~» m. '."/(•) "/.aTofjT:'.;. illi solisrrvifs. iii licliriKr^)
iidoriitidMis, (pianlnni itd ikMiis inlcriorcs . opliiiic, cst "^l^Vn in"^X iimI»iiiii anl( iii liiy lam csl (M>m-
(listiii;;iii. Nani priiiiii spccics , idcst , lalrin . cst Miiinc ||cl»riicis . (piimi I.aliiiis, st rvirc. Siiiiililcr
(piiitMliiin sMiiimn voliinlalis prostrnlio ct mcliiialio Kxod. 20. A'on (/(/or(j/»/s pa. (piod (Iracci vcrluril
<iim apprclicnsionc I>('i. nl priiiti primipii cl iilti- <>j r.yj^^y.-riY^^^i'.;. iii licloiico csl rT^HP^sl^T "I P"iii-
mi linis, ;ii(|nc iidco siiinnii lioiii , (pi.ilis iidoratio inr 111 oiiiiiiIims loci^ snpra citalis , <ii'iii:s. 17. IS.
soli l)(M» oonvcnil. rl 2.'<. ct nlihi iihiciiimpic di(MiMliir vd liomiii«?s ,
Scciind.i spccics. idcsl. cnlln> civiii-; . (»-;l Ioit^'c vcl aiiu'''li. vcl Ilciis addr.iri. Iii liii'^'n;i liilina simi-
minor iiuMinalio vohmliilis.iMini a|)prcli(Mision(;i;cr- liicr iion liiihciiiiis iiliiini vocahiilum . ipiod soliiiii
ta linm;iMiic, cxrcllcMliiic. diciilnr dc ciillii l)(»i, iit Aii^;iislimis iioliivil . lih.
• Tcrliii spcrics. csl mcdia nnatMlain incliiialio vn- |(). di; Civil.DiM. ra|».l.cl liinr. cst ([uod Piitnrs vo-
InMliilisrnm npprclicnsionc('\ccllciiliac plns (piiim rahnlii iidoralionis cl rcli;»ionis niiiic, concc(|iiMl
ruiinaniic, cl minns, (piain diviiiiNV At (]iiinilnin iid cMcaliiris. niiMC, ni^^.int. pront varic accipinnlnr.
actus cixicriorcs , MOM cil riuMJc, spccics iidoriiiio- M. Ilicronynuis in cpisi. ikI iliparinm coiiirii Vi-
Miim (lisliniZiKTc; nam oiniics forc iiclns cxlcriorcs ;rilanlinni dicil. iicc inarlYrnin rcliqnins. n(;c.'iii-
romiiiMNcs siint 001111 iid(>rati()iii,e.\rcplo sarriricio, j,'clos. ncc idupiid rrcalnm coli possc v(d iidoriiri.
el qiiai; ad ilUul rcfornnlur, tcmplis , allnribMS. ol Ki i.micii ipso in (^pilaphio Pauliin in lino dicil :
saccrdotihns. Vohiil cniin Pciis luinc (Miliiim siuMi- V<//c,o Pdiila.rl culldrrm lun}ii ordlioiiilins jnvd.
lirii silii solicxhihcri.nl Aii^nslinus doccl.iih.lO.di! Ki lih. 2. Aitolofjiiic ronlra Unlliiuim dicit : Veni
Civilaic Dci. rap. 4. cl Thoodorclus lih.S.ad (iriio- /{rlhlrhom. prricscpr? Domini. ol inninuhula ndo-
ros. rpii osl do marlvrihus, ol palet e.v illo. Exod. ruvi. Sic etiam Aitgii«Jiinns lib. dc vora rclij;. cap.
22. Qui sucri[\('ul Diis.orudicabiturprndcrquam ;;.'>. dicit.rclijiioiiis ciillnm ncc anpolis.ncc sanciis
Domino fioli. Kn aliis artihns oxtorioribus.^ini soiit iidmmihns jam dcfunctis dchori , scd soli Dco: cl
coiHiMunos rullni Doi el cullui crcalurao.non ])o|osl lamon lih. 20. roiilra FaMStnm . cap. 21. dicil :
ovidonlor (M)lli^i, an alitpiis rnlliini Deo dohilnm Mrmorius morhinimpopulus chrislianmreli(jio-
trihuat rrcaluris, nec nc: nom Ahraham eodem ic sa solcmnilalc vuncclehrul.
clu incnrvalioMis usquo ad lcrr.im ad(»riivil Doum , llaquo aliquaiuio acripichaMl nomon rclijjionis
Gencs. 11. el nngclos, Gcnes. 18, el homines, Ge- ol luloralionis, ul convonit prinripali analo<:alo,id-
nes. 2:^ osLvirlnli illi spociali. qnao hahcl pro ohjeclo ciil-
Quinio observandum.Inlrinm inlerdum sumi pro inin Dci, cl (piao distinijuilur specie ab en virtule,
ipso actu, quo colilur nons: inlerdum pro hahitu , qua colimus sanctos: aliquando vero accii^iebani
quo hoino reddilnr promplus ad rolondum Doum. lariiins pro omni illa virlulo qiia colimus vel Deuin
llnnc aulem hahilum essc virlulom quaiidam spo- vel Dci amicos, nliasipic ros sacras. el dislinjjui-
cialem ol moralem, b. Thomiis docel . in lib. .*?. lur a cnllu polilico, ot more hmnano. In linwua
sonloMt. disl.-9. (luaesl. 1. ncqno obslal qnod h. rrracra una vox osl propria cultni Dei : nempc Oso-
Augustinus in onchirid. 3. rnp. el 12. Trinil. rap. c-3'^3'.a. (inai; non multum osl in usu. Praetor istam
H.dirat, Dei rullum ronsislcre in fidc , spe el vocem suiit alia qualuor ij^Tc^i^-.a pietas. O^^^.rrxcia
charilalc: uhi vidclur volle . lalriam esse irenera- roligio. el XaTScia. el oouXsia servilus: sed nullum
lem virUilom constalam c\ irihns lhcoIop:is..^am si- horum ost, quod non inlerdum allribualur etiam
ciit cliiirilas el prudenlia snnt virlulos speciales . crealnris.
quia Iiabentspecialoobjectum,et tnmen simul sunt Sed quamvis isla vocabnla non sint propria di-
aliquo modo goMcralos, quia dirii;nnl.aul ordinant vino culUii, socundum primnm ipsorum vocabulo-
arlus omninm virlulnm ; ila latria viilus esl spe- rnm insliiulionem . Inmon schola iheologorum
cialis propter spcciale ohjectum suum. idcsl. bo- non sine caussa oxcogilavit illam dislinctionem (](\
norein divinnm: el tnmon simnl ost generalis.qnia Inlria et dulia. Nam cum in re invenintur manifesla
utitnr ad honoriindum Deum nclibus omnium \ir- dislinclio. inter cultuin Dei et snnctoruin: oporle-
tnlnm. ct iiraecipne fidoi, spei el rluirilalis; nam bat oliam ad vitnndam aequivocationem invenire
fummus honor Deo cleforlur. cum pcrfidem prote- dislinda vocabnla: opliraa aulem crant ista dun.
U2
Di: SAxNCTOKUM KLMITUDI^E
Piiiuo, qiiiii scriplores sacri vocein Xaxpsia ntim-
(]iiiiin usurpanl, iiisi pro ciillii soliiis J)ei. ut palet
o\ lolo novo Teslanioiilo: voccm aulem oo"jXc(a u-
sorpanl pro oinni serviliilc, lain Dei, ((uain liomi-
luim. Neque obslal.ciuoii iii versione i|;raec<i Levi-
lici iiahetur senii!l iionuMi lalriae, pro servilio liu-
inaiio: nam lexlus iieliracus et latinus vulgalae
eiliiionis habeiil vocem communissimam, ([uae ad
(nnne servilium accommodalur. Dcinde, anliqui
1'alres numquam nomim lalriae tribuunl,nisi Dco,
cum tamen etiam sanclos coli dicanl, ul palet ex
Auguslino, iib.lO. de Civit. Dei, cap. 1. et lib. 20.
conlra Fauslum, c. 21. el ex omnibus Palribus iii-
caeni concilii II. ul vidcrc est. act. 3. i. 6. el 7.
necnon ex Damasc. orat. I. et 3. de iinaginibus;
i'l Jona Aurciiancns. lib. 1. de cullu iniagin. et
Ueda in cap. 4. Liic. Immo omiics veleres cullum
falsoruin Deorum ideo V()caveruiitidololatria[n,iion
idolodiiliam, quia videbant culluin Deo proprium,
secundum Ecclesiaslicum loqucndi modom. voca-
ri latriam , non duliam , ut Augustinus nolavit,
quaest. (il. in Genes.
A'cque obslat, quod isti Palrcs raro meminerint
nominatim duliac: nani cum dicunl, sanclos et
imagines coli dcbere, et noii latria.salis indicant,
debere coli alia specie cullus. Eani nos vocaiiius
diilinm, ut eam vocat Bcda in cap. 4. Lucae, et
3Iagisler cuin omni Scliola lib. .3. scnlent. disl. 0.
et idem insinuat Auguslinus. lib, 10. de Civil. Dci,
cap. 1. ubi dicit, cultiim dcbilum crcalurae non
vocari Epbes. (>. ab aposlido lalriam, scd alio no-
mine. Apostolus aulem ibi vocat duliam. Ilaquo
non eral opus, ut Marlinus Peresins in suo opere
de traditionibus,parl. .3. consideratioue 7. dii-eret
non sibi multum probari noinen duliae sumpltim
pro cultu sanctorum, cum dulia proprie significet
servilutem, et nos non simus scrvi sanclorum.scd
conservi. i\am in Scripturis duliii non solinu acci-
pilur pro servitute mancipiorum, scq etiain pro
lionoriiria subjectione. ut Gabit. .'>. Ita tv^? dYa-yj^
oouXsusTi dXkr^Xoi^ ; Per charUaleni scrvile in-
vicem. Hoc ergo niodo potuerunl tbeologi cuilum
sjinclorum vocare duliam.