Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book I: On the Beatitude and Canonization of the Saints
Chapter 14: The Arguments Set Out at the Beginning Are Answered
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).
Now let us briefly undo the arguments of the adversaries. To the first. If Calvin by the cult of religion understands the cult of latria, we grant that the saints ought not to be honoured with the cult of religion. But we deny that besides the cult of latria there is no other cult except the civil; for we have now shown a certain third cult, which is also called a cult of religion, though secondarily.
To the second, I admit that the cult of dulia is owed to the saints, and I deny that this is absurd. To the first proof I answer: to honour without latria is not to honour without cult, but to honour without such a cult. For even blessed Augustine, who yet was not [foolish; the line is damaged in the scan], book 20 against Faustus, chapter 21, says that [the saints] are honoured, and not with latria.
To the [second] proof I say that dulia is not more than latria. [This paragraph is badly damaged in the scan; what can be read runs:] for according to the profane authors [the two words] signify the same; according to the use of Scripture and of the Church latria is far greater than dulia; for latria is not any cult whatever, but the cult of the highest servitude; dulia is the cult of any servitude whatever.
You will say: But we are not the servants of the saints, but their fellow servants; therefore dulia does not befit the saints. Some answer that the cult of the saints is not called dulia, that is, servitude, because it is shown them by servants, but because it is shown to those who are the servants of God. But these feared where there was no fear.
It must be said, then, that dulia signifies any servitude, as well perfect as imperfect. Now perfect servitude is that of those who, what they are, are another's; and who work moved by another both efficiently and finally, that is, they work for their master's sake, and are moved by the master himself as instruments for working, as Aristotle teaches, book 1 of the Politics, chapter 3. Imperfect servitude is that of those who have some of these things, but not all; that is, who are moved by another in some way. Hence the child is said to differ nothing from a servant, though he be lord, Galatians 4, because he is moved by another effectively; and on the contrary, he who rules is called the servant of those whom he rules, 2 Corinthians 4, “And ourselves your servants through Jesus,” because he is moved by another finally. We therefore, even if we are not the servants of the saints perfectly, are so imperfectly, inasmuch as they move and help us to do well by their example and by their intercession with God. Hence blessed Paulinus, in the first, second and third birthday poems of St. Felix, again and again calls himself the household servant and the slave of St. Felix; and blessed Gregory, book 3 of the Dialogues, chapter 24, did not fear to say that the services of those who serve him were pleasing to blessed Peter.
To the confirmation from Valla and Beza, I grant that according to the use of the profane writers dulia and latria are the same; but according to the use of Scripture latria is almost never taken for the cult shown to a creature; and according to the use of the Church, never at all. And as it was lawful for the ancient Church to find new words against the old heretics, such as homoousios and so on, why was it not lawful for the later Church too to find some new words against the later heretics, or at least to use the same words in another meaning?
To that of Augustine on dulia and latria with respect to God, I answer that the place is for us. For from this, that Augustine says that latria is given to God as he is God, and dulia to the same as he is Lord, it is gathered that latria cannot be communicated to a creature, because there is only one God; but that dulia can be communicated, because there are many who are truly and properly lords. Though meanwhile we grant that the dulia with which God is honoured is dulia by excellence, and is distinguished in species from that with which the saints are honoured.
To the third argument. To the first place, Deuteronomy 6, I say that the place ought to be understood thus: “The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him only shalt thou serve,” with that servitude which befits God alone. For in the Greek it is latreuseis. Hence Augustine, question 61 on Genesis, noted that it was therefore not said, “God alone shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve,” but, “God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve”; because adoration befits creatures too, but not the servitude of latria, which is named here. But besides, even if it were written, “him only shalt thou serve” with douleuseis, it would have to be expounded in the same way: namely, him only shalt thou serve with a certain kind of servitude, but not, him only shalt thou serve absolutely. Since in the Hebrew text it is ta'avod; and yet we find, notwithstanding this precept, that it was said to Jacob by Isaac, Genesis 27: “Let peoples serve thee, and let thy mother's children bow down before thee”; where those words are ya'avdukha and yishtachavu. Further, as we read here, “him only shalt thou serve,” so we read in 1 Timothy 6, “Who only hath immortality”; and yet we know that angels and souls also are immortal in their own way.
To that of 1 Timothy 1, “To God alone be honour and glory,” I answer that it is likewise to be understood of a certain honour and glory; for in Romans 2 I read, “Glory and honour to every one that worketh good.” Lastly it was said more strictly, Isaias 44: “I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God”; and yet we read in Psalm 81, “I have said: You are gods”; and yet that first is not false, but is to be understood in a sound way.
To that of Matthew 4 I say that the devil asked of Christ proskynēsis as a sign of latria, and therefore asked latria; and for that reason the Lord answered him: “The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.”
To that of Galatians 4, “You served them, who by nature are not gods,” edouleusate, I answer that the word douleuein is common to the servitude of God and of creatures, and therefore must be expounded as the place requires. But here it is taken for the cult of God alone; for the circumstances of the place require this of necessity.
To the fourth argument. To the first example I say that Aman wished to be adored as God; for this is gathered from the words of Mardochai.
To the second, of Cornelius, I say with St. Jerome in the book against Vigilantius that Cornelius thought there was something divine in Peter, and so was rightly corrected; or with Chrysostom on this place of the Acts, that Cornelius venerated Peter devoutly, but that Peter out of modesty refused the honour which was otherwise owed him.
To the third: what wonder if Paul would not have sacrifice made to him? For we said above that this is an outward act owed to God alone.
To the fourth I say that it is for us. For either John thought that he who had appeared to him was God, or an angel. If God, he was rightly rebuked; if an angel, and yet he adored him, why are we rebuked, who do what John did? Do the Calvinists know better than John whether angels are to be adored?
But why, they say, was he rebuked? First, because perhaps the angel so appeared that he could be thought to be Christ. For he had said in chapter 1: “I am the first and the last, and was dead, and behold I am living,” and so on. So he could be thought to be Christ, whose person he bore, unless he had himself explained that he was not Christ; and so the adorer had to be corrected, not for an error of adoration, but for an error of person. So Augustine answers, question 61 on Genesis.
Second, I say that John rightly wished to show the angel the cult owed him, as he remembered Abraham and Lot and others of his forefathers had done; but that the angel forbade it out of reverence for the humanity of Christ. For before the coming of Christ the angels allowed themselves to be adored by men; but after God was made man, and all the angels began to adore man in Christ, they would not themselves be adored by men, and especially by the apostles and other very great men. So Bede, Anselm, Richard and Rupert on chapter 19 of the Apocalypse, and the Greek scholia on chapter 22, and before these authors St. Gregory, book 27 of the Morals, chapter 11, and homily 8 on the Gospels. Nor yet does it follow that we do ill if we adore the angels; for we rightly adore them, and they rightly refuse to be adored. So John himself, though in chapter 19 he had once heard, “See thou do it not,” and so on, yet in chapter 22 wished again to adore the same angel; for he understood both that he did rightly in adoring and that the angel did rightly in refusing. Nor may we suspect that John was either forgetful or unlearned.
To the last, from the Fathers, I say that they speak against the errors of the heathens, who made true gods out of wicked men and offered them sacrifices. For that otherwise the holy angels and men are to be followed with due cult the same Fathers affirm in countless places, some of which we have already reported above.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
GAPUT XIY.
Solvunlur argumcnta inilio proposila.
Nunc adversariorum argmienla brcviler dissol-
vanuis. Ad priinuiii. Si Oalvinus per cuUum r(di-
gionis iulelligil culliim lalriac , falemur sanclos
iion debere coli cuitu rcligionis. Sed negamus,
praeler cullum liUriai^ niillum csse alium cuilum .
nisi civilem, jam enim oslendimns quendam ler-
lium cullum, qui eliain diciUir rehgionis. liccl se-
cundario.
Ad seeundum,admiUo dtiliae cullnm deberi san-
clis, cl nego id cssc absurdum. Ad primam pro-
l);Uionem respondco. colcro sinc Intria iion esse
colere sine ciUlu, scd coloro sine lali (!ullu. Naui
Bniii.wiM. Vyl II.
44'
('liiiiii l>. Aii^iihiiiiiH, (|Ui hiuicii inMi iTiil iiirpiiii,
lih. 20. ruiiini KaiiHluiii . cap. 21. dicil: Honc(o«
c(di, ot iioii liUrl.i.
Ad M I iiiid.iiii priibiilioiinrn diro, iliiijnrii nnn(*<i'
Hl< plllM (piillll llllllllin, iNlllll KCCIIIIiilllll prorMiMiH MU«
clurcs iijcm Hi^.'iiilic(iiU'. si-ciiiiihiiii i.uUmii NcrlplU'
i.ic cl Kcitlc.M.ii: iiMiiii li)ii^'i< iiiajiir (■•il lairi.i, ipiaiir
iliillii: hUriit nniiii iiuii esl ipiilihct nillin, ki- I rul-
tits Mim iiiK! xorviliilih: (IuIm c&t lullun ciijinlibRf
scrviliUis,
Dicos: Al nnn tniiniiH Horvi siinctoriiin, sr^d con*
servl. or^i) iliihii sniMiin noii cuiivenit. Ali(pii rn-
vpoiidcnl. i-nltiiin siiiMloniiii iiou vociiri duliinn ,
i lcsi, .M'i vUiiiciii, «piiii cxliihiiur ei.s a «crviH; .sed
(piiii o.xliihctiir ipsis . ipii Horvi Dei siinl. Scd isli
tiiiiiicrniil. iihi noii cral timor.
|li( ('iidum i^Mtiir , duhiiui si^tniiicare ipiamlihct
scrvilulcm. I.iin pcrroiiiim, (|u:iiii iiii|)crlcctiiiii.
Ksl aiitoiii perfecla servilus ooriini, qnid id, quod
siiiU. idlcniis siiiit : cl opcrnntur moti ah aliu, liirn
clliciciitcr, (piiiin liualilcr. idcsl, opcraiitiirproptcr
liominiim , ol ah ipso DonUno inoli laiiKpiam in-
slrumciilii iid opcraiidmn. iil Aristol. (loccl, lih. I.
Pidil. ciip. '.\. Impcrf(!(i!i scrviliis osl eoriim. (pii
aliipiid lioriim liahent. non liiincn umnia . idest,
(pii utovciUur ah alio aliipio modo. rndc iufiiiis di-
(■iliir niliil dilTcrro a siirvo. liccl sit dumiiitis. (la-
lal. i. qiiia muvolur abaliu clTectivc: ct cuiUrii. is
(jui rogil. dicitnr scrvus eornm quos regit. 2. Cor.
V. A'os anli'in scrvos vcslros pcr Jcsnni : quia nio-
vctur al) alio liualilor. .\os orgo etiiimsi iiuii miiiius
scrvi sanctorum perfecle, suinns lamen impcrfe-
cle. (pialcmis illi nus moveiil ot jiiviml ad bcne o-
pcrandum ovcmplo suo, ct iutorcessiune apnd
liouin. Ilinc b. Piiuliuus nnlal. 1. 2. el ^. s. K(!li-
cis, juissim vocal sc famtikmi cl serviini s. Feli-
cis : (i b. (ircgoritis lib. 2. dinlog. c. 24. non ti-
mtiil diccre b. IViro, grala esse servieiitium sibi
obscqnia.
Ad ronfirmalionem cx Yall;i et Bey.a , fateor se-
cundum usum prufanorum scriptortim idem essp
dnliam ct latriam. Iiimen sccundum nsum Scriplu
rac. latria ferc nnmqnam accipitur pro rnltu. cpii
exhibctur crcalurac: secundum usum aulem Kc-
clesine, nunuiuam omnino. Elsicul licuil antiquac
Ecclesiae conlra vcteres liaerclicos nova vocabnla
invcniro, ul 6|ulC'j7'.5; clc. cur non liciiit ctiam E(!-
clesiae posleriori conlra liaerelicos postcriores iio-
va aliqua vocabuhi invcnire, anl cerlc iisdcm in a-
lia pignificiiliune lUi?
Ad illud Auguslini de dulia cl latria rcspeclii
Dei. respondeo: Kmn locum essc pro nobis; nam
ex 00. quod Auguslinus ait. lalriam dari Deo, ut
Deus est. duliam cidem. ul Dominus est : colli*i-
tur hUriam nou posse commnniciiri creatu;ae. quia
nnus tanlum est Deus: al duliam posse commu-
nicari . quia mulli sunl vere el propric Domini.
Qnamqnam inlerim falcmur. dnliara. qua colilur
Deus. esse duliam per excellcntiam. et specic di-
slingui anea, qua colunlur sancli.
A(l terliu;Ti argiiinenlum : ad primum locum ,
Deulcron. (>. ii\ro, eufn locnra deberc sic intelligi;
Doininum Denm tuum adorabis. el iili soli scr-^
vies : ea servilule, quae Deo soli convenil. .Nam io
37
446
bK S/liNcTuKUll BEATlTLblMi
graeco est XaxjiEUTS'.?. Uiide Aiigiislii». quaest. GI.
111 riciics. nniiuiavil; idoo iion csse (licliim, soliim
Dtniin adonibis. ol illi soli seivies; sed : Dcuiii a-
dorabis, et iiU soli servics, quia adoralio conve-
mleliaiii crealuris, nou aulem servilus lalriac,
quae hic nominaliir. St^d praelerea quamvis esset
scriplum, illi soli oouAEUjit; , eodeui modo exponi
(ieberel: nimirum. illi soli servics cerlo quodam
irenere servilulis, non aulem absolulc illisoli ser-
vies.Siquidem in levtu hebr;uco est "Tl^yn; et la-
nien invenimus, non obslantc lioc praecepto, di-
ctiim Jiicobo ab Isaac. (lenes. 27. Serviatit tihi
populi. et ndorenl te jilii matris luae: uU\ sunt
illa verba l^y. et mnn^il- 1'racterea sicut hic le-
gimus: lili soliservies, Ua legimus 1. Timoth. (i.
Qui soliis Jiabet iinmorialitatein ; et lanieii sci-
miis. an,i;eios,et aniinas esse etiain immorlales suo
quodam mndo.
Ad likid 1. Timolh. 1. Soli Deo honoret gloria:
responden, simililer intelligenduin de cerlo hono-
re el lijloria ; I\'am Rom. 2. lego : Gloria et honor
omiii operanli />o?Mtm. Deniqiiearclius diclum est
Isai, 4i. Ego primus, el ego novissimus, et abs-
que me non esi Deus; et lamen legimus in psal.
81. Ego dixi, Dii estis; nec tainen illud primum
est lalsum, sed sano modo inlelligenduin est.
Ad iljud 3I;illli. i. (lico: Diabolum piislulassc a
Chrislo -&0(7X'jvw7tv in signum lainae, et proindc
postulasse lalriam; ac propterea a Domino illi luis-
se responsum: Dominum Deuni tuuin adurabis,
el illi soii servies.
Al iliud Galal. 4. lis qui nalura non sunt Dii,
£oo'j)v£uo-a'c respondeo.verbum ocjasucW csse cum-
muue serviluli Dei et creaturarum, et proinde e.\-
poni debere pro loci exigentia. Hic autem sumitur
pro cullu solius Dei; id enim circumstantiae loci
necessario puslulanl.
Ad (|u:irluin argumenlumiAd primum exemplum
dico, Aman voluissc adorari iil Ueum; id enim e.K
verbis 3Iardochaei colligilur.
Ad secundum de Cornclio dico: Cum s. Hiero-
nymo lib. contra Vigilaiilium, Cornelium aliquid
divinum in Pelro inesse pulavisse, et ideo jure cor-
reclum: vel ciim Chrysoslomo in hunc locum A-
clorum, Cornelium pic l*etrum veneralum, sed Pe-
truin ex modeslia eum honorem, qui alioqui sibi
Utbebalur; recusassc.
Ad lertium: On'd mirum. si Paulus noluit sibi
sacrificari? Id enim supra diximus, esse actum ex-
lerrium, soli Deo didjilum.
Ad (luarlum dico: Esse pro nobis: nain vel Joan-
nes putavit eum, qui sibi apparueral esse Deum,
aut angcliim: si Deum merilo repreliensus esl: si
aiigelum. ci l;imen adoravit, cur nos reprehendi-
mur, qui facimus quod Joannes feiMf? num melius
Joaiine noruid Calvinislac. sintne angeli adoriiiidi?
Al cur, inquiunt, reprehensus esl? Primu. (iiiia
forle aiigeius sic appariiit, iil poluerit exislimari
Chrisliis. Dixeral enim cap. I. Ego sum primus,
et novissiiiius. et fui morluus.el ecce sum vivens
elc. Itaque poleral exislimari Chrislus, cujus per-
son;'in gereb;it, nisi ipse explicuissel, se non esse
Christuin. el ideo corrigendus fuit adoralor nun
po.ipter crrorem adoraliuiiis, sed propler errurem
personae. Ita respondel Augustin. quaesl. Cl. in
Cenes.
Secundo dico: Joannem recte voluisse angelo
cultum debilum exhlbcre; sicut raeminerat fecisse
Abraham et Lolli, alque alios majores suosrtameii
aiigeluin prohibuisse ob reverenliam huinanitatis
Clirisli. .Aam aiile Chrisli adventum angeli se ab
hominibus adorari paiiebantur: at posieaquam
Deus hoino laclus ^sl, et omnes angeli hominein
in Cliristu.adorare coeperunl.noluerunt ipsi ab ho-
miiiibiis adorari, et praecipue ab apostolis, aliis-
que summis viris. Ila Beda, Anselm. Hichard. et
Kuperlus in cap. 19. Apocal. et scholia graeca iu
(■ap. 22. ct anle hus auclures s. Gregor. lib. 27.
inural. cap. 11. el homd. 8. in evangel. IVec ta-
mcn scquilur. nus m;ile facere, si aiigelos adore-
mus; luun el nos recle illos adoramus, et ipsi re-
cle adurari recusanl.IUi(|ue Juannes ipse cum cap.
19. semel audivissel: Vide ne feceris elc. tamen
cap. 22. ilerum vuUjit eundem angylum adorare;
inlelligebat enim. et se recte facere adorando, et
aiigelum recte faccre recusando, nec enim suspi-
cari licet Joaiinem aut obliviusum. aul iiidociiem
fuisse.
Ad ullimum ex Patribus. dico, eos loqui conlra
errores genlilium, qui ex hominibus sceleralis vc-
ros Deos faciebaul, eisque sacrificia oirerebant,
Nain quod alioqui sancti angeli et homines debilo
cullu prosequenli sinl, sexcenlis in locis iidein
Palres alTirmant, quoruin locorum jam aliqua su-
pra relulimus.