Faith & the Word

Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book I: On the Beatitude and Canonization of the Saints

Chapter 20: The Arguments of the Adversaries 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).

It remains now to set out and undo the arguments of the adversaries.

The first argument. The invocation of the saints turns to the wrong of God. For in Romans 10 it is said: “How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed?” Therefore he alone is invoked in whom we believe; but we do not believe except in God; therefore either we invoke God alone, or we shall make the saints gods. To these are added two places of the Fathers. Ambrose, on chapter 1 to the Romans: “They are wont,” he says, “having suffered shame for neglecting God, to use a wretched excuse, saying that through these they can go to God, as one comes to the king through his officers. Come now, is anyone so mad, or so forgetful of his own safety, as to claim the king's honour for an officer, when if any are even found treating of this matter they are rightly condemned as guilty of treason? And these do not think themselves guilty, who give the honour of God's name to a creature, and leaving the Lord adore their fellow servants; as though there were something more that is kept for God. For men go to the king through tribunes or officers because the king is after all a man, and does not know to whom he should entrust the commonwealth. But to win God (from whom surely nothing is hidden, for he knows all merits) there is no need of a supporter, but of a devout mind.”

Likewise Theodoret, book 8 to the Greeks, at the end: “The Lord our God,” he says, “has brought his dead into the temples in place of your gods; and those he has made void and empty of glory, but to his martyrs he has given their honour. For in place of the Pandia and Diasia and Dionysia, that is, the feasts of Jupiter and of Father Liber, the feasts of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Sergius, Marcellus, Leontius, Antoninus, Maurice and the other holy martyrs are kept with a public banquet.” By these words Theodoret admits that we hold the saints for gods.

I answer: As no wrong but honour is done to kings when their friends are honoured and ambassadors are sent to them, so no wrong but honour is paid to God when the saints are honoured, not as gods but as friends of God, and are taken as patrons with God. Otherwise he too would do God wrong who asked prayers of the living, as the Apostle did, Romans 15 and elsewhere; and the centurion would have done Christ wrong, who (as is said in Luke 7) sought help from Christ not by himself, but through the elders of the Jews.

To the first place I say that it treats there of the invocation by which someone is invoked as God and as the first author of good things; for there goes before, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” I say besides that in truth, as he who does not believe in God, that is, does not believe that he is God, and who not believing him does not hope in him nor love him, cannot invoke God as God; so too he cannot invoke the saints as saints and friends of God who does not in his own way believe in them, that is, does not believe that they are saints, nor hope in them as in patrons, nor love them as such. Nor is the name of invocation, or of faith, given in the Scriptures to God alone. For Jacob says, Genesis 48: “Let my name be called upon them, and the names of my fathers.” From which place blessed Augustine teaches, in the book of Locutions on Genesis, number 200, that invocation is not only of God but also of men. And in the epistle to Philemon the Apostle says: “I give thanks to my God, hearing of thy charity and faith, which thou hast in the Lord Jesus, and towards all the saints.” On which place blessed Jerome shows at length that faith is to be had also in the saints.

To the place of Ambrose I say that he treats against the heathens who worshipped the courses of the stars, against whom the Apostle treats in the same place. Hence too he says that they worship fellow servants, that is, creatures, not otherwise than God; as he would do who gave royal honours to an officer. And what he adds at the end, that to win God there is no need of a supporter, is understood on God's side; as if he said, God does not need interpreters, since he sees and understands all things by himself; yet on our side there is need of supporters, or at least it is most useful, as the same Ambrose teaches most clearly in the book On Widows, as we showed above.

You will say: The heathens could answer this same thing. I answer: It is denied. For they thought that the highest God was not accessible immediately, and could be come to no otherwise than through the worship of lower powers, as Theodoret teaches more clearly on chapter 1 to the Colossians.

To the place of Theodoret I say that he wished to signify that the glory of the gods was transferred to the martyrs, because the temples and feasts of the gods were turned into the temples and feasts of the martyrs; but yet in the way that true religion allows, so that we hold the martyrs not for gods, as they held Jupiter and Liber and the others, but for holy men and friends of God, who help us very much by their examples, prayers and merits. Of which matter we spoke above.

The second argument. The invocation of the saints does wrong to Christ. For in 1 Timothy 2 it is said: “There is one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” If then he alone is mediator, whoever approaches God through another does him wrong. Wherefore Augustine, book 2 against Parmenian, chapter 8: “If John,” he says, “spoke thus: These things I write to you, that you may not sin; and if any man sin, you have me as mediator with the Father, I entreat for your sins; as Parmenian in a certain place set the bishop as mediator between the people and God; who of good and faithful Christians would bear him? Who would look on him as an apostle of Christ, and not as Antichrist?” And below: “If Paul were mediator, surely his other fellow apostles would be too, and so there would be many mediators; nor would the reasoning of Paul himself hold good, who had said: For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Besides, in Colossians 2 it is said: “Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen,” and so on. On which words Theodoret writes thus: “Those who defended the law led them also to worship the angels, saying that the law was given through them. And this vice remained long in Phrygia and Pisidia. For which reason the synod too which met at Laodicea, the chief city of Phrygia, forbade by law that they should pray to the angels; and to this day one may see among them and their neighbours oratories of St. Michael. They then counselled these things, using humility, saying that the God of all can neither be seen nor grasped nor reached, and that one must win the divine goodwill for oneself through the angels.”

I answer that no wrong is done to Christ by the invocation of the saints. For we do not invoke the saints that they may stand in the place of Christ, or help Christ, but that they may help us, so that we may more easily obtain from God through Christ the things we ask. And if the argument had any force, it would also conclude that the prayers of the living are not to be asked; which even the heretics grant is contrary to the Scriptures.

To the first argument I answer that Christ is called the one and only mediator of God and men for three reasons. First, because he alone was mediator by way of redemption. For it is to be noted that one mediator can reconcile two who are at odds in three ways: in one way by declaring which of them asks what is just; in another way by paying the creditor for the debtor; in a third way by entreating the creditor to remit the debt.

The first way, which is by declaring which asks what is just, has no place between God and man, because it is plain that God was offended by man. In the second way Christ alone is mediator of God and men; and in this way the Apostle speaks, as is plain both from what he adds, “Who gave himself a redemption for all,” and also because he writes to Timothy, bishop of Ephesus in Asia, where the heresy of Simon was then in force, which brought in the angels in place of Christ; hence too in the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, who are peoples of Asia, he presses again and again that Christ is the head of the whole Church, and that through him alone the world was reconciled to God. In the last way the saints too can be called mediators between God and those for whom they pray. Nor is there any reason why we should fear to transfer the name of mediator to the saints, as we transfer to them the names of advocate and intercessor, which are given to Christ in Romans 8 and 1 John 2. For St. Gregory Nazianzen, in the oration to Gregory of Nyssa, calls the martyrs mediators between us and God; and St. Cyril, book 12 of the Thesaurus, chapter 10, says that the prophets and apostles were all mediators; and Moses himself, Deuteronomy 5, says of himself: “I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time.” Alluding to which words the Apostle, Galatians 3, says that the old law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator, that is, of Moses; and in Hebrews 9 and 12 he calls Christ the mediator of the New Testament, to distinguish him from Moses, who was the mediator of the Old Testament.

Hence the argument from the testimony of Augustine is undone. For because Parmenian said that the effect of the sacrament depended on the one who baptized, so that the baptized man was sanctified by the priest, [and a wicked priest baptizing could not sanctify; the line is damaged in the scan], and so made the priest in some way a mediator of redemption, Augustine teaches that the people are secure whether they are baptized by a good man or a bad, because there is one mediator of God and men, Christ. And that Augustine does not deny that the priest can be called a mediator by praying is plain, because in the same place he says that Christians do rightly when they commend one another in their prayers.

The second reason why Christ is called the one mediator is that Christ is mediator not only by reason of office, because he reconciles God to man, but also by reason of nature, because he is in the middle between God and men, since he himself is both God and man; which was necessary for reconciling man to God. Almost all the Fathers give this reason, as Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius and others on this place of Paul; and also Epiphanius in the Ancoratus, before the middle; St. Cyril, book 12 of the Thesaurus, chapter 10, and book 1 On the Trinity, before the middle; Hilary, book 9 On the Trinity, not far from the beginning; Augustine, book 9 of the City of God, chapter 17; and Fulgentius, in the book On the Faith to Peter, chapter 2.

The third reason is that Christ alone is so the mediator of all men that he himself needs no mediator. For the other saints, although they are mediators between God and us, because by their prayers they make God gracious to us, yet they themselves needed to be reconciled to God through the Mediator Christ; and now too whatever they obtain for us, they obtain from God through Christ. But Christ neither for himself nor for us needed or needs any mediator; but, as is said in Hebrews 7, he goes by himself to God, “always living to make intercession for us.”

This reason blessed Augustine followed, book 2 against Parmenian, chapter 8: “Men,” he says, “all Christians, commend one another in their prayers; but he for whom no one intercedes, but who intercedes for all, he is the one and true mediator.” And from this another answer to the argument from the words of blessed Augustine is plain. For he does not deny that the priest can be a mediator by praying for the people, except in the sense in which he is called mediator of God and men who intercedes for all, and himself needs no one to intercede for him, or through whom to intercede.

Calvin presses this place of Augustine, who says, “He for whom no one intercedes, and who himself intercedes for all, he is the one and true mediator.” But the saints, he says, pray for us, and no one for them. I answer: when blessed Augustine says that Christ intercedes for us, he means that Christ is he through whom all intercede, as the mediator of all, whether they pray for themselves or for others. In this way Christ now intercedes for blessed Peter; not that he prays for his salvation, but because he intercedes for my salvation, which blessed Peter also asks. Otherwise the angels too would be mediators in the way that Christ is, for the angels pray for all, and no one for them. But they are not mediators in the way that Christ is for this reason, that they themselves need Christ, through whom to obtain benefits for us from God.

To the third place, which is from the epistle to the Colossians, I say that the Apostle there condemns the heresy of Simon Magus, who, following the Platonists, taught that certain angels were to be adored as lesser gods, who both made the world and spoke through the prophets; and that no one could appease the highest God, who is invisible, except through these angels. See on this heresy Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 20; Tertullian in the book On Prescription; and Epiphanius in the heresy of Simon. Of this idolatry, or magic, by which angels are adored in place of God, or of Christ, all the interpreters expound this place. John Chrysostom, homily 7 on the epistle to the Colossians: “There are some,” he says, “who say that we must not be reconciled and come to the Father through Christ, but through the angels. For this reason” (Paul) “turns over, up and down, the things that concern Christ.” So too Oecumenius and Theophylact expound it. Ambrose on this place thinks that those are marked who adore the stars.

Jerome, question 10 to Algasia, and Haymo on this place teach that those are rebuked who sacrificed to angels; nor does Theodoret differ from these; nay, he teaches most clearly of all that the Simonians are marked here, who said that God could not be grasped, but must be appeased through the angels. And from the very council which he cites it appears that it is idolatry that Paul rebukes. For the Council of Laodicea, chapter 35, speaks thus: “Christians must not forsake the Church and go away and name angels and hold assemblies of abominable idolatry, all which things are forbidden. Whoever then shall be found giving himself secretly to this idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ and gone over to idols.” Where, as you see, the council does not condemn every veneration of the angels, but that which is proper to God.

And what Theodoret says of the oratories of St. Michael can be understood in two ways. In one way, that he means that the heretics built oratories of St. Michael to worship him there according to the heresy of Simon, by sacrificing to him and so on. In another way, that he meant that the temples built by the heretics for sacrificing to the evil angels were turned by the Catholics into oratories of St. Michael; and that from the number of such places it is gathered how much the heresy of Simon once raged there.

For that the temples of idols were once turned into basilicas of the martyrs and of other saints is certain from Theodoret himself, book 8, on the martyrs; and at Rome the temple of all the gods is still seen turned into the temple of all the saints, and the temple of Castor and Pollux into the temple of Saints Cosmas and Damian; and Gregory, book 2 of the Dialogues, chapter 8, writes that the shrine of Apollo was turned by St. Benedict into an oratory of St. Martin; and blessed Gregory himself, book 9, letter 71, to Mellitus, commands Augustine, bishop of the English, not to destroy the shrines of the idols, but to sprinkle them with holy water, adorn them with relics of the saints, and so turn them into temples of the true God.

The third argument. The saints who are dead do not know the prayers of the living; therefore they are invoked in vain. And that the saints do not know the prayers of the living is proved by these arguments. First, Scripture gives to God alone to search the reins and hearts, and to know the thoughts of men, 3 Kings 8: “For thou only knowest the heart of all the children of men.” Second, in Job 14 it is said: “Whether his children come to honour or dishonour, he shall not understand.” Third, in Ecclesiastes 9 it is said: “For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more.” Fourth, in Isaias 63 it is said: “For thou art our father, and Abraham hath not known us.” Fifth, in book 4 of Kings, chapter 22, it is said by God to King Josias: “I will gather thee to thy fathers, that thy eyes may not see all the evils which I will bring upon this place.” Sixth, blessed Augustine, in the book On the Care to Be Had for the Dead, chapter 13: “If the parents are not present, who are the other dead who know what we do or what we suffer? The prophet Isaias says: Abraham hath not known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us. If such great patriarchs did not know what was being done toward the people begotten of them, how are the dead mixed up in knowing and helping the affairs and doings of the living?”

Likewise Gregory Nazianzen, at the end of the oration on his sister Gorgonia: “If you have any account of our speech,” he says, “and this is a gift from God to holy souls, that they learn such things, receive our speech in place of many epitaphs.” You see that Gregory surely doubted whether the saints know our prayers. Such a doubt too we read in Augustine, in the book On True Religion, chapter 55: “Whoever of angels or men loves this God,” he says, “I am sure that he loves me too. Whoever abides in him, and can perceive human prayers, hears me in him.” Where he seems to doubt whether all the saints can perceive human prayers.

A like doubt too we read in Origen, book 2 on the epistle to the Romans, not far from the beginning: “Whether the saints too, who are set outside the body and are with Christ, do something and labour for us, after the likeness of the angels who look after the ministries of our salvation; or again whether sinners too, set outside the body, do something according to the purpose of their mind, likewise after the likeness of the angels on the left; let this too be held among the hidden things of God, and mysteries not to be committed to paper.”

I answer that in this argument neither is the consequence good, nor is what is assumed true. And so first, the consequence can be denied. For since it is certain from so many testimonies of the Fathers and so many miracles shown by God that those who invoke the saints are heard and obtain what they ask, surely the saints are not invoked in vain, even if we grant that they do not hear nor know our prayers; for someone else acts in their stead. As he does not petition the king in vain who knows for certain that the king will not read the petition, but some other man of his court, and yet that he will obtain what he asks just as if the king had read the petition.

Then, what is assumed is not true, that the saints do not know what we ask of them. For although there can be doubt how they know mental prayers, and those which are sometimes uttered by the sole affection of the heart, yet it is certain that they know them, since, as we have shown, they are set over us and have care of our affairs. And surely this consequence is better, “The saints are rightly invoked, therefore they know what we ask,” than that, “They do not know what we ask, therefore they are not rightly invoked.” For the antecedent of the first argument is had from the consent of the whole Church; the antecedent of the second is proved by no solid foundation.

Now of the way in which they know, there are four opinions of the doctors. Some say that they know from the report of the angels, who now go up to heaven and now come down from there to us. Which reason blessed Augustine hints at, in the book On the Care to Be Had for the Dead, chapter 15.

Others say that the souls of the saints, like the angels too, are in some way everywhere by a certain wonderful swiftness of nature, and hear by themselves the prayers of those who beseech them; which reason blessed Jerome seems to hold, in the book against Vigilantius. But neither is sufficient. For neither the angels nor the blessed souls, even if they are present, can know our prayers naturally when we pray by thought alone. And besides, to know prayers which are made at the same time in the most different places swiftness does not suffice, but a true being everywhere is required, which we do not believe befits the spirits either of angels or of men.

Others say that the saints see in God, from the beginning of their beatitude, all the things which belong to them in any way, and so also our prayers directed to them. So teach blessed Gregory, book 12 of the Morals, chapter 13; blessed Thomas, part 3, question 10, article 2, and the second part of the second part, question 83, article 4; and Cajetan in the same places. And this opinion is probable.

Others lastly say that the saints do not see our prayers in the Word from the beginning of their beatitude, but that our prayers are revealed to them by God only at the time when we pour them out. For so the prophets, by God's revealing, knew things to come; and many of the saints here on earth had a gift from God by which they knew the thoughts of men, and even the most hidden deeds; as of Samuel, 1 Kings 9; likewise of Eliseus it is told in book 4 of Kings, chapter 5; and of Peter, Acts 5; and blessed Gregory writes the same of St. Benedict, book 2 of the Dialogues, chapter 20 [so the scan]. And we read the same of St. Bernard, Francis and very many others. How much more is it to be believed that the saints in heaven are strong in this gift? This is the open opinion of blessed Augustine, in the book On the Care to Be Had for the Dead, chapter 15.

And of these two the first seems simply more probable. For if the saints needed a new revelation, the Church would not say so boldly to all the saints, “Pray for us,” but would sometimes ask God to reveal our prayers to them. Then, no reason could be given so easily why the saints are invoked now, and were not invoked before the coming of Christ. Yet the second opinion is more fit to convince the heretics. For the Calvinists do not receive the former reason, since they think that the saints do not see God before the day of judgement; but this one they cannot reject; for even if the saints did not see God, our prayers could still be revealed to them, as they were revealed to them on earth.

But you will say: What shall we answer the heretics, following this last opinion, if they ask why the prayers of the living were not revealed to the fathers in limbo? I answer that it was not ordinarily revealed to the fathers in limbo what was done here, because they were not blessed. For to perfect beatitude it belongs to know the things which belong to oneself, and especially those which make for one's honour and glory. Besides, because the saints in limbo did not bear the care of our affairs, nor were they set over the Church, as the saints in heaven are, as we showed above and plainly drew from the divine letters. [The top of page 459 is merged across columns in the scan; the order of these paragraphs follows the sense.]

From these, to the first I say that God alone knows all the thoughts of all hearts, and this naturally and by his own power; but that the saints know only those which are made known to them by God, whether by the beatific vision or also by a new revelation.

To the second Gregory answers, book 12 of the Morals, chapter 13, expounding that place, that holy Job meant that the dead naturally do not know what the living do, as the living do not know what the dead do; yet that the saints who enjoy the brightness of God see all things in God, namely those which belong to them.

To the third the answer is the same.

To the fourth. Jerome expounds that place of the knowledge of approval, so that the sense is: Abraham hath not known us, that is, does not hold us for sons, does not love us, despises us, because he understands that we have gone away from thee. And this seems to be the literal exposition. But because blessed Augustine, in the book On the Care to Be Had for the Dead, chapter 13, expounds it of knowledge properly so called, it can therefore also be answered that Abraham and Israel and the other Fathers of the Old Testament did not know their descendants while living, because they were not yet blessed, and the dead naturally do not know what the living do.

To the fifth the answer is the same.

To the sixth I say that Augustine in that chapter speaks of natural knowledge and dealing. For he contends only for this, that the dead do not deal with us, nor are anxious about our affairs, nor know them as they did when they lived here. For that they know supernaturally, by divine revelation, what is done here he teaches openly in the same place, chapter 15. And that by divine power they can come here and bring us help he teaches in the same place, chapter 16, where he speaks thus: “It is not therefore to be thought that any of the dead can be present in the affairs of the living because the martyrs are present for the healing or helping of some; but rather it is to be understood that the martyrs are present in the affairs of the living by the divine power, because the dead cannot by their own nature be present in affairs.”

You will say: Augustine thought that his mother was blessed, as he himself says in On the Care to Be Had for the Dead, chapter 13; and yet in the same place he proves that the dead do not know what we do, because his mother never came to console him. I answer that the saints know our prayers and can come to us when they will; yet not for that reason do they know all our affairs, nor are they constantly present in our affairs after the manner of men, as Augustine proves in that place by the example of his mother.

To the place of Nazianzen I say that that “if” is not of one doubting but of one affirming; as when the Apostle says to Philemon, “If therefore thou count me a partner, receive him.” For Gregory Nazianzen asserts again and again that the saints see what is done here, as in the oration on Athanasius: “From on high,” he says, “I know well, he looks upon our affairs, and stretches out a hand to those who labour for the good; and so much the more as he is freed from bonds.”

To the other place of blessed Augustine I say that he says most rightly, “Whoever abides in him, and can perceive human prayers”; because many abide in God who cannot hear human prayers, namely all those who are in charity and yet are not yet blessed. For everyone who abides in charity abides in God, 1 John 4; and yet not everyone who abides in charity is already blessed in heaven.

To the place of Origen I say that he treats there of natural dealing and knowledge. For he does not doubt whether the saints see what we do and help us by their prayers, which he teaches in express words, book 8 against Celsus, near the end, and homily 26 on the book of Numbers, and homily 16 on Josue, and elsewhere; but only whether the spirits of holy men, like the angels and demons, who are truly always present to us, the former to urge us to good, the latter to evil, are constantly with us.

The fourth argument. God is most ready to hear us, and loves us more than any of the saints; therefore the saints are invoked in vain; nay, it is a sign of distrust to invoke the saints. For the Lord says, Luke 11, “Ask, and you shall receive”; and John 16, “If you ask the Father any thing in my name, he will give it you”; and Paul to the Hebrews 4, “Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of grace.” Besides, John Chrysostom, in the homily on the profit of the Gospel, volume 3, speaks thus: “You have no need,” he says, “of patrons with God, nor of much running about to flatter others; but even if you are alone and lack a patron, and pray to God by yourself, you will surely gain your wish. For God does not grant so easily when others pray for us as when we ourselves pray, even if we are full of very many evils.” He has the same in the preface to Psalm 4.

I answer that nothing is gathered from this argument; for otherwise we would also ask the prayers of the living in vain and out of distrust. And besides, although God is ready to hear, and loves us more than any of the saints, yet he is more ready to hear the saints than us, and loves the saints more than us; because prayer, to obtain, requires a disposition in the one praying which we do not always have. Therefore it is more useful that we go to God with the saints than alone. Hence in Job, the last chapter, God says, “Go to my servant Job, that he may pray for you.” And in Genesis 20 Abimelech could be healed by God only through the prayers of Abraham. And in Ezechiel 22 God himself sought a man who would set himself against his anger; for he wished to spare the people, but through the prayers of some holy man. Lastly, who does not know that predestination itself is helped by the prayers of the saints, in that God has decreed to use the prayers of the saints for carrying out the salvation of someone?

To the places of Scripture I say that they are beside the point. For when we pray to the saints, we do not then ask nothing of God, or not ask it with confidence; nay, on the contrary, we implore the prayers of the saints for this reason, that we may be able to approach God with greater confidence, and more easily obtain what we ask.

To the place of Chrysostom I say, first, that he speaks of those who implore the prayers of mortals, not of those who invoke the saints reigning with Christ, as is plain from those words, “There is no need of much running about to flatter others,” and so on. I say besides that he rebukes those who do not pray for themselves but only ask the prayers of others, as many rich men do, who will not labour in prayer, and so only give alms to the poor that they may pray for them; before whom he rightly sets those who pray for themselves, even if perhaps they cannot have the prayers of others. Yet before both of these are to be set those who both pray for themselves and at the same time implore the prayers of others, as the same Chrysostom teaches again and again; as in homily 5 on Matthew: “Let us not then,” he says, “as though yawning and idle, hang on the merits of others. For the prayers and supplications of the saints have power for us, and indeed very great power; but then surely, when we too ask the same thing through penance.” And homily 1 on the first epistle to the Thessalonians: “What need have I,” he says, “of the prayers of others, when I myself am diligent? Never say this, O man; there is need, and need of much prayer.” And below: “Knowing these things, then, let us neither despise the prayers of the saints, nor throw everything upon them,” and so on. See also homily 8 on Matthew and homily 43 on Genesis.

The fifth argument. Whom we should invoke Christ taught us by word and example. For in Matthew 6 and Luke 11: “When you pray,” he says, “say: Our Father who art in heaven.” Christ himself too addresses the Father several times: John 12, “Father, glorify thy name”; John 17, “Father, the hour is come,” and so on. Therefore neither angels nor dead men are to be invoked. So the Magdeburgers gather, Century 1, book 1, chapter 4, column 139.

I answer: The same Magdeburgers in the same place would have the Lord's Prayer referred to the Father alone. For they have it thus: “He commands that not an angel, or a patriarch, or a dead prophet, but the Father only be invoked.” I ask, then: is it lawful to invoke the Son and the Holy Spirit, or not? They will answer that it is lawful. For so they teach below: “That the Son too can and ought to be invoked, examples teach.” And below: “That the Holy Spirit too can and ought to be invoked may be gathered even from the words of baptism.” So they.

That argument, then, does not conclude: Christ by word and example taught that the Father alone is invoked; therefore holy men or angels are not to be invoked. For if this concluded, that too would conclude: Christ by word and example taught that the Father alone is invoked; therefore the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are not to be invoked.

I add besides that Christ, when he taught the apostles to pray, wished to instruct the disciples not about him who is to be prayed to, but about the things which are to be asked. For it was well enough known that God is to be prayed to, and God alone, when the question is [of God as the giver of all; the line is damaged in the scan]; but it was about the manner of praying, or about the things to be asked, that the apostles inquired when they said, Luke 11, “Lord, teach us to pray.”

The sixth argument. There is no command of Scripture, or example, or promise about the invocation of the saints; therefore the saints are not to be invoked. So the Augsburg Confession gathers, article 21, and all the others are wont to use this argument.

I answer: If this argument concluded, it would also prove that the saints do not pray for the Church, either in general or in particular; which yet the Apology of the Augsburg Confession openly grants. For it speaks thus: “Of the saints, although we grant that, as the living pray for the universal Church in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general; yet there is no testimony of the dead praying in Scripture, except that dream taken from the latter book of the Machabees.” So the Apology.

Then, as to what it brings about a command: surely no command is required, since necessity itself drives us. Examples there are very many in both Testaments, as we showed above. A promise lastly is least of all wanting, since the countless signs and wonders done at the invocation of the saints testify well enough that God hears those who use the patronage of the saints to obtain something from God. Although in the book of Job, the last chapter, we have a particular command, example and promise, from which judgement can be made of the whole kind of invocation: “Go to my servant Job,” behold the command; “and he shall pray for you,” behold the example; “his face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you,” behold the promise.

But, they say, Job was living and present, while the saints are dead and absent. But it is not so. For the saints now live most of all in that part of themselves which can hear prayers and entreat God for those who beseech them. Nor are they absent as regards hearing, although they seem absent in place, as has been proved well enough above. And it is plain of the angels from that of Psalm 137, “I will sing praise to thee in the sight of the angels”; and 1 Corinthians 4, “We are made a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men.” Of holy men likewise it is plain from Apocalypse chapters 11 and 19, where the saints in heaven are described seeing the things that are done on earth. Hence Basil, in the book On Virginity, before the middle: “Revere,” he says, “the Bridegroom himself, present everywhere, and his Father and the Holy Spirit; and why do I name each? The countless multitude of the angels, and with them the holy spirits of the Fathers; for there is none of these who does not see all things everywhere.” And Gregory, book 12 of the Morals, chapter 12: “The souls which see within the brightness of almighty God, it is in no way to be believed that there is anything outside that they do not know.”

The seventh argument. No one dares to act as advocate for parties before an earthly prince unless admitted by the prince himself: “Whence then,” says Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 20, section 23, “such licence to worms, that they thrust upon God patrons to whom no office is read to have been enjoined?”

I answer: [The first lines of the answer are damaged in the scan.] ...as we are wont [to go] to the friends and familiars of princes, who often intercede for the wretched; nor is any new [command] needed for doing this.

The eighth argument. Many are invoked who not only were not saints, but were not even men, as Christopher, George, Catherine; therefore invocation is foolish. So Philip Melanchthon argues in the Apology, article 21 of the Augsburg Confession, and Calvin in the book On the True Method of Reforming the Church, where too, with his usual modesty, he calls St. Dominic, St. Catherine, St. Medard and certain others beasts, and the saints in general monsters.

I answer that the histories of certain saints are indeed apocryphal and uncertain; yet not for that reason did those saints never exist. For if it is lawful to argue so, most of the apostles could not be numbered among the saints, for the histories of them are taken either from Abdias or from others, which for the most part are not wholly beyond doubt. We have indeed in the Gospel the calling of the apostles, and a few things from their life; and also the happy falling asleep of St. James the Greater, Acts 12; and Peter's glorious death foretold by the Lord, John 21. But the end of the other apostles we do not have from the divine letters. For which reason Pope Gelasius, in the canon Sancta Romana, distinction 15, numbers the history of St. George among the apocrypha, and yet affirms that St. George himself is to be honoured; because although the history that then existed was apocryphal, yet the custom of the universal Church is not apocryphal, in which the memory of George, Christopher and Catherine has always been most renowned.

Add besides that if the histories of three or four saints are apocryphal, those of countless others are most certain and beyond doubt; the holiness and glory of some of whom is proclaimed even in the divine letters themselves, as of Mary, John the Baptist, Peter, Stephen and others. For which reason, if the adversaries will not honour George, Christopher or Catherine because their histories are uncertain, why do they not honour Mary, John, Stephen, Peter, James, whose histories they cannot deny? Why too do they put in their own calendars those whom they would be forced to admit were most wicked men, sometimes even of a religion different from their own, if they would attend to the matter a little more carefully? On which matter see the sixth dialogue of Alan Cope, the Englishman.

The ninth argument. If the invocation of the saints were free of superstition and heathen imitation, surely one thing would not be asked of one saint and another of another, since God is the one author of all gifts, and can grant anything equally through the intercession of one as through the intercession of another; but the Catholics invoke one against the plague, another against pain of the eyes, another against toothache.

I answer: This argument the Magdeburgers, Calvin and others press again and again; but they renew the old complaint of Julian the apostate, in Cyril, book 6 against Julian; of the Manichees, in Augustine, book 20 against Faustus, chapter 4; and of Vigilantius, in Jerome, in the book against Vigilantius. For all these complain that we have turned the idols into martyrs and honour them with like vows. Which is an argument that our forefathers are Cyril, Augustine, Jerome and the rest of the Church which was in communion with them; while the forefathers of Calvin and the Magdeburgers are Julian the apostate, Faustus the Manichee, Vigilantius and the other apostates or heretics who were in communion with them.

But to come nearer to the matter, I say that God can, if he will, grant all things through any of the saints, and also give many things, or all, without the saints; yet that sometimes he wills to work some miracle by the intercession of one, and another by the intercession of another. But who has known the counsel of God, or who can say to him, Why dost thou do so? As God also works many miracles through one, and through another, perhaps greater, none; the cause of which he alone knows, as blessed Augustine teaches in letter 137, to the clergy and people of Hippo: “God indeed is everywhere,” he says, “and he who made all things is contained or shut in by no place. But who can search out his counsel, why these miracles are done in some places and not in others? For to many the holiness of the place is very well known where the body of blessed Felix of Nola is buried, where I wished them” (two clerics) “to go, because from there whatever is disclosed by God in either of them can be written to us more easily and faithfully. Is not Africa too full of the bodies of holy martyrs? And yet nowhere here do we know such things to be done. For as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 12), not all the saints have the gifts of healing; so neither did he will these things to be done at all the memorials of the saints, who divideth to every one according as he will.” To these is added that, although certain saints sometimes shine more than others in some kind of miracle, yet we ask all things of all, and do not think that one thing is to be asked of one in such a way that we do not also think it can be obtained by the intercession of another.

The tenth argument. The saints in heaven can merit or obtain nothing for themselves; therefore much less for others. I answer that the saints cannot merit, either for themselves or for others; yet from their preceding merits they can obtain, both for themselves and for others, what they ask in prayer. For they ask for themselves the glory of the body, and for us all the things we need.

But you will object: They have already received the reward of their merits; therefore nothing more is owed them. I answer that they have indeed received their reward, but that this too belongs to their reward, that they are always friends of God, and as friends obtain from God whatever they ask of him. As here on earth too, if someone who has long served in the army has received all his pay from the king, he can yet make supplication for others, and by right of friendship will obtain it far more easily than another who never served the king.

Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT  XX. 
Solvuntur  argumenta  adversariorum. 
Supercst  nunc  argumcnla  adversariorum  propo- 
nerc  ct  solverc. 
Argumcnlum  primum.  Invocalio  sanctorum  in 
injuriam  Dei  cedil;  l>'am  Rom.  10.  dicilur  :  OifO- 
■niodo  invocabunt,  in  quein  non  crcdiderunt  ? 
Ergo  ille  solus  invooalur,  in  quem  credimus,  non 
aulem  crodimus  nisi  in  Doum,  ergo  vel  solum 
Deum  invocamus,  vcl  sanclos  faciemus  Deos, 
Ilis  acceduntduo  Inca  Palrum,  And)rosius  in  1. 
cap.  ad  Ruman.  Solent,  inquit.  pudore  passi  ne- 
glecti  Dei,  miscra  uli  excusatione  dicentes:  Per 
istos  xtosse  irc  ad  Deum,  sicnt  per  couiites  pcrve- 
nilur  ad  regem.  Age,  numquid  ita  demens  est  a- 
liquis,  aut  saiul^'s  suae  immemor,  ut  honorifL- 
centiam  regis  rendicet  comili,  cum  de  hac  re  si 
qui  eliam  tractare  fuerint  invcnti,  jure  ut  rei  da- 
mncntur  majestaHs?  et  isti  se  non  putant  reos^ 
qui  honorem  nominis  Dei  dcferunt  crealurae.  et 
relicto  Domino  conservos  adorant;  quasi  sit  ali- 
quid  plus,  quod  servetur  Deo;  Nam  ideo  ad  re- 
gem  per  tribunos  aul  comitesitur.  quia  homou- 
tique  est  rex,  et  nescit,  quibus  deheat  rempuhti- 
cam  credere.  Ad  Deum  aufem  {queni  utiqve  ni- 
hil  lcdet,  omnia  enini  merita  novit )  promeren- 
dum,  suffragatore  non  opus  est,  sed  mente  de- 
vota. 
[dem  Tlieodoretus  lib.  8.  ad  Graecos  in  fme, 
Suos,  inquit,  niortuos  Dominus  Dcus  noster  in 
templa  pro  Dits  vestris  induxit .  «c  iltos  qui- 
dem  cassGs  gloria,  vanosque  reddidit,  suis  au- 
tem  martyribus  honoremillorum  dcdit.Pro  Pan- 
diis  enim  Diasiisque  oc  Dionysiis,  hoc  est.  Jo- 
vis,Liberique  patris  solenmitatihus ,Petro ,Paulo , 
Thomae,  Sergio  ,  Ilhircello,  Lconlio,  Antonino  , 
Mauritio,  aliisque  ss.  niartyribus  solemnitates 
populari  epulo  peraguntur.  Ilis  verbis  fatelur 
Theodoretus  nos  habere  sanctos  pro  Diis. 
Respondeo:  Quemadmodum  non  Ct  injuria,  scd 
honor  rcgibus,  quando  corum  amici  honoranlur, 
et  ad  eos  legati  milluntur,  ila  Deo  non  injuriam, 
scd  honorem  dcfcrri,  quando  sancli  non  ul  Dii  sed 
ut  amici  Dei  honoranlur,  et  tamquam  palroni  apud 
Deum  accipiunlur.  Alioqui  ctiam  faceret  Deo  inju- 
riam,  qui  a  vivcntibus  oraliones  poslularet,  ut  fc- 
cilaposlolus  1'iom.  \3.  cl  alibi.  et  Cenlurio  injuri- 
am  Christo  fecissct,  qui  ( nl  dicitur  Luc.  7.  )  non 
pcr  se,  scd  per  'seniores  Judaeorum  a  Chrislo  au- 
xilium  peliit. 
Ad  prinium  aulem  locum  dico:  Ibi  agi  de  invo- 
catione,  qua  aliquis  invocalur  ul  Deus,  el  primus 
■mctor  bonorum;  praecedit  enim:   Omnis,  qui  in- 
vocavcrit  nomen  Domini,  salvus  eril.  Dico  prac- 
lerea'.  revera  sicut  Dtmm  non  polesl  invocare  ut 
Deum,  qui  in  eum  non  credil,  idest,  qui  non  cre- 
dit  cum  essc  Deum.  ct  qui  ei  non  crcdeudo  in  eo 
i;o;i  sn(Tal,  nec  cnm  diligil:  ita  cliam  non  posse 
eum  sanclos  invocarc.  ut  sauetos  el  amicos  Dei, 
qui  suo  modo  in  eos  non  credit,  idest,  non  crcdit 
esse  sanctns.  nec  in  eis  sperat,  ut  in  palronis,  nec 
eos  utlales  diligit.  !\ec  nomen  invocalionis,  vel  fi- 
dei  in  Scripluris  soli  Deo  Iribuilur.  Dicil  cnim  Ja- 
cob  Geu.  48.  Invocetur  nonien  meum  Huper  pue- 
ros  hos,  el  nomina  Patrum  meoruni.  Ex  quo  loco 
docet  b.  Augustinus  lib.Ioquulionum  de  Genes.  nu. 
200.  invocationem  non  solum  Dei,  sed  etiam  ho- 
minum  esso.Elin  epist.  ad  Philemonem  dicit 
apostolus:  Gi^atias  ago  Dco  nieo.  audiens  chari- 
tatcm  tuam  et  fidem.  quom  liabes  in  Domino  Je- 
su.  et  in  omncs  sanctos.  In  quem  locum  b.  Iliero- 
nynms  prolixe  oslcndil,  eliam  in  sanclos  haberi 
debere  lidom. 
Ad-Iocum  Ambrosii  dico:Eumagere  conlra  elhni- 
cos,  qui  aslrorum  cursus  colebanl,  conlra  quos 
ibi(Jem  apostolus  iigit.  Uude  etiam  dicit,  eos  cole- 
re  cunservns,  idcsl.  crealutas.non  secusacDeum; 
quomodo  faccret,  qui  cnmili  honores  regios  defer- 
rel.  Quod  aulem  in  flne  addil:  Ad  Deum  prome- 
rendum  non  esse  opus  suffragatore;  iniflligilur 
cx  parle  Dei.  quasi  dicat,  Deus  non  eget  inlerpre- 
tibus,  cum  ipse  per  se  omnia  videat,  et  inlelligat; 
lamen  ex  parte  nostri  opus  esse  suffragatoribus, 
vel  sailem  id  esse  ulilissimum,  idem  Ambrosius 
clarissime  docet  in  lib.  de  viduis  ul  supra  osten- 
dimus. 
Dices:  IIoc  idem  polcranl  respondere  genliles. 
Respondeo:  Nogatur:  nam  illi  pulabant,  summum 
Deum  non  esse  immediate  accessibilem,  nec  aii- 
tor  ad  eum  veniri.  nisi  per  cidluui  inferiorum  vir- 
lutum,  ul  clarius  docet  Theodorcius  in  cap.  I.  ad 
Coloss. 
A(\  locum  Theodoreli  dico,  eum  significare  vo- 
luisse,  gloriam  Deorum  translatam  in  raarlyres, 
quia  tompla  et  festa  Dcorum  conversa  sunt  in 
templa  et  fesla  martyrum,  sed  tamcn  eorum,  quos 
roligio  vera  permittit.ul  martyres  non  pro  Diis  ha- 
beamus,  sicut  illi  habebaut  Jovem  el  Libcrum  et 
alios,  sed  pro  viris  sanctis  el  amicisDei,  qui  nos 
exemplis,  prccibus,  el  meritis  suis  plurimum  ju- 
vant.  De  qua  re  supra  diximus. 
Argumenlum  secundum.  Invocalio  sanclorum 
injuriam  facit  Christo;  nam  1.  Timoth.  2.  dicilur: 
Unus  est  mediator  Dei,  et  hominum,  homo  Chri- 
stusJesus.SieA'go  solus  ipse  est  niediator,injuriani 
ei facil  quicum(iueperalium  adDeura  accedit.Quarc 
Auguslinus  lib.^.conlra  Parmenian.cap. 8. Si  Joan- 
7ie.s,  inquit:  ita  dicere.t:  liaec  scripsivobis,ut  non 
peccetis,  et  si  quis  peccaverit.medialorem  me  ha- 
betis  a.pudPatrem.ego  exoro  pro  peccalis  vcstris: 
sicut  Parmenianus  quodam  loco  mediatorem  po- 
suil  episcopum  inter  populum  et  Deum.  qtus 
eum  ferret  bonorum  atque  fidelium  Cliristiano- 
rum?  Quis  sicut  apostolum  Christi  .  el  non  sicut 
Anticliristum  inluerctur?  Et  infra:S6  esset  media- 
lor  Paulus,  essent  utique  et  caeleri  coapostoli  e- 
jns.ac  sic  multi  mediatores essent.nee  ipsius  Pai." 
I.llil.ll  l'IUMi;S                                                                  4S7 
li  rtmylnvcl  rntin,  (fUd  ili.vcnit.  ninin  />cuh,  iinuH  iiicdiiilor.Mn  nnvl  Tnsl.iinPiill.nil  diniliirlloiicin  Moj- 
inviiinUtv  l>i'i  rl  lioiiiiniini.  m<  i|iii  rml  iiii'<li<i|iir  Trsl.niM-iili  vrlcriH. 
1'raiilrroii  (^tliKs.  2.  (licilur:  iScmn  vn$  hciIuvhI  IIiik' Molviliir  iirt;tiiiiiMiliiiii  ni  lo>»llmonio  Aii((U» 
Viilrns  iil  linniililitlrvl  vrliiiinni'  iiiiiirlitvuin.iiniw.  sliiii;  .Niiiti  i|itiii  hniiiili^iiM'    (tiil.iliiiiil    ii    H.uM-flold 
linn  vijlil  (iinliiiliiiis  rlr.  Iii  (|iiiii!  Vi  ili;i  sic  scribil  pciidcni  Kr.ili.iiii  H.icriiiniMili,  ila  ul  n.iroi.lo^  Immiiih 
Tlicoilorcliis:  Qni  Ivjrin,  iii(|iiil,  (Irlriulrhiinl.  lun*  i(ii|(li/,aiiH  «niiclillniriM.  H.ic.fnlo"»  in.iliM   t)ji|)li7.iiiiM 
vlinin  (((/  (inin^lns  rnlrnihiH  iiuliirrhnnl  .  (lircHlcH  |i(illiiorcl,  «'l  iirniiiilc  f.icichHOl  H.iccrilolciii  iiiciliH' 
Iriirni  pvv  rns  (lnliini.  Hliinnil  (inlrin  din  iinr  vi-  lor^Mii  (|iio(|;iiiiiiiii(|(i  rcilcoiplKioiH.  iilcu  AiihusIiiiiih 
linin  in  Vliviiiiiii.  rl   l*isi>U(i.    Qunrivvn.   Hjinnilua  (lnccl.  p|c|i(Mii  cssc  scciiraiii  8ivo   u    hdiio  .    hivc,  u 
quniiuc,  iiuiw  cnnvcnil  lMn(lirr(u\(iU(U'.  chI  l*hvi-  iiiiilo  liiipli/.cliir,(piia  iiiiiis  nsl  mcdiiilor  Uc\  i:l  lio- 
(jiiir  inrlvniinlis,  lr(]r  prnliihn.it,  nr  jivrriiirnlnr  iiiiiiiiiii  (lliiisliis.  Ooml  fiiit(Mii  iioii  oc/d  Aiitrusii. 
iinijrh>fi,rl  in  linilirviiuin  nsiinr  dirni  vidrvr  lirrt  iiiis  saciMdolcio  jxissc   «lici    oiciliiilorfMo   orinnlo  , 
apud  iMns,cl  cnruin  liniliinnH  ordlnriu  H.  Hlicliiic-  piiliU.qtiia  ibidiMii  diril  (ilirislianos  rcclo   faccrc  , 
lis.  Illi  (•/•(/(»  linr  vnnsnlrhiinl,   nliiinr  hninilitnlc  v\\\n  so  iiiviccm  oriilioiiilios  coiiiiiicndiiiil. 
■ulrnlCH,  ilirrntrH,  univcvsnvuin  Hruiii  ■nrr  rrvni.  Allcrii  c!iiiss:i.  (Mir  (ilirisliis  (liciilttr  tiiiiis  mcdia- 
ncv  voinitvrlirnili,  nrc  lul  cnin  pnssc  pcvvrnivi :  lor,  csl.  (piia  Clirisliis  iioii  soliim  csl  mcdialor  ra- 
ct  opnvlcvc  pcr  amjrlns   (liviiuini  sihi  hcncvolrn-  lioiii».  ollicii.»pii:i  roiiciliiil  Dimiiu  lioiiiini,  scdcliain 
tinni  rnnrilidvc.  r;ilioiic  ii;iliiriic,  (|iii:i  csl  oicdiiis  iiiUM"  l>ciim  d  lio- 
KcspiMidco:  Niilliim  iojiiriam  (liirislo   li(M'i    p(M'  iiiiinMH.  (miiii  ipsc.  d  iJctis.  cl  lioioo  sil;  id  (pmd  c- 
invoiMilloncm  saiicloriim.  N<Mpio  (Miim   iiivociiimts  riil  noccssariiiin  ad  rcconciliiindtim  li(»mimMii  Dco. 
Siiiiclos.  iil  riiii^riiiilur  vi(M'  (llirisli.vid  (lliiisliim  ;id-  lliiic  riilioiKMii  rcddiipl  fcrc  oniiics  P.ilrcs.  iil  \m- 
jiivciil,  scil  ul  ii(!jiiviMil  iKis  ,    (pio    riicilius  ii  Dco  l»rosius,  Clirysosloimis.  Tli(Mipliyl;icliis, Tiicodorc- 
p(M'  Cluisluiu  iiiipclromus  ,    ipuic  posiMuiiis  ,  cl  si  liis.  OccmiiPiiiiis.  ol  .ilii  iii  luiiic  lociim  l*auli.ncc- 
arjruiuculum  iiliipiid  Viil(;i'cl;    clinm   coiuliidcrcl  ,  noii  l']pipli:iiiius  in  .Viicoriiio  aiili;  iiicdium.  S.  Cy- 
uou  cssc  pclcudiis  viviuuiu  (MMlioiios.  (jiiod  l;imcn  rilliis  lih.  12.  Ilic^^^iiiri  cip.  U>.  cl  lib.  1.  dcTriui- 
cssn  coiiUMriuui  Sonpluris  cliiiiii  liiicrclici  (M)mcc-  l::lo,  aiilc  uicdium.  Ilil.irius  lib.  9.   dc  Trinil.  iioii 
duul.  l»rocul  iil)  iiiilio:   Aii;,Misiiiius   lili.  II.  dc  Civil.  l)r;i 
Ad  piiiuuiu  or^Miloium   rospoiiilco:   Tribus  dc  cap.  I7.ol  KuI;;ouliiis  lil».  dc  lidc  iid  Pclriirn  cap.2. 
caussis  dici  Clirisluiii  iiuuiu   cl  soiuui  iucdi;ilorcin  Tcrlin  ciiussa  osl.ipiiii  solus  Cltristu>  ita  (;sl  uic- 
Dci  ol  liomiuum.  1'iiiuo  .  (piiji  solus  ipso  tuil  nift-  diator  omniuin  bomiuiim,  ul  ipso  nullo  mcdialorc 
(lialor  por  luodiuu  rodiMupliouis.  Aolaiidum  cuiiu  iii(Ii^'o;il.  .\;ku  s;iucli  c;ioiori  clsi    m(!di;ilorcs  siiiit 
ost  [losso  Iribus  iiiodi.s  iiiiuui  luedi^iloroiu  rccoiici-  inlor  Douiu    oluos.iiiiiii  Deum  suis  prccibus  nobis 
liiiri;  duos  (lissidoiitos;  uuo  mmio  docliiriindo.  ulor  p;'opiliiiin  n^dduiil;  tiimcn   cl  ipsi   iiidij^ucruul  rc 
jiislum  potal;  iilloro  modo  solvcudo   crcditori    pro  conoiliari  Dco  [icr  incdi;ilorcm  Clirislum,  cl  nunc 
dobilorc;  lorlio  modo  oraudo  crcdilorcm  ,  ul  dobi-  oliain  quidiiiiid  nobis  impclranl,  a  Dco   pcr  Cbri- 
Uim  roiuitlal.  sUin)  iiupcU-iiiil  :  Clirislu^  a'il(;iii  ncc  |)ro  s(;  ,  iicc 
Primus  modus.  qiii  esl  doclarando,   ulcr  jusluiu  jiro  nobis  tillo  mcdiatori;  indit,'uil,  vcj  iiidii,'et,  sed 
polat.  iiUor  Douiu   ol  liominom  ,  locnui  uoii   ba-  ul  dioiliir  ITcbr,  7.  Accedil  pev  seiiiclipsnm  nd 
bct,  quia  conslal  Douin  ab  Iiomine  csso  olTonsum.  Dcuiii  seniper  vivens   ad   inlerpellandam  pro 
Sccundo  modo  solus  Cliristus   csl  modialor  Dci  iiohis. 
cl  bomiiuim.   cl  lioc  modo  loquilur  n[)oslolus  ,   ut  Hanc  rnlionom  scquulus  csl   b.  Au;:;uslinus  lib. 
palcl  Uiin   cx  eo.    quod  subdil;  Qui  dedil  semeti-  2.  conlrn  P;irmciiinnuni  cnp.  8.  Ilomines,  inquit  , 
psuin  rcdcmplioncni  pro  nohis  ;  luin  ctinin   quia  oinncs  i^Jirisliani  inviccin  se  commendnnt   ora- 
scribil  ad  Tiinotbeum  episcopuni  Epbesi  in  Asia  ,  tionihus  suis.  pro  quo  auleni  nullus  inlerpellal, 
ubi  tunc  vigobat  bacrcsis  Simonis  ,   quac  nngelos  scd  pro  omnihus,  hic  unus  ,  vcrusquc  mediator 
loco  Cbristi  inlroducebal,  uiidc  cliam  in  cpisl.  ad  cs/.  Kt  binc  p;ilet  alia  solctio  ad  argumcntum   ex 
Epheslos,  cl  ad  Coloss.qui  suul  populi  Asiac,  pas-  verbis  beati  Auguslini.  non  enira  negat  ,  quin  sa- 
sim  inculonl  Cbristum  esse  cnpiil  lotius  Ecclcsiae,  cerdos  possit  esse  modialor  oriindo   pro  populo  ; 
cl  pcr  cum  solumrcconcilintuin  osse  mundiimDeo.  nisi  in  co  sensu.  quo  mcdinlor  Dei  etbominum  di- 
rostremo  modoetiain  sniicli  diri  possuul  media-  cilur.  qui  pro  omuibus  inlerpellnt.  et  i[>so  uullo  c- 
torcs  inlerDeum  et  eos,  pro  quibus  oranl.  Ncque  get.  qui  pro  se  intcr^icllet ,  aul  pcr  quera  inler- 
cst,  cur  limeamus.nomen  modinloris  Iransforre  ad  pellct. 
sanctos.sicut  ad  cos  Iransrcriuius  nouicu  advocali  Urgel  Calvinus  liunc  locum  Auguslini ,  qui  ail : 
cl  inlcrcessoris,  qune  Christo  tribuunlur  Rom.  8.  Pro  quo  nullus  interpellat.  et  ipsepro  omnibus, 
et  1.  Joiiii.  2.  Nain  s.  Grogorius  nazianzcnus  in  o-  /tic  unus,  verusque  mediator  est.  Sed  sancti,  per 
ralionc  ad  Grcgorium  nysseiiuiu.  marlyrcs  mcdia-  nos  orant  pro  nobis.  et  ncmo  pro  illis.Respondeo: 
tores  inter  nos,  et  Dcuin  appcllat.  ct  s.Cyrilkis  lib.  B.  Auguslinum,  cum  ait,  Christum  pro  nobis  in- 
■12.  Ibesauri  cap.  10.  dicit  propliclas   ct  apostolos  lerperiare,velle  diccre.Chrislum  esse  quem  omnes 
oiunes  fuisse  mediiilores.  el  iMoyscs  ipse  Dculer.5.  iulerpellant,  ul  omnium  mediatorem,  sive  illi  pro 
dicit  de  sc;  Ego  sequester  cl  melius  fui.inler  Do-  se,  sive  pro  aliis  orent.  Hoc  modo  Chrislus  inter- 
minum  elvos.intcinporeillo.  QuWms  verbis  al-  pcllat  nunc  pro  b.  Pelro,  non  quod   oret  pro  ejus 
ludens  aposlolus  Galal.  3.  dicil.Iogem  vcterem  or-  salule.  sed  quia  inlcrpellat  pro  salule  mea.  quam 
dinatam  fuissc  pcr  nngelos;  in  manu  mediatoris,  etiam  b.  Pelrus  posiulat.  Alioqai  cli.im  angeli  es- 
idest,  Moysis,  et  Ilehr.  9.  et  12.  vocat  Chrisluin  sent  medialores  eo  modo,  quo  Chrislus,  nam  an- 
458 
Dt;  SANCTORL.M  I3E\T1TL1D1?(E 
gcli  oraiU  pro  oiniiihiis,  el  nemo  pro  illis.  Sed 
ideo  iion  siml  medialores  eo  inodo,  quo  Clirislus, 
quia  ipsi  egenl  Chrisio,  per  quem  impelrenl  nobis 
a  Deo  bcncficia. 
Aij  lorliura  locum,  qui  esl  e\  epist.  Coloss.  di- 
co:  Ibi  aposloliun  damnare  haeresim  Siinonis  ma- 
p:i.  (lui  Pialonicos  soquulus.  docnit  qiiosdaui  aiise- 
los  adoramios  quasi  luinorcs  Doos.ijui  el  inuutluin 
fabricarunl,el  perproplielas  loquuli  sunl,iiec  posse 
ullura  placarc  suinmiim  Deum  qiii  iuvisibilis  est  , 
nisi  pcr  hos  ;mgeIos.Yidc  debac  baeresi  Inuiaeum 
l!b.l.cap.20.Tertullian.  in  lib.de  praes(;riplioue,ot 
i]piphaniuin  in  haercsi  Simonis.De  bac  idololalria, 
sive  magia  ,  qua  adoranlur  angeli  loco  Dei,  vel 
Ciirisli  ,  exponunl  bunc  locuin  omnes  interpre- 
les.  Joannes  Cbrysostomus  bom.  7.  in  epist.  ad 
Coloss.  Sunl  nonnulli,  inquil.  qai  dicunt.  non 
oporlere  per  Clirit>tum  reconciliari.el  ad  Patrein 
acceciere,  sed  per  angelos.  Proplerea  (  Paulus  ) 
sursum  ac  deorsum.  quac  de  Clirislo  sunt.  ver- 
.^at.  Ila  eliam  expunit  Oecumenius  el  Theopiiyla- 
ctus;  Ambrosius  in  hunc  iocum  piilat  eos  notari, 
qui  adorant  stellas. 
Ilieronymus  quaesl.  10.  ad  Algasiam  et  llHymo 
in  hunc  locum  docenl  reprebendi  eos,  qui  sacrifi- 
cabaut  angelis,  nec  ab  his  disseulil  Tbeodorelus, 
imrao  ipse  clarissime  oranium  docet  notari  jjic  Si- 
monianos.  qui  dicebant,  Deura  apprehendi  nun 
posse,  sed  per  angelos  esse  placandum,  et  ex  illo 
ipso  concilio,  quod  ipsc  cilat.apparel,  idololairiam 
esse,  quam  Paulus  reprehendil.  Sic  enim  ait  con- 
cilium  laodicenum  cap.  35.  Non  oporlet  Clirislia- 
nos  derelicta  Ecclesia  abire  et  ad  angelos  idolo- 
latriae  abominandae  congregationes  facere , 
quae  omnia  interdicla  sunt.  Quicumque  autem 
inventus  fuerit  occulte  huic  idololatriae  vocans, 
anathema  sit,  quoniani  derelinquens  Dominuni 
nostrum  Jesum  Christum  accessit  ad  idola.  Ubi, 
nt  vides,  concilium  non  damnat  qnamlibet  vene- 
ralionera  angelorum.sed  eara,quae  Deo  propria  est. 
Quod  vero  Tbeodorelus  dicit  de  oraloriis  s.  3Ii- 
chaelis  duobus  modis  potest  inlelligi.  Uno  modo, 
qnod  velil  dicere,  baereticos  aedilicasse  oraloria 
sancti  Michaeli.ut  eum  ibi  colerent  secundum  bae- 
resim  Simonis,  ei  sacrificando  etc.  Allero  modo, 
quod  significare  volueril,  terapla  ab  baereticis  ex- 
structa  ad  sacrificandum  malis  angelis,  esse  coii- 
versa  a  catholicis  in  oratoria  s.  Micbaelis,  et  ex 
multitudine  talium  locorum  colligi,  quara  multum 
liaeresis  Siraonis  ibi  olira  grassala  fuerit. 
Quod  enim  templa  idolorum  olim  conversa  sint 
in  basilicas  martyrum,  el  aliorum  sanctorum,  cer- 
lum  est  ex  ipso  Tbeodoreto  lib.  8.  de  raartyribus, 
et  adbuc  Romae  videtur  templum  oinnium  Deorum 
conversum  in  templum  oinniura  sanctorum,  et 
templum  Castoris  et  Pollucis,  in  lemplum  sancto- 
rura  Cosraae  et  Daraiani,  et  Gregorius  lib.  2.  dia- 
logoruni  cap.  8.  scribit  a  s.  Benedicto  conversum 
fuissc  fanum  .\pollinis  in  oratoriura  s.  iMarlini,  el 
ipse  b.  Gregorius  lib.  19.  epist.  71.  ad  Mellilura, 
praecipit  Auguslino  episcopo  Anglorum,  ut  fana 
idoloruin  non  destrual,  sed  aqua  benedicla  asper- 
gat,  et  reliquiis  sanctorura  ornet,  ac  deraura  in 
templa  Dei  veri  convcrtat. 
Argumentum  terliuin.  Sancti  jara  defuncli  non 
cognoscunl  vivenlium  preces.  igitur  frustra  invo- 
canlur.  Quod  aulem  sancti  non  cognoscaut  preces 
vivenlium,  bis  argumcnlis  probalur.  Priuio,  Scri- 
pliira  soli  Doo  Irihuil  scrulari  reues  et  corda,  et 
scire  cogilaliones  borainum  3.  Regura  8.  Tu  nosti 
solus  cor  omniuni  filiorum  hominum.  Secundo 
Jol»  li.  dicitur:  Sive  ncbiles  fuerintfdii  ejus,sive 
ignobiles,  non  intelliget.  Terlio  Ecclesiast.  9.  di- 
ciliir:  Vivenles  sciunl  se  moriluros,  morlui  vero 
niliit  noverunt  ampiius.  t^uarlo  ,  Isaiae  G3.  dici- 
lur.  Tu  es  enim  pater  noster,  et  Abraham  nesci- 
vit  nos.  Quinlo,  lib.  4.  Regum  cap.  22.  dicitur  Jo- 
siac,  rfgi  a  Deo:CoUigarn  te  ad  patres  tuos.ut  non 
videant  oculi  tui  omnia  mala,  quae  introduclu- 
rm  sumin  locum  istum.  Sexto  ,  b.  Augustiniis 
lib.  de  cura  pro  morUiis  cap.  13.  Si  parentes,  in- 
quit.  nonintersunt,  quisunt  alii  mortuoru>n,qui 
noverunt  quid  agamus,quidve  paliamur?  Jsaias 
propheta  dicil:  Abraham  nos  nescivit ,  et  Israel 
non  cognovit  nos.  Si  tanti  patriarcbae  quid  er- 
ga  populura  ex  ipsis  procrealura  agerelur  ,  i- 
gnoravcrunt  ,  qiioraodo  luorlui  vivorum  rebus,  at- 
que  aclibus  cognoscendis,  adjuvandisque  raiscen- 
lur? 
Ilera  Gregorius  nazianzenus  in  flne  oralionis  in 
Gorgoniain  sororein  suain:  Si  tibi,  inquit,  aliqua 
?i').s/ri  sermonis  est  ralio,  et  hoc  sanclis  animis  a 
Deo  niuiim,  ut  talia  resciscant,  suscipe  nostrum 
sermonein  multorum  epitaphiorum  loco.  Vides 
certo  Grcgorium  dubilasse,  au  saucli  cognoscant 
nosiiMs  preces.  Qualera  etiam  dubilalioneni  legi- 
mus  iu  Auguslino  lib.  de  vera  religione  cap.  5."». 
Quisquis.  inquit,  angetorumvel  hominum  di.U- 
gil  liunc  Deum,  certus  sum  quod  etiam  me  dili- 
gii:  Quisquis  iii  illo  maaet,  et  potest  humanas 
preces  sentire.  in  illo  me  exaudit.  Ubi  videtur 
dubilare,  utrura  omnes  sancli  possinl  huraanas 
preces  senlire. 
Similera  eliam  dubifalionem  legimus  in  Origene 
lib.  2.  in  epist.  ad  Romanos,  non  procul  a  princi- 
pio:  Si  extra  corpus.  inquit.  positi.vel  sancti  qui 
cum  Chrislo  sunt,  agunt  aliquid  et  laborant  pro 
nobis  ad  simililudinem  angelorum,  qui  salulis 
nostrae  ministeria  procurant,vet  rursum  pecca- 
tores  etiam  ipsi,  extra  corpus  positi,  agunt  uli- 
quid  secundum  propositum  mentis  suae,angelo- 
rum  nihilominus  ad  simititudinem  sinistrorum; 
habeatur  hoc  quoque  inter  occuUa  Dei,  neque 
chartulae  commiltenda  mysteria. 
Respondeo:  Hujus  argumenti  nec  bonam  esse 
cousequutionem,  nec  verum  id,  quod  assumilur. 
llaque  priraum  consequulio  negari  potest:Nara  cum 
eertura  sit  ex  tot  Palrura  tesliraoniis,  el  lot  mira- 
culis  a  Deo  ostensis,  eos  qui  invocant  sanctos, 
exaudiri  el  impelrare  quod  pelunt.  Certe  non  fru- 
slra  invocantur  sancli,  etiarasi  demus  eos  non  au- 
dire,  neque  cognoscere  noslras  preces,  nam  ali- 
quis  alius  eorum  vice  fungilur;  sicut  non  frustra 
supplicat  regi,  qui  certe  scit  regera  non  lecturum 
supplicationem,  sed  aliquem  alium  ex  aula  ejus, 
et  nibilominus  ita  se  impetralurum  quod  pelil,  ac 
si  rex  legisset  supplicalionem. 
Deinde,  non  est  verum  quod  assuinilur,  sanclos 
Liiii:i',  niiMH 
4SV 
i^'ii()i'iirti  (|iiiil  .ilt  illi'^  |»liiiiiii.s.  ^.iiii  «<M  (liililliilld     (11  11(111  \lil(i«-iil  l»ciiin.  :i«lliuf  poMrnl  v\*  rfvclnil 
cssd  ptissil,  (|ii(iiiiiiiliiii)(liim  (•o^.Miosc.iiiil  iiltMiiliii,     |»rcccs  iioHlnio  •Itiil  lilo  lii  lcrriH  ri!Vi:liiliiiMliir. 
cl  (|mi('.  solo  ronliH  iillVcln   iiilcrdiim  prolcriiiiliir;         Sctl  (Iicch:  (.hil.l    rc>|ioiMl'l»imuH  liacrclici'»  hc- 
liiiiicii  ccrliim  csl  ('os  co^.MiD.sccrc;  cmii.  til   tiMcn       ciiinjiim  li.iiic  iilliiii.tm  Hcnicnli.im.  si   pcliiiil.  tur 
(hiiiiis,  |ii.icsml  iidliis,  cl  rciiim   iiiislinrmii  (1011111     r.ili  iIhih  10  l^inlit»  iitm  icx  l.irciiiiir  prc<  r^  vnciili- 
^(•111111.  Kl  <'i'rlc  mclior  c.sl  li.icc  ruiiS(i()iiimliii:Siiii- 
cii  rccli^   iiivocaoliir,  cr;:(i  .sciiiiil   (|mil   |ii'l.mm>: 
(|iiimi  illii:  iioii  .^cimil  i|m(l  pcliimiis,  cr^Mi  iitm  rc- 
('{V  iiivocniitiir.  Naiii  iiiilcc(ul(nis  primi   iir^Mimciiii 
iiiihcliir  cx  ('oiisiMisii  loliiis  Mcclc.siiic:  iiiiIc(M'iIciis 
.sc(Mmili,  iioii  proliiiliir  iillo  .soliilo  riimliiiinMilo. 
|)(>  miiilo  iiiilcm,  (|m)  rii<^Mi(isciiiil,  (pinliior  siinl 
ilocloruia  sciilonliim;  (piidam  dic.iiiil  ciis  co^mio- 
S(M'rc  ('\  rcl.ilioiic.  iiii;/cl(irmii,  (pii  iiimc.  iid  coclo-. 
iisccmliiiil.  iimic  iudc  iid  iios  dcs(MMidiiiil.  Umiin 
ralioiicm  iiimiil  b.  .Vii^iistiiuis  lil).  di;  ('iirii  pro 
morliiis  ciip.  1."». 
.\lii  dicoiit:  Siiiictoriim  aiiiiiiiis.  siciil  cliam  iiii- 
{jclos,  mirii  (]midam  ccl(Miliil(^  luiliirac  (piodiiiiiiim- 
do  essc  ul)iiiuc,('t  \H\r  s(>.  audiri^  prcccs  siipplicini- 
liiim  qiiam  riilioniMu  vidcliir  liiihcrc,  1).  llKMoiiy- 
iiuis  in  lil).  conlra  Vi^jil.inlmm.  S(h1  iiciilra  csl  siil- 
iicicus,  nniii  iicipic  iiui^cli.  uc(pi(>  iiiiiuiiKi  licaliic. 
cliiuusi  priicsculcs  siiil.  possiml  (Mi^juosccrc  ualii- 
liililcr  prcct!s  luistriis.tpiaiulo  sohi  ccijiuiliouo  orii- 
luiis.  Kl  prael(M'o;i,  ad  cojruosc(Mi(las  prcctis.  (piae 
codciu  tcmporc  ruint  in  divcrsissimis  loris,  uoii 
sullicil  cclcriliis.  S(;d  rcipiirilur  vcra  iihiipiilas. 
(piam  ucc.  augclonim.uoc  liomiiuim  spirilibiis  coii- 
vcuirc  crcdiuius. 
Alii  diciinl:Sanctos  vidorc  iu  Dco  omuia  a  prin- 
cipio  suac  hcatiliuliuks,  (luiic  ad  ipsos  aliipio  luo- 
rio  pcrliucnl,  el  proiudo  oliam  orationes  nostriis 
lul  sc  dircctas.  llii  dooonl  h.  riregorius  lih.  12, 
nu>ralinin  cap.  \'.\.  cl  b.  Thoui.  W.  parl.  quacsl.lO. 
!irt.  2.  et  2.  2.  quaosl.  S3.  arl.  4.  el  C;ijclaiuis 
ibid.  estquc  probabilis  lioec  sculoulia. 
Alii  poslrcuio  dicuut:Sanctos  non  viderc  in  Vcr- 
1)0  oraliones  uo^lras  a  priucipio  suao  bealiUuliuis, 
scd  solum  luuc  rcvelari  eis  a  Dfio  oralioncs  110- 
slras,  quando  eas  l'undimus.  Sic  onim  propliclae, 
Deo  rcvolaulc,  co<];iU)Voniul  ruliirii,  el  inulli  san- 
clorum  bic  in  terris  donum  a  Dco  babuerunl,  quo 
cognosoereul  co^ilalioues  bouiinuui,et  facla  cliain 
occullissiina,  ul  dc  Siimuclc  1.  Ucguiu  9.  Jloni  de 
Klisnoo  narralur  lib.  i.  l»ogum  cap.  5.  el  dc  INdro 
Actor.  0.  et  idcni  do  s.  liouodiclo  scribil  b.  Gre- 
Ijorins  lib.  2.  dialog.  cup.  20.  VA  ideni  logiums  de 
s.  Beruardo,  Fraucisco,  aliisquc  pernmllis:  Quaii- 
iim.si  imiKr  riivtdiinliir  lii  coido?  Hc.HpoiidiM»:  rnlri 
hiis  111  ivmho  iiiiii  roissc  ordiniiric  rcvcl.iiiiui  rpiid 
blc  ii^!id».ihir,  qiiiii  noii  im.iiiI  bciili;  N.mi  iid  |.(Mtc.- 
cliiiii  liciitilmliiitMii  pcrliiict  Kcirfi  imi,  quu»  imI  h** 
ptMlinciil,  cl  pr.nMMpiic  (piiic  faciiinl  iid  li(iiM»r(Mti 
cl  ^hiriiim.  rr.icliMi-ii.tpii.i  siiiu  li  111  lymho  iioii  ihi 
t;crcbiiiil  (uriiiii  rcriim  iioslriiiiiui,  ncc,  criiiil  |iriii*- 
positi  Kc.clcsiui!,  iil  siincti  iii  cdcIo  Miiit,  iil  Mipni 
osltMidimiis,  cl  cx  divinis  liliMis   iiuinifcslc    thMJii- 
.\llllllS. 
i;\  his  iid  pnmiini  diro,  soliini  hciiin  cngnoscc- 
rc  co^Mliilioncs  oiiincs  (iimiium  cnrdium.idqiic  iia- 
luriililiM'  cl  propriii  virliilc:  S;iiiclos  aiih  111  soliiiii 
coj^uosocrc  cas,  qmit!  ii  Dco  ipsis  niiiiiircsliinliir, 
siv(!  bciililica  visiouc,  sivc  cliaiii  iiova  rcvclatio- 
nc. 
Ad  scciiiidiim  rcspondcl  (Ircgnrius  lib.  \2.  mo- 
riiliniii  c.  i;i.  cniii  locmn  cxponcns.  siiiiclo  Joh 
voluissc  diccro,  iiiiluiiililcr  noii  ooj^unsiMMC  dcluii- 
clos,  (piol  agiiiil  vivi,  siriit  ikm;  \ivi  cognoxMinl. 
qiiid  agaiil  morliii:  lanicn  s.inctos,  qiii  Dci  clnril.n- 
tc  fruuiilur,  omiii;i  iii  lico  vidcrc;  (piac  nimiriiin 
nd  cos  piMlmcnl. 
Ad  l(M'liiiin,  c.idcm  solntio  cst. 
Ad  quartiim,  llicroiiymus  in  cum  lorum  cxpo- 
nil  dc  ciigiiilitmo  ;ipprob;ilionis,  iil  sil  simisus;  A- 
brabnin  ncscivil  uos,  idcsl,  non  babcl  nos  prtj  li- 
liis,  noii  diligii  nos,  contcmnil  nos.  quia  inlclli- 
gitnos  n  lc  rcccssisso,  cl  li;ioc  vidclnr  lilcralis  c^- 
posilio.  Quia  lauieii  b.  Augusliuus  lil).  dc  curii  pro 
morliiis  ca|).  ]^.  cxpomt  tie  cognitione  propric  di- 
cla.  ideo  rcs[)onderi  elinin  potcst,  Abrnhnimim  ct 
Israclom,  et  alios  Palrcs  vcleris  Tcslnii.culi  noii 
coguovisse  poslcros  suos  vivcntes,  quiii  nondiiiii 
beali  crant,  et  naturalitcr  niortui  non  sciunl  quid 
vivcnlos  ngnnt. 
Ad  quiiiium,  eadem  solutio  est. 
Ad  scxtuin  dico:  Auguslinum  loqui  in  eo  capilc 
dc  cognilione  cl  couversiiliouc  iialurali,  id  ciuin 
soluiu  contcudil.  niorluos  non  versari  nobiscuin, 
nec  cssc  sollioilos  de  rcbus  nostris.  nec  ea.'  co- 
gnoscerc,  sicul  fnciebnnt.  cuiii  liic  vivcrenl.  Nain 
quod  supernaturalihT  diviuii  revolalionc  sciiuii. 
quHC  bic  agiinlur,  dooel  apcrle  ibid.  cap.  l.>.  Kl 
lo  mngis  crcdcudum  esl.  sanclos  in  coclo  hoc  do-  quod  divina   virlute  possinl  buc  venire,  el  nohis 
no  pollorc?  lincc  csl  operla  sculcntia  b.  Augusti-  opt^m  ferrc.  docet  ihid.  cnp.  IG.  ubi  sic  ;)it:  .Voa 
ni  lib.  dc  curn  pro  niortuis  cnp.  15.  igitur,  inquit,  ideo pulandum  est.  vivorum  robus 
■     Atquc  ex  his  duabus  prior  videtur  simpliciter  quoslibet  interesse  possedefunclos.quoniamqui- 
probabilior,  quia  si  indigorent  snncli  nova  revela-  busdam  sanandis.  vel  adjuvandis  martijres  ad- 
tionc.  Ecclesia  non  dicercl  ila  nudacler  oinnibus  sunl.  sed  ideo  potius  intelligendum  est.quud  pn' 
snnclis:  Orate  pro  nobis,  scd  pclerel  nliquando  a  divinam  potentiam  martyres  vivorum  rebus  in- 
Deo.  ul  eis  revclarcl  prcces  nostras.  Deiudc  non  tersint,  quoniam  defuncti  per  naturam  propri- 
possel  reddi  rnlio  tani  facile.  cur  sancli  nunc  in-  am  rebus  interesse  non  jjossunt. 
voccnlur:  cl  anle  advenlum  Chrisli  non  invocaren-  Dices:  Augustinus  putabal,   malrem  suam  bea- 
tur.  Tamen  posterior  senlentia  esl  magis  idonea  lara  esse,  ut  ipse  dicil  de  cura  pro  raorluis  cap. 
ad  convincendos  hacrelioos;  rationem  enira  supe-  13.  el  tnmen  ibidem  probat,  morluos  non  scirc 
riorem  Calvinistae  non  rccipiunt,  quippe  qui  pu-  quid  agamus,  quia  maler  sua  numquam  nd  conso- 
tanl  sanclos  non  videre  Deum  anle  diem  judicii,  landum  veniebat.  Respondeo:  Sanclos  coguosce- 
lianc  autem  rcjicere  non  possunl;nam  eliamsi  saii-  re  preces  noslrus.  el  posse  ad  nos  venire  quondo 
4C() 
Dl^  SANCTORUM  BEAHTLDIiM'] 
voliinl;  tamen  non  proplorca  scirc  omnia  noslra, 
nec  inleresse  nssidne  rel)us  noslris,  rnore  liuma- 
no,  ut  Auguslinus  co  loco  probal  exemplo  malris 
suac. 
A.(l  looum  iSjzianzeni  dico,  illud  (  Si )  non  esse 
dubilanlis,  scd  allinuantis,  ul  cuni  (iicil  aposlolus 
ail  iMnlciuoiicm:  Si  habes  mo  sociiiin,  suscipe  il- 
lum;  i\am  Groijorius  nazianz,  passim  asscril,  s;ni- 
clos  vidcrc  quod  bic  agalur,  ul  oralionc  in  Allia- 
nasiuin:  Ab  allo,  inquil,  recte  novi,  rcs  inspicii 
'uoslras,  maiiumque  porrigil  iis,  qui  laboranl 
2>i'o  bono,  el  taiUo  amplius,  quanto  majis  avin- 
culis  est  Uberalus. 
iVil  allerum  locum  b.  Auguslini  dico:  Eura  re- 
clissime  dicere:  Quisquis  in  iilo  manet,  el  potest 
humanas  prcces  «//t/,tre.quia  mulli  mancnt  in  Dco 
qui  non  possun  t  humanas  preces  audire,  vidcli- 
ccl  illi  omncs,  qui  sunlin  cbarilatc,et  tamcn  non- 
dum  sunl  beali,  uam  omnis  qui  mancl  in  cbarita- 
te,  in  Dco  manct,!.  Joan.  4.  ct  lamen  non  oranis, 
qni  manct  in  cliarilalc,  jam  est  in  coclo  bcatus. 
Ad  locum  Oi'igenis  dico:  Eum  ibi  agere  de  nalu- 
rali  conversalionc  cl  nolitia;  non  enim  ambigit,an 
saiuui  vidcanl  (luid  ngamus,  ct  nos  juvcnl  oralio- 
nibus  suis,  quo(J  disertis  verbis  docet  iib.  8.  con- 
tra  Celsum  circa  linem,  et  liom.  26.  in  lib.  l\umc- 
ri,  et  bom  IG.  in  Josue,  et  alibi,  sed  solum,  utrum 
saui  li  bominum  spirilus,  sicut  angcli  el  dacfno- 
ncs,  qui  vere  sempcr  nobis  adsuni,  iili  ut  ad  bo- 
nnm.  isti  ul  ad  malum  pelrabanl,  ncbiscum  assi- 
due  verscnlur. 
Argumenlum  quarlum.  Dcus  paralissimus  esl 
nos  audire,  el  magis  nos  diligil  quara  ullas  san- 
cloruni,  ergo  frustra  invocanlur  sancti,  immo  si- 
gnnm  dillidentiae  est,  sanclos  invocarc,  ait  enim 
Dominus  Luc.  11.  Pelile,  et  accipielis.  YA  Joan. 
1(>.  Si  quid  paiierilis  Patreiii  in  nomine  meo.da- 
!)it  vobis.  Et  Paulus  ad  Ilcbraeos  4.  Acccdamus 
cum  jiducia  ad  thronum  gratiae  ejus.  Praclerea 
Joaimcs  cbrysoslomus  in  hom.  dc  profcctu  evan- 
g«.'lii  tom.  3.  sic  aii:  Orium,  inquit,  non  opus  li- 
bi  patronis  apud  Deuni,  neque  mullo  discursu, 
ut  blandiarc  aliis,  sed  iicet  solus  sis.palronQque 
carcas,  et  per  lemetipsuui  Dcum  preceris,  omni- 
no  iamen  voti  compos  eris;  neque  enim  ta.m  fa- 
cile  Deus  annuit,  cum  alii  pro  nobis  orant,  ut 
cum  ipsimet  oramus,  eiiamsi  j)Uirimis  jAeni  si- 
mus  malis.  Idcm  liabel  praelalmne  in  psal.  4. 
Rcspondeo:  Nihil  ex  boc  argumento  co!ligi,alio- 
(lui  enim  cliam  frustra  ct  ex  (Jifiidenlia  pclcremus 
preces  vivcntium;  ct  prcctcrea  licet  Dcus  sil  para- 
lus  audire,  et  magis  nos  diligat,  quam  ullus  san- 
clornm,  tamcn  magis  paralus  csl  audire  sanclos, 
([uain  nos,  et  magis  diligil  sanctos,  quam  nos, 
([iiia  oralio,  ut  impelret,  requirit  disposilionem  in 
oranle.  quam  non  habcraus  semper;  ideo  ulilius 
cst.  ul  ad  Dcnm  cum  sanclis  eamus,  quam  s(jii. 
Und(!  Job.  ullimo  dicil  Dcus:  Ite  ad  servum  rno- 
um  Job,  ut  orctpro  vobis.  Et  Gcn.  20.  Abimelccb 
nonnisi  pcr  Abrabae  prcccs  a  Deo  sanari  potuil. 
Et  Ezcch.  20.  Dcus  ipsc  quacrcbat  virnm,  qui  op- 
ponercl  se  iraeipsius;  volcbat  enim  ignosccre  po- 
pnlo,  scd  pcr  sancti  alicujns  prcces.  Dcnique, 
(luis  nescil  praedcslinationcm  ipsam  jtivari  preci- 
bus  sanctorum,  quod  slalucril  Dcus  uli  sanctorum 
precibus,  ad  salnlcm  alicujos  cxequendam. 
Ad  loca  Scnptnrae  dico:  Essc  impertincntia; 
ncc  enin)  cnm  oramus  sanctos,  lunc  nihil  a  Deo 
pctimiis,  vcl  non  pctimns  eum  fiducia;  ininm  con- 
Ira:  idco  sancturum  proccs  imploramus,  ul  majori 
cumliduciaad  Dimm  accedere  possimus,  et  faci- 
lius  impelremus,  quod  pclimus. 
Ad  locum  Chrysostomi  dico:  In  primis  eum  lo- 
qui  dc  iis,  qui  preccs  nmrlalinm  imploranl,non  de 
iis,  qui  sanctos  cum  Clirislo  rcgnantes  invocant, 
ul  patcl  ex  illis  verbis:  iVo7i  est  opus  mullo  dis- 
cursu.  ut  blandiare  aliis  etc.  Dico  practerca. 
cum  reprehcndcrc  illos,  qui  pro  si;  non  oranl.scd 
lantum  aliorum  orationes  pelunt,  ul  faciunt  mulli 
divitcs.  qu!  nolunt  liiborare  in  oratione,  et  idcirco 
solum  largiuntnr  clecmosynas  paupcribus,  ut  o- 
rcnt  pro  se:  quibus  mcnto  anlC[)onit  cos  qui  pro 
sc  orant.  etiamsi  aliorum  oraliones  haberc  forte 
non  possint.  (Jnibiis  lamcn  utrisque  tmleponendi 
illi,  qui  ct  pro  se  oranl,  et  siranl  aiiorum  preces 
implorant,  ul  ipse  ideni  Clirysostomus  passim  do- 
cel,  ut  hom.  .'>.  in  Mallh.  Non  igitur.  inquit,  qua- 
si  oscitantes  et  desides  et  aliorum  meriiis  pende- 
amus.Jiabent  cniin  vim  pro  iiobis  et  quidem  ma- 
xiinam,  oraiiones,  supp>licaiionesque  samclorum 
sed  tunc  profeclo,  cwn  nos  quoque  idipsuin  per 
poeniteyitiam  postulamus.  Et  hom.  1,  in  priorem 
episl.  ad  Thcssalon.  Quidmihi  opus  est,  iiiquit. 
alioruin  precibus.  quando  ipse  sedulus  fuero? 
numquam  hoc  dixc.ris  komo  necesse  est  et  multa 
prece  necesse  est.  Et  infra:  His  iiaque  cognitis, 
nec  sanciorum  preces  conternnamus,  neque  lo- 
tumin  illas  projiciamus  etc.  Vidc  etiam  homil. 
8.  in  Matlh.  el  homil.  43.  in  Gencsim. 
Arguraenlum  qnintum.  (,)uis  sil  invocandus, 
Chrislus  verbo  et  cxeraplo  nos  docuit:  Nam  Matth. 
6.  cl  Lucae  11.  Oranles,  inqoit,  dicile,  Paler  no- 
sier  qui  es  in  coetis,  ipse  etiam  Ciirislus  aliquoti- 
es  !*alrem  ci)m|)ellat.Joan.  12.  Paler  clarificame, 
Joan.  17.  Pater.  venit  hora  etc.  Non  igiiur  angcli, 
vel  horaines  mortui  invocandi  sunt,  ila  colligunt 
Jlagdeburgcnses  Cent.  1.  lib.  1.  cap.  4.  colum. 
139. 
Respondco:  Oralionem  dominicam  ad  solnm  Pa- 
Ircra  referri  volunt  idem  Miigdcburgenses  ibidera. 
Sic  enira  hiibenl:  D'on  angetuiii,veipalriarcham, 
nutprophelam  mortuuin,  sed  Patrcm  tantumju- 
betinvocari.  Quaero  igilur,Iicealne  Filium  et  Spi- 
riluin  sanctum  invocare,  an  non?  Hespondcbunt, 
liccrc.  Sic  cnim  infra  docent:  Quod  etiam  Filius 
possit  ac  debeatinvocari,  exempla  docent.  Et  in- 
ka:Spirilum  sanctum  quoque  posse  oc  debere  in- 
vocari,  vel  ex  baptismi  verbis  colligipotest:  llaec 
illi. 
Non  igilur  concludil  illud  argumentum;Chrislus 
vcrbo  el  exemplo  solum  Patrem  invocari  docuil  . 
ergo  sancti  homines,  aut  angcli  invocaudi  non 
sunt.  Nam  si  boc  concluderel,  concluderet  eliam 
illud:  Chrislus  verbo  et  exemplo  soluin  Patrcm  in- 
Yocari  docuit,  ergo  Filius  Dci  et  Spiritus  sanctus 
invoeandi  non  sunt. 
Addo  practerea,  Chrislum  cum  apostolos  docnit 
orare,  non  de  eo,  qui  orandus  esl,  sed  de  iis  rc- 
.iiii:u  riii.Mi  s 
461 
))n><,  (|ii;i(!  pclciKJiu»  suiil.  inliiKtiKMc  vnluKso  lliHCi- 
|||||(IS.   SllllS  (1IIIIII  (-(lll^llllcil.   hciMII  *'y>i'  imiiikIiiiii, 
i<l  sdliiiii  cliiiiii  UiMiiii,  riiiii  iiiiiior  iliiiini  iiiii  (|iiiii9- 
nliii':  s(>(l  ili'  iiKiilo  (iiiiiKli,  sivo  dii  iicltMidls  i-c|i(ii 
;i|)ii.sliili  iiiiilii^M>liiiii(,   (nnii  ilii-(;rfril  l.in-.  II.  Ihn-n 
ArKiiiiiiMiliiiii  scNliiiii.  iNiiliiiiii  c.vsliil  Si'ri|iiiirii() 
iiiiiikIiiIiiiii,  v(*I  i;n(;iii|i1iiiii,  vi>I  priiiiiissio  ilc  iiivo- 
ciilioiin  siiiiclonim  :  iioii  i;'iliir  s.mcli  liivoiimili 
Miiil.  lla  colli^iil  Coiilcssio  .\iinii;.iiiiiii  iirlic.  12.  cl 
(iiiiMcs  iilii  lioc  tirgtmiciilo  iili  solciil. 
Itcspoiiilco  :  Si  Ikk;  iir^Mimciiliim  coiicUKU-rcl  , 
clllccrcl  cliiiin,  siiiiclos  iioii  oniK;  pro  KciU-siii.ncc 
III  (.<ciicr(;,  nci;  iii  piii'iiciiliiri.()iio(l  iiiiiicii  iipolo^mi 
<;oiili;ssloiiis  Aii;;iisliiiiii(!  iipcrli;  conccilil.Sii;  (!iiiiii 
li'i]Uil'n-:  l)i' sdiirliH,  vlsi  vttiiccdiiiuts.  <iuiiil  siciil 
rivioiinilpro  Kcclcsia  uniccrtiii  tu  (/c/ic/c  .  ild 
in  codis  orcnl  pro  Ecclcsia  in  (/«/tc/v.  tainclt>i  tc- 
sliiiitiiiiiiiii  niiHiun  »/c  nutrliiis  tiraiiHhiin  c.rstal 
in  Scriiilurti.prticicr  illinl  soiiiniain  sniiipluin  c.j; 
//7»n»  flachahactintin  poslcriorc.  Ilucc  npolojiUi. 
Itcimlc,  (pioil  iiil  in:iml;iliiin  ;illmcl,  nnlUiin  ccr- 
ic  m;m(l;iliini  rcipiirilnr  ,  (jiiiimki  ipsa  ncicssiliis 
nos  iiiipcllil.l']\(;iii|»l;i  plnrim.i  sunl  in  lUruipKJ  To- 
sliunciiio.  ul  snprii  (liMiionslriivimns.  Proinissiodc- 
niipic  mimnu^  dcsidcinlur.  cniu  iiinunicr;iliili;i  si- 
{^iiii  cl  proili^iii  !id  invoc.ilioiicm  simctonmi  liicl.i 
Siilis  icslonlnr,  l)e(nn  iindin;  (;os,  (pii  sanciorum 
piilrocimii  ;id  impclriindnin  iiliipiidii  J)co  iidliibcMl. 
Ou;imqu;im  in  liliroJol)  c;ip.  ull.  piirliculjro  iiiijn- 
(Uiluin.  cxcmpluin.  ol  |)roiuissioncm  li;ibc;iinus  c.\ 
(inilnis  (io  lolo  {^enoro  invociilionis  judic;iri  poiosl: 
llc  atl  scrntni  mcuin  Joh:  en  nKimhilmn:  ct  orti- 
bilpro  vohis:  cn  cxenipluin:  cl  ctjo  suscipianifa- 
cienicjus,  ul  nonvobis  iuipulct.ur  siuUiUa;  cu 
proinissio. 
.\l,  iiuiuinnl.  Jub  cyi\[  vivus  cl  precsens.  s;iiicli 
vcro  morUii  sunlelabsenU>s.Sed  non  iia  csl;Sancli 
enim  nuiic  ina.xinic  vi\iuU  ca  p;irlc  sui  ,  (luii  pre- 
ces  audirc.  el  pro  supplicibus  inlerpeiliin!  Dcum 
])ussunl.  iNcc  sunl  absculcs,  quoad  e\;iudilioueiii  , 
ilcclloco  abseulcs  vidcanlur,  nlsupra  salis  prob;i- 
luni  csi.  El  palel  de  an^zelis  ex  ilio  psal.  \M.  lii 
conspcclu  antjcloruin  psallain  tihi.  tll  l.  Coriiilli. 
4.  Spcclaculuni  facti  sunius  mundo  .  angalis  et 
lioniinihus.  Dc  saiiclis  ilcni  lioininibus  palcl  ex 
Apocalyp.  cap.  11.  el  19.  ubi  describunlur  saucli 
in  eoclo  videnles  ea,  quac  Jiuulin  lerra.  Undo  Ba- 
silius  in  lib.  dc  virginilale  ante  inedium:ijeic/'ett- 
//(/'.  inquil,  ipsuni  sponsuin  iihique  praasentcm  , 
et  liujus  Patrcm  ac  sancluin  Spirituin  ,  ct  quid 
sinoula  dico?  Anfjeloruni  innumerabilem  mulli- 
tudineni.  et  cuni  liis  Patruni  sanctos  spiritus: 
nullus  cniin  lioruin  est  qui  non  ubiquc  omnia 
videat.  El  Gregorius  lib.  12.  moralium  cap.  12. 
Quac  animae  intus  claritatem  omnipotenlis  Dei 
ccniunt.  nullo  inodo  credendum  cst,  quia  foris 
sit  aliquid  quod  itjnorent. 
Arj^uinenlum  Scpliuiuin.  !\emo  audet  causidici 
pjrUbus  iipud  lerreiiuin  principeui  luugi  ,  nisi  a 
pnucipe  ipso  adniissus:  inde  ergo  vcrmibus:  in- 
quil  Calvinus  lib.  3.  Inslil.  ca|).  20.  §  23.  tanta  li- 
r.cnlia.  u.f  Deo  palronos  obtrudant,  quihus  mu- 
>ius  injunclum  non  leijHur  ? 
Hi.i.f..vr.Ki.M.  Vol.  11. 
H">poiiiliM):  iNoii  raoiiiiui  «nncloK  t-iin 
VC   pllllnlp  '   UlC  III   ll  I 
IIS   Ipll   Jin        .   ,       ....    :  !'l        'iC    ■:    '   • 
iKiii  iiii!)i!ricordiiiiii  H(ul  |i> 
II  II'  lil  iidlKitll  I  1  iiliiiiiliii 
Silll>  >.^    >iiU>l    !iullilll     II i^.    'i.io.l    lltC    III     ll  I     11   >ii- 
liiicrc.  ^olciniit  iiiiiicis  ct  r.iiiiiliiirilius  priiicipuoi  , 
(pii  siiopi!  pro  nii.scrlH  liili-i.^cdiiiil,  ncc  iill.i  iiovu 
liin  I'  1  id  l.icicmlmii  i  ^m-hi. 
S  .,  iiliiin  o(  laviim.  .Mulii  iiivocuiilur.ipii  noii 
iiiodo  iion  Miiiidi ,  HCd  iicu  lioiiiincs  fuciiinl.  ut 
Ciiri.sloplioru.s,  Gf(ir^'iuii,  (iiiiliariiiii:  sn;  ' 
i^^iliir  iiiVoiiilio  csl.    Iia    r.ilKx  in.iiur  1'!....,  , -i 
Apolo;;.  iirl.  21.  Cuiiross.  .AuhMisl.iiiiic ,  i*l  (jidviiin;! 
III  lib.  (!'!  riilioiK!  \crii(!  reforin.ilionis  Ecclcsiac, 
nbi  eliani  |iro  solilii  sna  mod(.'siiu  s.  DiuiiiiiK  uiii  . 
c.iriiili(;(!in,  s.  .M(;dardoni  ct  (piosd.nn  iilius  ,  bc- 
stias;  sanclos  voro  ^ciici-ulim,  inoiislra  uppcllal. 
Ilcspimdco:  Saiictoriim  qnorumdiini  liislorias  a- 
pocryplias  ()uidi'm  cl  inci;rl;is  cssc  :  noit  luiiicit 
pruplerca  suiiclos  ip.^os  luiiiKpiaiii  fuissc'.  IVuiii  hi 
si  ilii  iirKumeniari  licci  :  pU^rKpn;  n|)osto!i  intcr 
s;i!i(;los  iiuuK;riiri  iion  poterunl.nutii  liidloriucipum 
i(;ruiilur  vd  e.v  Abdi;i,  vel  e.\  nliis  ,  ul  pluriniuiii 
iioii  snnl  prursus  indiibiliilui;.  liabeinus  quidcin  iii 
cv;in},'i'lii)  vociiUoncin  iipostolorntu.  (!l  |)auca  (pia(;- 
diim  c\  vita  ipsoniin.nocnon  iclicctn  dormiiioneni. 
s.  Jiicobi  majoris,  Acl.  ll.cls.  Cctri  prucdiciuiii 
luortcin  };loiios;iiii  ;i  Domiuo,  Joiinuis  21.  Al  alio- 
I  uin  apo:itoloruin  liiiem  cx  divinis  liuiris  iion  liiibc- 
mus.  Ouocirca  Gelasius  p.ipa,  canoue,  Sancia  Ko- 
iiiana  (Jisl.  l.>.  bisloriain  s.  Georgii  inler  upocry- 
pliiis  nuineriil,  cl  lauicn  s;mclu.ii  ipsmn  Gcorgiuui 
colemluin  csso  aninnal,  ([uiu  elsi  a[)ocryplia  erat 
bisloria,  quac  lunc  cxslab;il.non  tamen  apocrypba 
esl  consueludo  uiiivorsalis  Ecclcsiae,  quii  semper 
Gcorjiii,  Cbrislopbori  cl  Calbarinao  nicinoria  cclc- 
berrima  fuit. 
Addc  praelcrca,  quod  si  apocrypbae  sunl  bisto- 
riao  Iriuui  vel  qualuor  sanclorum.  iniiumerabiliuni 
aliorum  ccrtissimae  iitque  indubitalae  sunt;  quo- 
ruuKtim  ctiam  sanclilas  et  gloria  in  ipsis  divinis 
bieris  i^raedicalur,  ut  Mariac,  Joannis  Biiplislae  , 
Pclri,  StcpUani,  ct  aliorum.  Quocirca  si  idco  iio- 
lunt  udversarii  Georgium,  Chrislopborumj  aul  Ca- 
l!i;irinam  colcro  ,  quod  eorum  bisloiiae  incertuii 
siiil,  cur  M.iriam,  Joanncm,  Slepbaimm,  Polrum  , 
Jacobum,  non  colunl  .  quorum  hislorias  negare 
non  possuul?  Cur  eliam  in  suis  ipsi  calendariis 
oos  ponunt,  quos  perditissimos  homincs  fuisse  , 
iiUcrduin  eliam  divcrsac  religionisa  sua,  f;ileri  co- 
gerenlur,  si  ad  rem  allendere  paulo  diligenlius 
ve]lent,dc  qua  re  vide  dialogum  sextum  Alani  Co- 
pi  angli. 
Argumenlum  nonum.Si  sanclorum  invocatio  su- 
pcrsltlione  et  etbaica  iraitaUone  carerel:  cerle  non 
pelcrelur  ab  uno  sancto  unum.  ab  alio  aliud.  cu;n 
Dcus  unus  sil  auclor  ouinium  donoruui.  el  lis  ae- 
que  possit  per  intcrcessionem  unius,  ac  per  inler- 
cessioncm  allerius  quodlibel  concedere:  atcaibo- 
lici  unum  iuvocanl  conlra  pestem  .  alium  conlra 
oculorum  dolorem,a'ium  contra  dolurem  deulium. 
Rcspondeo:  IIoc  argumentuin  passim  inculcant 
Madgdeburgeuses,  Culvinus,  clalii,  scd  antiquaia 
4G2 
DE  SAKCTORUM  HEATITUDINE 
renovanlqiierimoniam  Juliani  apostalae  apud  Cy- 
rillum  lib.  G.  in  Julianum;  Manichaeorum  ,  apud 
Auguslinum  lib.  3  conlra  Fauslum  cap.  4.  el  Vigi- 
laniii  apudllieronymumlib.  in  Vigilanlium.  Omnes 
enira  isli  querunlur  quod  verlerimus  idola  in  mar- 
tyres,  el  eos  similibus  volis  colanms;  quod  argu- 
mcntumesl,  majores  noslros  esseCyrillum,  Augu- 
slinum  ,  Hieronymum  ,  el  reliquam  Ecclesiam  , 
quaa  cum  illis  comraunicabal:  raajores  aulem  Cal- 
vini  et  Magdeburgensium  essc  Julianum  aposta- 
tam.  Fauslum  Manichaeum,  Vigilantium,  ac  caele- 
ros  aposlalas,  vel  haerclicos,  qui  cum  eis  commu- 
nicabant. 
Sedut  ad  rem  propius  accedam,  dico:  Deum 
posse,  si  voluerit,  per  quemiibet  sanclorum  omnia 
concedere,  el  sine  sanclis  ciiara  mulla,  vel  onmia 
dare:  inlerdum  taraen  vehe  unius  inlercessione  , 
miraculum  aliquod  operari;  aliud  vero  inlercessio- 
ne  altcrius  operari.Quisaulem  novit  consiiiuniDei; 
aut  quis  ei  dicere  potest,  cur  ila  facis?  Sicul  eliam 
per  uniira  operalur  Deus  muila  miracula  ,  et  per 
allerurn  forlasse  majorera  nulla,cujus  rei  caussam 
solus  ipse  novit,  ulb.  Auguslinus  docetin  epislol. 
137.  ad  clerura  et  populum  Hipponens.  Vbique 
quideni.  inquit,  Deus  est,  et  nuUo  conlinelur  vel 
incladilur  loco,qui  condidit  omnia.  Yerumta- 
vien  quis  polestejus  consilium  perscrutari,quare 
in  aliis  locis  haec  miracula  fiant ,  in  aliis  non 
fiant?  Mullis  enim  notissima  est  sanctitas  loci , 
ubi  b.  Felicis  nolensis  corpus  conditum  est,  quo 
volui  ut  pergerent  {duo  clerici)  quia  inde  nobis 
facilius,fideliusque  scribi  polest.quidquid  in  eo- 
Tum  aliquo  divinitus  fuerit  propalaium.  I\'um- 
quid  non  et  Africa  sanctorum  marUjrum  corpo- 
ribus  plcna  est?  et  lamen  nusquam  hic  scimus 
talia  ficri.  Sicut  enim  dicit  aposlolus  (l.Corinlh. 
12.),no/i  omnes  sancti  habent  dona  curationum: 
ila  ?iec  in  omnibus  memoriis  sanctorumista  fieri 
voluit  illc ,  qui  dividit  propria  unicuique  sicul 
vult.  His  accediit,  quod  elsi  quidam  sancli  aliquo 
genere  miraculi  inlcrdurn  magis  clurent ,  quam 
alii,lamen  ab  omnibus  omnia  pelimus,nec  pulamus 
ila  ab  uno  unum  esse  pelendum.  ut  non  eliam  exi- 
sliraemus  allerius  inlercessione  oblincri  posse. 
Argumenlum  Decimum.  Sancli  in  coelo  nihil  si- 
bimcreri,  vel  impelrare  possunt,ergo  inullo  minus 
allis.  Respondeo:  Sonclos  non  posse  raereri,  nec 
sibi,  nccaliis;  lamen  ex  raeritis  praecedentibus 
posse  impetrare  el  sibi  el  aliis,id  quod  orando  pe- 
tunt,  pelunl  enim  sibi  gloriam  corporis,  nobis  au- 
tem.omnia,  quibus  indigemus. 
Sed  objicies:  Jara  praeraium  acceperunl  merilo- 
rum  suorura,  ergo  nihil  amplius  eis  debelur.  Re- 
spondeo:  Eos  quidem  accepisse  praemium.scd  ad 
praemium  eorum  hoc  eliam  perlinerc,  ut  semper 
sinl  amici  Dei,  et  ulamici  impetrenl  a  Deo.  quid- 
quid  ab  illo  pelunt.  Sicul  eliam  hic  in  terris,  si  a- 
liquis,  qui  diu  mililavit,  regi,  orania  stipendia  sua 
acceperit,  poteril  lamen  pro  aliis  supplicare,  et  ju- 
re  araiciliacoblinebit  raullofaciliusquam  alius,qui 
numquam  regi  servivit.
← Chapter 19The Bellarmine Translation →