Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book II: On the Relics and Images of the Saints
Chapter 1: The Arguments against the Cult of Relics Are Set Out
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia quae Triumphat in Coelis, the fourth general controversy. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Chapter 1. The Arguments against the Cult of Relics Are Set Out
We have treated in the former book of the glory and cult of the saints; now we must dispute of the veneration of the things that belong to them, that is, of the holy relics and of images. And to begin with the relics: the first to begin to find fault with the cult of the holy relics was Eunomius, and after him Vigilantius, if we believe blessed Jerome in the book against Vigilantius. Nor is it against this that a little below in the same place the same Jerome says that this heresy broke out long ago against the Church, and that against it was written the book of Tertullian which is called Scorpiace; nor again that in the letter to Riparius he traces the origin of this heresy back to the Jews and Samaritans. For in truth the first author who asserted it expressly was Eunomius. For the Gnostics, against whom Tertullian writes his Scorpiace, only denied that martyrdom was to be suffered; from which, however, it could be deduced that the bodies of the martyrs are not to be honoured, though they did not say so expressly. And the Jews and Samaritans believe that all dead bodies are unclean; yet they dispute nothing in particular about the bodies of the saints.
After Vigilantius the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, as Suidas writes in his life, ordered all relics everywhere to be destroyed. That Claudius of Turin laboured under the same heresy Jonas writes, book 1 On the Cult of Images. That the same pleased the Wycliffites too, Thomas Waldensis is the author, volume 3, title 14.
Lastly, the Lutherans and Calvinists have stirred up the same in this time. For Luther, in the sermon on the cross, judges that relics, as feigned seductions, ought to be hidden deep under the earth. Following him the Magdeburgers again and again find fault with the cult of relics, but especially in Century 4, chapter 6, column [456?]. Calvin does the same in the book On the Necessity of Reforming the Church, and in the Admonition on Relics.
The arguments of the Wycliffites were two. First, because in Matthew 23 the Jews are rebuked by the Lord for adorning the tombs of the prophets. Second, because in the tombs which are called the saints' there are neither the souls nor the bodies of the saints, but only ashes.
To these Calvin adds five others in the Admonition on Relics. First, because God hid the body of Moses, as is had in Deuteronomy, the last chapter; and the cause is given by all, lest the Jews should adore it. Hence too we read in the epistle of Jude that the devil contended with Michael the archangel about the body of Moses; because, namely, the devil wished to make it known, to give the Jews occasion to adore it.
Second, because Paul, 2 Corinthians 5, says that after the resurrection of Christ he does not know Christ according to the flesh; by which words he warns that whatever was fleshly in Christ is to be given over to forgetfulness and let go, that we may put all our zeal into seeking and possessing him according to the spirit.
Third, because the same Paul, Colossians 2, condemns all self-chosen worship, that is, worship not instituted by God, which he calls in Greek ethelothrēskia, as folly, even if it seems to have a show of wisdom. But surely the cult of relics is not instituted by the Lord, but is voluntary and devised by men.
Fourth, because the desire of relics is never without superstition; nay, it is the mother of idolatry. For they cannot be had or handled without veneration following at once; and to veneration no measure is set, so that at once the honour owed to Christ is given to them. Which experience testifies; for as a sign of solemn adoration candles are now lit everywhere before the tombs of the martyrs. And it is confirmed; for Jerome, when Vigilantius objected that it is idolatry to light candles before relics, could answer nothing else than that only silly women do it, who have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. We can add the Council of Elvira, canon 34, where it is said that the spirits of the saints are disturbed by such candles; and Augustine, who in the book On the Morals of the Church, chapter 34, finds fault with the adorers of tombs.
Fifth, because the greatest part of the relics is counterfeit, and it often happens that in place of relics of the saints we venerate the bones of robbers, or even of dogs or asses. Which he proves, first, because Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks, chapter 28, when he had said that certain monks carried about and sold the limbs of martyrs, adds: “if indeed of martyrs.” For if impostures had already begun then, what is to be believed is done now? Then, because so many relics of the same kind are found that either the same saint must have had many bodies, or many relics are false. So he; all which arguments will be refuted in chapter 4.
Further, the Calvinists, wherever they can, burn the relics of the saints and throw the ashes into the river. And it is to be noted indeed that in the year 1562 the bodies of Saints Irenaeus, Hilary and Martin were dug up by the Calvinists, burnt, and thrown into the running stream, as Surius reports; which the heathens had done in the same place to the bodies of other saints fourteen hundred years before. For, as Eusebius writes, book 5 of the History, chapter [1?], the heathens threw the relics of the martyrs, consumed by fire, into the Rhone. So that from this we may understand how great is the kinship of the Calvinists with the heathens in sacrilege and faithlessness. And what the Calvinists do with steel and flames, the Magdeburgers do with impostures, lies and frauds; some of which we have thought fit to note here briefly.
Chapter 2. The Lies of the Centuriators Are Exposed
In the first place, then, the Magdeburgers dispute wonderfully of the origin of the veneration and cult of relics. For in Century 6, in the preface itself, they say that in that age, namely after the year of the Lord 500, the cult of relics began, on the occasion of the churches which were then being built at huge cost. Yet the same, Century 5, chapter 7, column 744, say that the cult of relics began in the fifth age itself, that is, before the year 500. It is not true, then, what they say in the preface to Century 6. Further, the same authors, Century 4, chapter 6, column [450?], and chapter 13, column 1446, say that in the former ages, that is, up to the year 300, nothing is had in approved authors of the veneration and translation of relics, but that this superstition began in the fourth age, when by order of Julian the apostate the relics of St. Babylas were translated; which translation was made with the greatest solemnity about the year of the Lord [363?]. For at that time Julian reigned, as St. Jerome testifies in the Chronicle. It is not true, then, what the Magdeburgers wrote in Centuries 5 and 6.
But neither is what they say in this Century 4 true. For in the addition to the first Century, in the life of St. Luke, the same Centuriators admit that before the times of Julian the relics of St. Andrew and St. Luke were translated with the greatest honour to Constantinople by the Emperor Constantine, as blessed Jerome testifies in the book against Vigilantius.
Besides, in Century 2, chapter 3, column 31 and following, they report word for word from the History of Eusebius, book 4, chapter 15, the letter of the church of Smyrna on the martyrdom of Polycarp; in which letter it is told that, when the Christians desired the relics of the martyr and the Jews resisted most stubbornly, the heathen judge willed that the body, set in the midst, be burned to ashes; and that then the Christians gathered those relics with incredible eagerness, “as though they were” (says the letter) “more precious than the most precious stones, and more tried than the most tried gold.” And that those relics were gathered by the Christians for cult is plain both from the words cited and from the contention of the adversaries. For the Jews and heathens resisted lest the relics should be carried off under the pretext of piety; for they thought that the bodies were adored by the Christians, as Eusebius testifies in the same place. It is not true, then, what they said in Century 4.
But neither did the honour of relics begin then. For blessed Gregory, book 3, letter 30, writes that at the very time when Peter and Paul suffered, faithful men came from the East to seek their relics as those of their own citizens; but that when they had carried them as far as the second milestone from the city, they were stopped by a divine miracle and could carry them no further; and that then they were laid up by the Roman faithful at the catacombs. From where afterwards Pope Cornelius (as Damasus reports in the Pontifical) translated them to the places where they now lie. And so of the origin of the cult of relics the Magdeburgers have put forth four lies fighting among themselves.
The second lie is in Century 4, chapter 8, column 602, where, after they have said that Vigilantius wrote rightly and piously against relics, and that Jerome fought for relics only with abuse and importunity, they bring in the testimony of Gregory: “Which” (they say) “Gregory too thought, who judged thus of Jerome's writing against Vigilantius: Jerome so rages with abuse against Vigilantius that I am forced to wish for a little more modesty in him.” But these words are not of any Gregory, but of Erasmus, in the argument to the book of blessed Jerome against Vigilantius.
The third is in Century 5, chapter 6, column [699?], where they have it thus: “Augustine writes of the relics of Stephen that a superstitious and great concourse of the multitude was made to them even into Africa, peoples being maddened by certain illusions which were taken for miracles, in book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8.” But if we read that whole chapter which they cite, we shall find nowhere the name of superstition, or any other word which blames the piety toward the sacred relics; so that that place of Augustine seems to be enough by itself to scatter all the tricks of the heretics. Among many other things he says thus of a certain miracle: “She is a Christian woman, nobly born, nobly married; she lives at Carthage, a great city, a great person, who does not let the matter be hidden from those who inquire,” and so on. And below: “There is a deed known among us, not greater than those which I have told, but so clear and famous a miracle that I think there is none of the people of Hippo who has not either seen it or learned of it, none who could forget it by any means.”
Nor is this only a shameless lie of the Magdeburgers, but also a sin against the Holy Spirit, that they call the best-attested miracles of God illusions; and besides it is a plain madness, since they make blessed Augustine, a man most wise, as it were play like a child. For since blessed Augustine in that whole chapter strives to prove that the Catholic faith does not lack true miracles, would he not be wholly mad, and fight both with himself and with the faith, if he himself called illusions the miracles by which he says the faith is proved, and called the people who believe them superstitious and maddened?
The fourth lie is altogether like the former. For in the same Century 5, chapter [13?], column 1505, they say that the relics of the martyrs were despised by the heathens, and that in this they judged better than the superstitious Christians think, on the authority of Theodoret, book 8, On the Martyrs. But Theodoret nowhere in that book has that the heathens judged better of relics than the Christians; but asserts and teaches altogether the contrary. See the place, reader, and be the judge.
The fifth is in Century 4, chapter [10?], column [1146?], where they report the history of the translation of St. Babylas from Rufinus, book 1, chapter 36. For when the oracle of Apollo had fallen dumb because of the nearness of the tomb of St. Babylas, and so Julian the apostate had ordered the coffin of the martyr to be removed from there, the Centuriators say that the devil pretended on purpose to be hindered by the martyr, so as by that means to give occasion for that most famous translation, and so to bring in the use of the translation and veneration of relics.
But this lie is most shameless. For in the first place it goes against all the authors who write of this miracle, namely Chrysostom in the book against the Gentiles; Rufinus, book 1, chapter 36; Socrates, book 3, chapter 18; Sozomen, book 5, chapter 19; and Theodoret, book 3, chapter 10. Then, the miracle that followed shows clearly that the devil was afraid in earnest; for hardly had the coffin of the martyr been carried away from there when fire came down from heaven and wholly consumed the idol from which the devil poured out his oracles.
Besides, this was not the first translation of relics; for, as we have already shown, many went before it; and the same body of St. Babylas had before been translated from Antioch to that suburb of Daphne, as Chrysostom teaches, from where afterwards Julian ordered it to be carried back to Antioch. The devil therefore could not have wished by that pretence to bring in the use of translations. Besides, if the devil so desired this idolatry toward relics, why did he always stir up Jews, heathens and heretics to destroy all relics?
The sixth lie is in the same Century 4, chapter 13, column [1467?], where they report from Gregory Nazianzen, in the first oration against Julian, that the nephews of the Emperor Constantius, Gallus and Julian, wishing to build a noble church over the tomb of Mamas the martyr, divided the work between them; but that the part which was built by Gallus, a godly and faithful man, went ahead most happily, while the part built by Julian, who, being about to become an apostate, was already corrupted in mind, could never hold together, because the earth, shaking in an unwonted way, kept as it were vomiting out whatever was laid in the foundations at Julian's cost. Nazianzen says that the cause of this miracle was that the holy martyrs love one another wonderfully. For that the martyr for whom the church was being built refused that honour, because he would not be honoured by one whom he foresaw would treat his colleagues with contempt; and that God himself too, who searches hearts, accepted the work of Gallus like the sacrifice of Abel, and cast off the work of Julian like the sacrifice of Cain. So says Gregory.
But our Centuriators put forth a double opinion about this miracle. They say first that it is rashness to believe that portent happened by the work of the martyr, because the martyrs are not kardiognōstai, and are said to sleep: so in the place cited, column 1467. But although the martyrs are not by their own nature kardiognōstai, that is, searchers of hearts, who yet hinders the thoughts of hearts from being revealed to them by God? And although they are said to sleep because they rest from their labours, yet they do not so sleep as not to see or understand; for if it were so, then they would not even live.
They add, second, in column 1467, that God hindered the building of Julian to show that that superstitious cult of the martyrs displeased him. But if it is so, why did he not hinder the building of Gallus, who was working for the same martyr? Or will they say that God too slept, and perhaps did not see Gallus's building?
The seventh lie is in the preface to the sixth Century, where they say that relics are worshipped by us with divine honours, and also are invoked in supplication as though they were alive and felt: “Dry and half-eaten bones began” (they say) “to be worshipped, invoked, and given divine honour.” Calvin has almost the same in the book On the Necessity of Reforming the Church: “Not only,” he says, “do they adore the saints in place of Christ, but also their bones, clothes, shoes and images.”
But who of the Catholics ever invoked relics? Who was ever heard to say in prayers or litanies, “Holy relics, pray for me”? And who ever gave them divine honour, or adored them in place of Christ? For we honour relics indeed, and kiss them as the sacred pledges of our patrons; but we neither adore them as God, nor invoke them as saints, but venerate them with a lesser cult than the spirits of the saints, still less than God himself. So Jerome too answered long ago to Vigilantius when he objected the same; and much earlier still the disciples of St. Polycarp had answered the same, in Eusebius, in the place cited before, book 4 of the History, chapter 15.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
l.lliKlt SKCIMllS
iii: iiEiJiiiiis 1:1 niiiiiMiiis swirniiiiii
CArUT PlUMr.M cruce, rcliijiiias ul fuieliiiin sfiducliones allissirue
sublerr.uiiahscoiulciulasjuilicil.Kum sc(iuuli Ma'„'-
Propimunlur arnumcnla conlra cuUuni dol)urK<"ses iiassim rcprelioiuluiil cullum n:li(|uia-
reliquiaruni. rum, sed praecipue Cenl. 4. cap. 0. col. t.^iG.ldom
facil (]alviuus lib. do formandao, Ecclcsiae neces-
Dissoruimus libro suporioro dc gloria el cullu silali^ ol iu adinouilioiic do ndiquiis.
sanolorum; nunc do vouoralionc oarum rcrum . Ariiiimonla Wiclolislarum duo erant. Primum ,
quucad illos porlinonl, idesl, roli^iuiarum sancla- quia .llaUli. 2'.). ar^uunlur a Domino Judaei, quod
ruui el imap,inuin dispulandum oril. Ao. ut a roli- ornaronl sopulclira propholarum. Sccundum, quia
quiis ordiainur, roliquiaruin sanctarum cullum pri- in tumulis, quao dicuutur sanclorum noc anunac ,
nnis roprcliendcre coepil Eunomius, el posl eum ncc corpora sanclorum sinl, scd soli cinercs.
Vii,nlanlins. si b. Hioronymo lib. conlra Viiiilan- His addit Calvinus iu adinoniliouo dc reliquiis
lium orcdmuis. iNoque his ropugnal quod ibidem alia quinquo. Primum, quia Dous abscondil Moysi
paulo infra idem Uioronymus dicil. banc liaeresini corpus, nt babelur Deuloron. ult. Caussa aulem
oliin erupisso conlra Ecclosiam , ct advcrsus eam redditur ab omnibus . ne Judaci illud adoraroul.
s.riptum csso librum Torlulliani. qui dicilur Scor- Unile oliam in epislola Judae logimus : Diabolum
piacus: ncc etiam quod in opislola ad Uiparium 0- coutondisse cum Michaole archangolo de Moysi
riginem hujus haeresis revocel ad Judacos cl Sa- corpore: quia vidclicel diabolus illud raanifeslare
iuarilanos: nam vere primus aucior , qui cxprcsse volcbat, ut occasionem praeberet Judaeis illud a-
hoc asseruit. Eunoniius iuil. Guostici cnim, conlra dorandi.
quosscribit Torlullianus suum Scorpiacum.solum Socundum, quia Paulus 2. Corinth. 5. dicit,pnst
noiiabanl, marlyria porpelionda. Ex quo tamen de- resurreclioncm Christi se non nosse Chrislum se-
duci potcrat,martyrum corpora non coienda.quam- cundum carnem; quibus vcrbis monct.quidquid in
vis ipsi boo cxprcssc non dicerenl. Porro Judaoi et Chrislo carnale fuit, oblivioni Iradendum , et mis-
Samaritae omnia corpora immunda csse credunt : sum faciendum:ut in eo secundum spiritum quae-
nihil tainen in parliculari de sanclorum corporibus rendo. cl possidendo omne studium ponamus.
disputant. Tcrtium, quia idein Paulus ad Colossens.2.dara-
Posl Vigilanlium Constantinus Copronymus im- nal omncm cultum arbitrarinm. idest, a Doo non
perator. ut Suidas in ojus vita soribit , omnos reli- instilulum. quom ipse graece vocnt iH-Xoh^jY^i-Aii^x^t,
quias ubique doicri jussil. Eadem hacresi laboras- lamquam slultitiam,etiamsi speciom sapienliae ha-
se Claudiura laurinousom . scribit Jonas lib. 1. bere vidoalur. At certe cultus reliquiarum non ha-
dc cullu imaginum, Eandem eliain Wiclefistis bciur a Domino institulus. sed osl volunlarius, et
placuisse, auclor est Thomas Waldensis tom. 3. ab bominibus excogitatus.
lil. 14. Quartum.quia desiderium reliquiarumnumquam
Deniqne eandein hoc lempore Luthcrani et Cal- superstitione carcl , immo mater est idololatriae.
vinistae cxcitarunt. ^m\ Lutherus in sermone de iVam non possunl habcri vcl attrectari,quin slalim
46i
Dli RI' LlQrilS SANCTOIUIM
seqiiatur vcneralio; vcneralioni aulcni nullus adhi-
bctur inodus. fiuin stalim honor Chrlslo dcbilus i-
psis Iribualur. Id quod cxpcricnlio teslalur ; nam
in siguum solcmnis adoralionis. ccrci nunc passim
accendunlur corara martyrum scpulchris.El conlir-
raatur; nam Hicronymus objicienti Vigilanlio csse
idololatriam accendcrc ccrcos coram rcliquiis. ni-
hil aliud respondcre potuil, (luam id facere solum
mulierculas,quae zclum habenl.scd nonsecundum
scienliam. Addere possumus concilium cliberli-
num, can. 34. ubi dicitur, ejusmodi ccrcis sanclo-
rum spirilus inquictari; et Augustinum, qui lib.do
moribus Ecclesiac cap. 34.reprehcndit sepulchro-
rum adoratorcs.
Quintum, quia maxima pars rcliquiarura suppo-
sititia est, et saepe accidit.ut pro reliquiis sanclo-
rura ossa latronum. vel eliam canum , aul asiiio-
rum veneremur. Id quod probalPrimum, quia Au-
gustinus in libro de opcrc monachorum cap. 28.
cum dixissct quosdam monachos circumlerre , el
venditare raembra martyrum.addil:Si tamm mar-
lyrum. Si enira jam tunc coepcrunt iniposlurae ,
quid modo fieri credendum csl? Dcindc, quia tam
raullae reliquiac cjusdcm generis inveniuntur , ut
oporleal vel cundcm sanclum mulla corpora ha-
buisse. vcl multas esse falsas rcliquias. Haec ille;
quae omnia argumenla cap, 4. rcfcllcnlur.
Porro Calvinistae ubicumque possunt reliquias
sanclorum exurunt.et cincrcs in flumen abjiciunl:
et notandum sane anno loG2.a Calvinistis corpora
sanctorum Irenaei. Ililarii ct Martini efiossa, et
cremnta, et in profluentcm projecta fuisse. ut re-
fert Surius, quod idem eodem in loeo corporibus
aliorum sanctorum feceranl cllinici ante anrms
4400. nam ul scribit Eusebius lib. li. histor. cap.
3. Elhnici martyrura reliquias igni absumptas. in
Rhodanum abjeccrant. Ut hinc nimiruui inlclliga-
mus,quanta sit Calvinistarum cum Elhnicis cogna-
lio sacrilcgiorum atquc perfidiae. Quod autem Cal-
vinistae fciro etflammis agunt, id agunt imposlu-
ris, raendaciis et fraudibus Magdeburgenscs, quo.-
rum aliquas hic breviler duximus adnolandas.
CAPUT II.
Deteguniur mendacia Centurialorum.
Inilio igilur de origine vcncralionis et cullus
rehquiarum mirabiliter disputanl Magdeburgen-
ses; nam Centur. 0. in ipsa praefatione dicunt, eo
saeculo, nimirum post annum Domini ,>00.coepis-
sc cultum rcliquiurum occasionc tcmplorum, quae
tunc ingcntibus suniplibus cxslruebantur. lidcm
lamen Ccnlur. 3. cap. 7. col. 744. dicunt, cullum
reliquiarum ipso quinto saeculo, idcsl, antean-
num 500. cocpisse. Non ergo verum est, quod di-
cunl in praefatione Cenlur. 0. Porro iidcra aucto-
rcs Cenlur. 4. cap. 0. col.iriO.ct cap.13.col.1446.
dicunt. superioribus sacculis, idesl. usque ad an-
nura 300. nihil haberi in probatis auctoribus dc
veneratione et translalione rcbquiarura , scd coc-
pisse islam superstilioncm saeculo quarlo, quando
jussu Juliani apostatae reiiquiae sancti Uabylac
translatac fucrunt. quae Iranslatio cum summa ce-
lcbrilatc facta csl circa annum Domini 30,'). Eo e-
nim tcmporc .Iidianus mipcravit, utsanclus Ilicro-
nymus testalur in Chronico: non ergo verum est,
quod scripscrunt Magdeburgenscs Centur..'). et 0.
Scd ncquc csl vcrum, quod in isla Centuria 4.
dicunt; nam in addilione ad priraam Cenluriam ,
in vita sancti Lucac. fatentur iidcm Ccnlurialores ,
anlc tcmpora .luliani fuisse translatas summo cum
honore reliquias sancti Andreae et s. Lucae Con-
stanlinopolim a Constantino i.mperatore, utb.tlie-
ronymus testalur libro conlra Vigilanlium.
Praetcrca CeiUur. 2. cap. 3, col. 31. et sequen-
tibus refcrunt ad verbutn cx historiaEusebii lib.4.
cap. 1."). cpislolam ccclesiae smyrncnsis dc mar-
lyrio Polycarpi; iu qua epistola narratur, Christia-
nis cupienlibus rcliquias martyris. et Judaeis per-
linacissimc resislcntibus.judicem elhnicum voluis-
se corpus inmedio positum cremari usque ad ci-
neres:et huncnChristianos collcgisse incrcdibili a-
vidilale reliquias illas:ylc si esse?ii(inquit epistola)
lapidibus pretiosissimispreliosiores.et auro pro-
batlssimo probaliores.Eas aulcm reliquias a Chri- .
slianis collcclas ad eullum. patet tum ex verbis ci-
talis, tum ex contcntione adversariorum. Judaci e-
iiim alque elhnici resistebant, ne rcliquiae rapc-
rcnlur praetextu pietatis. Existimabant enim cor-
pora a Christianis adorari, ut in eodcm loco Eusc-
bius teslalur: non crgo verum est, quod dixcrunt
Ccntur. 4.
Sed neque tunc coepit honor reliquiarum ; nara
b. Gn^gorius iib, 3. cpislol. 30. scribit, ipso lem-
pore, quo Pelrus ct Paulus passi suiif, venisse fi-
dclcs ab oriente. qui eorum reliquias tamquam
suorum civium pctercnl; sed cum cas dclulissent
usque ad secundum lapidem ab urbe. divino mira-
culo impcditos, non potuisse ulterius eas deferre;
lum vero a romanis fidelibus apud catacumbas re-
condilas fuisse. Unde postea Cornelius papa (ul in
pontificali Damasus refcrl) transtulit ad ea loca ,
ubi nunc jacenl. Itaque de origine cultus rcliquia-
rura quatnor mcndacia inler se pugnantia Magdc-
burgcnses protulerunt.
Secundum mendacium 2st, Centur, 4. cap. 8.
coUnn. 602. ubi posiquam dixerunt. rccle et pic
Vigilaiitiuin contia rcliquias scripsisse , Ilierony-
mum autcm solis couviciisel imporluuitate pro re-
liquiis puguasse, adduiil Grcgorii lcstimonium: Id
quod (inquiunt) cliam. Gregorio visum est, qui de
scripto Ilicronymi contra \igilantiumita censuit
in Vigiantiumita conviciis debaccliatur Iliero-
mimus, ut plusculum in eo modesliae cogar de-
siderare. Al isla vcrba nullius Gregorii suiil, sed
Erasmi in argumenlo ad librum b. Ilieronymi con-
Ira Vigilantium.
Tcrtium cst. Ccntur. 5. cap. 6. colum. G!)!). ubi
sic \\i\bm\:Augustinus (inquiunt) de reliquiis Stc-
plianiscribit. superstitiosum , et viagnum con-
cnrsum multiludinis adeas inAfricam usque fa-
c.tiun, demo.ntalis populis quibusdam illusioni-
bus, quac pro miraculis habilae sunt , litjro de
Civitate Dei2i. eapite H. At si legamus totum i-
stud capul, quod ipsi cilant, non inveniemus us-
I iiii II ' I «;i .\ui s
in:
(|ii!iii) noini'11 siinorsllllnnis. m-I iIIu .iiiin^.snl i.iM'
liiiii |)ii'l;ilt'in fini s;m r;is {•(•li(|iii,i.s,iil liic. lociis Aii-
^iisiiiii siiils i>ssi> vidciiliir ml iniincs liaiMcliciiriiiii
iH'linl;is (Iissi|)anil<is.lnli'r nlui iiiiill.i sic iiit ilc i|iio>
il.iiii iiiir;icnlt): ('.liivisniimi lofinina csl . iiithililrr
llilltl, nnhilih'!' intiilii.C.tiilliiiiiinr linhiliil, (t;/i/»/(t
vinliiK, iiiin>ht. jivrsnna, ri'ni iiuiti-rfnlfs titlrn^
tKW/ siiiniit i'lr. I'".l iiilr;!'. Hnttm rsl ii\tiiil nns /W-
cluin, nnik iiiitjiis ijiiiini illii. iiittir ili.ri, sril Itiin
vlaruin aliiur iUiisirr niirumlnin.. itl nulliiin ur-
hitrrr rssr llipiioiirnsiuin, nni linr nini vrt vitlr-
ril, vrlttrilirrnl, nuUuiii iiui nhlivi.sri uUii ra-
linnr luilurril.
[S(U]U(^ itsl lioc. .M;i^Mlc|)iir;;('iisinni solnin incml.i-
riiiin iinpiiilcns , sc.l cliiiin pccciilnin in S|)inliiin
s;nuiniii, i|ni)il Dci iniracnlii lcsliili>Mniii , illiisio-
nos vocont: ul praotiM^ca ost insaniii iniinilosla,(uini
I). .\nu'iislinnin. viriiin sii|)icn!issiiniiiii. (|ii:isi pnc-
rililcr liulcnlcni liiciaiit. iViin cnni liciiliiN Aii^Misti-
nns lolo illo capllo probiiro coiili^iuliil liilcin catlin-
liciiin, nun carcru vcris niir;icnli>: niintic prorsns
insiinircl, scvnnninc ipsc. cl cnin liilc pii^,'ii;ircl, si
iniriiciila, (inihns rulcin prol);iri dicit, illiisioncs i-
pseinol appcllarct, cl popnlnin,(pii illis crcdil.su-
pcrslitiosnin. cl (lcnicnl.iliiin diccrcl?
Qinninin niciui;u'i;iincsl oniiiiiio similci snpcrio-
ri; nain eadcin Ocnlnria ."». ciip. \'i. colninna l.">or».
(Iicnnl rcliijnias inarlyrniu iih cllinicis conlcmpliis
fnissc, ct in co mclins scnsissii . (inain supcrsli-
tiosi Ohrisliani soiUianl. 'liicodorclo ancloro, li!).S.
deniartyrihus. Altini Thooilorclns co lihro nus-
(luam hahcl. mclius scnsissc pcntilcs do roliquiis.
(luain Ohrislianos . scd oninino conlriirium as-
seril clderondil. Vidc (lcclor) locum. cl judcx
cslo.
Quintum cst Oenluria i. cap. 111. coluin. 1li(».
nbi rcfcrunl historiam de Irauslalionc sancliBaby-
lac, cx ruinino lih. 1. cap. I)G. (piiii cnim oracu-
lum Apoliinis ohmulucrat ob viciniiun scpulchri
saneli Bahylac. cl idoo Juliiuuis aposlata jnssoral
iudc amoveri arcam martyris.-dicunt Centuriatores
diabolumdc induslriasimulassc sc imncdiri a mar-
tyrc, ul ea ralione occasionem d;ircl celebcrrimae
jili Iranslationi, cl sic inlroduccrct usiim Iransla-
lionis ot vcncrationis reliquiarum.
Al islud mcndacium esl impudcnlissimum; nam
in primis repugnal omnibus aucloribus . c]ui de
lioc miraculo scribunt. niniirnm Clirysoslomo li-
bro contra (lontilcs. Rufluio lib. I. cap. 3(j. Socra-
li !ib. 3. cap. IS.Sozome.io !ib.o.cap.ll>. el Theo-
dorclo lib. 3. cap. 10. Deinde niiraculum sequens
clare oslendit di;\l)olnm serio liinuisse:nani vix ar-
ca marlyris inde ahducla fuoral. cum descendil i-
gnis de coelo. et idoluni. unde diabolus fundebat
oriicula, tolum consumpsil.
Praetorca non fuil isla prinia Iranslalio reliquia-
rnm; nani. ut jam oslendiinus, mull.ie anlea prae-
cesserunt, et idem corpus sancli Babylac anlea
1'ueral translalum ex Anlioc!n"a ad suburbium islud
Daphnes, nt Clirysostomus docel: unde poslea Ju-
lianus iterum Antiochiam Iransferri iussit:non eri,'o
potuil diabolus iUa simulalione velle inlroducerc
usum Iranslrtionuin. Praelerea si diabolus ila cn-
pil islam idololatriam erga rcliquias, cur semper
iiisli-.M\it Jiul.ico^. Mhnicos cl lldcrclicoH.ul »li'i
Iri i'i)i oiniics r>'lupiiaK.
xliini iiiciidiirimn cHt lii ciidiMii Conl. 4. cap.
I.l. col. Iii7. iilti rcfcriinic\ <: '"'no
oriitioiK; priitii iii Jiiliiiiiiiiii. diu. iie-
polcs Coti^liintii iiiipcr.iloris, i;,dliitii cl Jiili.iiiuin,
volonlcs ('\Hlriicri! iiisii^iictn ccclc-^uiiii siipr;i lii-
miihiin M.iin;inlis m.irlNrls. Inlcr sc divisi^s'! opiiH;
scd p.iiicin ill.iiti, (pi;io (txilrnch.itiir a «iilhi srrn
pio cl lldeli rcJiciHsiiMO procftssiHst*: p.irleiii Dii-
lc.ni. »pt;ic i'\Alriic|);iliir a Jitli;ilio. ipii iiposlala fii-
tiirns, j;uti titcnti! (•orruptns (•r.il.nou poUits^c iiii-
(piiiiti coiil(^sn«r('.»'(> qiiod lerrn iiisolilo moro coii-
Ircitiisccns, roiilinno ipiasi (•voincrcUfpitdiptid Jii-
liiini suinptihiis in rnnd.iincntis propc.iircliir. Ciiiis-
s;iitt liojiis tiiir.iciili .\;i/.iaii/.('.itits dicit fiiissi!. (piod
sancti inarlyres iulcr so inirillci! dili'/;iiil. Idco
ciiitn iii;iityroin. 0111 tcinplitm c\Ntriioh;iliir, liono-
rcm illuin recus;issc. iptod tiolh-t .ih co lioiior;iri,
]i (pio collefjiis siios coitliimclia alllcicnilos prncvi-
dchii: (>i ip>nin cii.ini Iicitiu, (pii corda iittmiii;-,
opusllalli. tamquam Ahclis sacnlicium adm;M^se,
opus Jnli;iiii. I;iinqii.int s^icriliciuni Caiii abjccissc.
Sic- i^jitiir (lrop:orins.
At noslri Contiiriiilorcs do hoc niir;iculo dupli-
ccm sonlonti;iiu proh-riMil. Apinl 1'riitio, lemcrila-
tom csso crcdorc, illiid porleiitu.n opera m:irtyris
iiccidisse. propleroii (piod m;uiyres noii suiil
xac.oioya.jca'. ot dormire dicunlur: il;i iili loco ci-
latl). cohiiu. I5i:>. Al liccl non sint inartyros cx
natura su;i xaoo-.^YVwca'., idest, curdinni scrutalo-
ros. (piis tanKui impodil. (pio miitns cordium co^i-
hilioncs illis revolentnr a Dco? ct licol dormiredi-
cantur, quia requicscunt a laboribus suis, lamou
noii sic dorminnt , (piasi non vidoanl , ncc in-
lc||in;iut ; nam si ila es^cl, luiu cli;im nec vivc-
renl.
Ad''unt Secundo coluin. Itt7. Dcum impedivis-
sc fahric;im Juliani. nl iiidicaret, sibi displicer(;
cullum illum suporstiliosum niartyrnin. At si ii.i
cst. cur non impedivit fabricani (jalli, qui eideni
inarlyri opcram dabal? An etiam Deiim dormivisso
dicoiit, ac forlasse (j;illi labricain non vidisse?
3Iendacium Septimum est in praclalione scxlan
Cenluriai!. uhi dicuiil, a nobis divinis honoribus
coli reliquias. alquc casdem eliam. ac si vivercnl
el sentirent. suppliciler invocari; CeperunlAnqui-
nnt. e.vanfiuia. el semicorrosa ossa coli, invoca-
ri. divino lionore afjici. Eadem fcre babct Calvi-
nus in libio de n(!cessil:ilc rcformandae Ecclosiae:
iTec solam. inquit, sanctos Chrisli loco adorant,
scd eliain eorum ossa, vesles, calceos el simn-
lacra.
At quis unquam catholicorum reliquias invoca-
vit? Ouis unqnam audilus est in precibus. aut lita-
niis dixissc: Sauc/e reliquiae, oratepro ?ne.^ Et
quis easdeni unquam divino bonore affecit, vcl
Chrisli loco adoravil? Nos enim reliquias qaideni
honoramus, et osculamur ut sacra pignora palro-
norum nostrorura: sed nec adoramus utDeum.nec
invocamus ut sanclos, sed minore cullu venera-
mur.quam sanctorum spirilus.nedum quam Deum
ipsiim. lla respondit etiam oliin Hieronymus Vigi-
lanlio ideiu objicieuti: al multo etiani anle idem
4(iG
Dt: RELIQUIIS SAACTOHUM
rosponderiiiil discipuli s. Polycarpi apiid Eusc-
biuin, loco iuilea cilalo lib. i. hisl. cap. lo.